Thesis Maher e 2

Overcoming Controllable and Uncontrollable Work
Difficulties: Change Environment or Self?

Elise Maher, B.Sc. (Hons)
Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosoph
Dea!in "ni#ersit, December $%%$
DEAKIN UNIVERSITY
CANDIDATE DECLARATION
& certif that the thesis entitled '(#ercoming )ontrollable and
"ncontrollable *or! Difficulties+ )hange En#ironment or Self,-
submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosoph is the result of m o.n
.or! and that .here reference is made to the .or! of others, due
ac!no.ledgment is gi#en.
& also certif that an material in the thesis .hich has been accepted for a degree or
diploma b an other uni#ersit or institution is identified in the te/t.
0ull 1ame Elise )atherine Maher
Signed ..................................................................................222222.
Date......................................................................................222222.
ii
Acknowledgements
0irst and foremost, & .ould li!e to ac!no.ledge m super#isor, Professor
3obert )ummins. Bob offered endless support, guidance, and encouragement
throughout m studies. His dedication to research and his tremendous .or! ethic
moti#ated and inspired me. & am most grateful that he challenged me and allo.ed
me the freedom and respect to de#elop m o.n ideas and theories.
Second, & must than! all the organisations that allo.ed me to enter their
.or!places, and all the participants in#ol#ed in the studies. & especiall .ant to
than! staff at 4ustralian "nit, members of the 4ustralian )entre of 5ualit of 6ife,
and the hundreds of supermar!et .or!ers, teachers and academics that assisted me.
7hese people in#ested time and energ into completing m sur#e purel for the
benefit of helping others. & am so appreciati#e of their efforts and & am determined to
share the !no.ledge that & ha#e gained from them.
7hird, & .ould li!e to ac!no.ledge the academic and administrati#e staff, and
fello. students at Dea!in "ni#ersit. & especiall .ant to ac!no.ledge 3ose84nne
and Helen (m surrogate parents) for ta!ing me under their .ings. 7heir delightful,
#ibrant personalities made .or! times pleasurable. 4lso, & .ould li!e to
ac!no.ledge )aroln and )atherine for al.as being there to listen and share.
0inall, & .ould li!e to ac!no.ledge m famil and friends. M parents,
9ohn and 0rances, and m brothers ha#e pro#ided endless support throughout the last
se#en ears. & also .ant to ac!no.ledge 6auren, 7alah, 7son and Buff for
al.as lighting up m life. M partner, 7im Da#is, has been m to.er of strength,
and & am fore#er grateful for his lo#e and support.
iii
Elise
i#
able of Contents
4):1(*6ED;EME17S.......................................................................................................................&&&
6&S7 (0 74B6ES...............................................................................................................................<&&&
6&S7 (0 0&;"3ES............................................................................................................................<=&&
6&S7 (0 4PPE1D&)ES.......................................................................................................................<&<
4BS734)7.......................................................................................................................................<<&
C!A"E# $ % &'E#AU#E #E('EW)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))$
%.> 4BS734)7......................................................................................................................................$
%.$ 9(B S47&S04)7&(1.........................................................................................................................?
0.2.1 Theories of Job Satisfaction: Environmental and Dispositional Predictors.........................3
%.? M4S6(*@S (>ABC, >AD%) H&E343)HE (0 1EEDS..........................................................................B
0.3.1 Need ierarch! Theor!........................................................................................................."
0.3.2 #ppl!in$ %aslo&'s (1)"*+ 1),0- Theor! to .r$anisations................................................../
0.3.3 0riticisms of %aslo&'s (1)"*+ 1),0- Need ierarch! Theor!.............................................,
0.3.* 0oncl1sion...........................................................................................................................20
%.C HE3FBE3;, M4"S1E3 41D S1EDE3M41@S (>ABA, >AA?) 7*(804)7(3 7HE(3E (0 9(B
S47&S04)7&(1....................................................................................................................................$>
0.*.1 o& the T&o23actor Theor! has 0ontrib1ted to o1r 4nderstandin$ of Job Satisfaction..21
0.*.2 Development of the T&o23actor Theor!.............................................................................21
0.*.3 0riticisms of er5ber$ et al's.+ (1)")- Theor! ..................................................................23
0.*.* 0oncl1sion...........................................................................................................................32
%.B =3((M@S (>AGC) E<PE)741)E 7HE(3E (0 9(B S47&S04)7&(1................................................??
0.".1 o& E6pectanc! Theor! has 0ontrib1ted to o1r 7no&led$e of Job Satisfaction..............33
0.".2 Description of E6pectanc! Theor!......................................................................................33
0.".3 #pplications of the 8alence %odel......................................................................................3"
0.".* St1dies of the 8alence %odel..............................................................................................3"
#
0."." %ethodolo$ical 9imitations................................................................................................3/
0."./ 0oncl1sion...........................................................................................................................*2
%.G D&S)3EP41)E 7HE(3&ES.............................................................................................................C?
0./.1 o& Discrepanc! Theories have 0ontrib1ted to o1r 7no&led$e of Job Satisfaction........*3
0./.2 Description of Discrepanc! Theories..................................................................................*3
0./.3 Empirical St1dies :nvesti$atin$ Discrepanc! Theories......................................................*3
0./.* Theoretical Problems &ith Discrepanc! Theories..............................................................**
0./." 0oncl1sion...........................................................................................................................*"
%.D 9(B )H434)7E3&S7&)S M(DE6 (9)MH H4):M41 I (6DH4M, >ADG).......................................CG
0.,.1 o& the Job 0haracteristics %odel has 0ontrib1ted to o1r 7no&led$e of Job Satisfaction
......................................................................................................................................................*/
0.,.2 Description of the Job 0haracteristics %odel ...................................................................*/
0.,.3 Empirical St1dies of the %odel...........................................................................................*)
0.,.* 0oncl1sion...........................................................................................................................""
%.J 9(B DEM41D8)(173(6 M(DE6 (:434SE:, >ADAH :434SE: I 7HE(3E66, >AA%)..................BG
0.;.1 o& the Job Demand20ontrol %odel 0ontrib1tes to o1r 4nderstandin$ of Job
Satisfaction..................................................................................................................................."/
0.;.2 Description of the Job Demand20ontrol %odel.................................................................."/
0.;.3 Empirical St1dies of the Job Demand20ontrol %odel........................................................";
0.;.* 0oncl1sion.........................................................................................................................../1
0.;." E6tensions on the Job Demand20ontrol %odel................................................................../1
0.;./ #ddressin$ the <=aps> in the Job Demand20ontrol %odel............................................../2
%.A DE=E6(PME17 (0 4 1E* E<P64147&(1 0(3 7HE 3E647&(1SH&P BE7*EE1 9(B 4"7(1(ME
41D 9(B S47&S04)7&(1+ &106"E1)&1; EMP6(EEES@ 3ESP(1SES 7( *(3: D&00&)"67&ES.............G?
0.).1 a- Primar! 0ontrol Strate$ies and Secondar! 0ontrol Strate$ies..................................../*
0.).2 b- #mo1nts of Primar! 0ontrol and Secondar! 0ontrol .................................................../,
0.).3 c- ?hich 0ontrol Strate$ies are more #daptive for Emplo!ees@......................................./,
0.).* S1mmar!..............................................................................................................................,*
#i
%.>% E<P64&1&1; 7HE 3E647&(1SH&P BE7*EE1 9(B 4"7(1(ME 41D 9(B S47&S04)7&(1+ H(*
9(B 4"7(1(ME &106"E1)ES P3&M43E 41D SE)(1D43E )(173(6..............................................DC
0.10.1 1- 4se of Primar! and Secondar! 0ontrol........................................................................,"
0.10.2 2- #daptiveness of Primar! and Secondar! 0ontrol........................................................,/
0.10.3 S1mmar!............................................................................................................................;*
%.>> (7HE3 M49(3 P3ED&)7(3S (0 9(B S47&S04)7&(1..................................................................JG
0.11.1 Personalit!........................................................................................................................;/
0.11.2 9ife Satisfaction.................................................................................................................;)
%.>$ M(DE6 (0 9(B S47&S04)7&(1...................................................................................................AB
$ C!A"E# * % SUD+ O,E))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-.
>.> 4BS734)7....................................................................................................................................AA
>.$ P3(P(S46 0(3 S7"DE (1E.......................................................................................................>%%
1.2.1 :dentif!in$ Emplo!ees &ith 9o&Ai$h Job #1tonom!......................................................100
>.? 4&MS 41D HEP(7HESES.............................................................................................................>%$
>.C ME7H(D.....................................................................................................................................>%B
1.*.1 Participants.......................................................................................................................10"
1.*.2 %aterials...........................................................................................................................10"
1.*.3 Proced1re..........................................................................................................................111
>.B 3ES"67S.....................................................................................................................................>>?
1.".1 Data Screenin$ and 0hecBin$ of #ss1mptions.................................................................113
1.".2 Descriptive Statistics and :nter20orrelations ..................................................................11"
1.".3 3actor #nal!ses.................................................................................................................11,
1.".* 3actor #nal!sis of the Job Descriptive :nde6...................................................................11,
1."." 3actor #nal!sis of the Primar! and Secondar! 0ontrol Scale.........................................11;
1."./ 3actor #nal!sis of the Job #1tonom! Scale......................................................................122
>.G HEP(7HES&S 7ES7&1;................................................................................................................>$C
1./.1 !pothesis .ne2 #ss1mption Testin$................................................................................12*
#ii
1./.2 !pothesis T&o2 .cc1pational Differences in the 4se of the 0ontrol Strate$ies...........12"
1./.3 !pothesis Three2 E6aminin$ ho& Job #1tonom! Celates to the 0ontrol Strate$ies......12,
1./.* !pothesis 3o1r2 E6aminin$ ho& Job #1tonom! :nfl1ences the #daptiveness of the
0ontrol Strate$ies......................................................................................................................12;
1./." !pothesis 3ive2 Does Job #1tonom! %oderate the Celationship Det&een the 0ontrol
Strate$ies and Job Satisfaction@................................................................................................12)
1././ !pothesis Si62 Do the 0ontrol Strate$ies %ediate the Celationship Det&een Job
#1tonom! and Job Satisfaction@................................................................................................13*
1./., !pothesis Seven2 .cc1pational Differences in Job and 9ife Satisfaction......................13)
1./.; !pothesis Ei$ht2 Predictors of Job Satisfaction.............................................................1*3
1./.) 0oncl1sion.........................................................................................................................1*"
>.D D&S)"SS&(1................................................................................................................................>CD
1.,.1 #ss1mption Testin$...........................................................................................................1*,
1.,.2 Does Job #1tonom! :nfl1ence the 4se of the 0ontrol Strate$ies@...................................1*;
1.,.3 Does Job #1tonom! :nfl1ence the Celationship Det&een the 0ontrol Strate$ies and Job
Satisfaction@...............................................................................................................................1"1
1.,.* Do the 0ontrol Strate$ies %ediate the Celationship Det&een Job #1tonom! and Job
Satisfaction@...............................................................................................................................1"3
1.,." E6aminin$ .cc1pational Differences in Job Satisfaction.................................................1"*
1.,./ E6aminin$ .cc1pational Differences in 9ife Satisfaction................................................1/0
1.,., Predictin$ Job Satisfaction from Job #1tonom!+ 0ontrol Strate$ies+ Personalit!+ and 9ife
Satisfaction.................................................................................................................................1/1
1.,.; 0oncl1sion.........................................................................................................................1/3
* C!A"E# / % SUD+ WO)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))$01
$.> 4BS734)7..................................................................................................................................>GB
$.$ P3(P(S46 0(3 S7"DE 7*(......................................................................................................>GG
2.2.1 a- The Primar! and Secondar! 0ontrol Scale..................................................................1//
#iii
2.2.2 b- Job #1tonom! Scale......................................................................................................1,;
2.2.3 c- .cc1pational =ro1ps....................................................................................................1,)
2.2.* d- Need for Job #1tonom!.................................................................................................1;1
2.2." e- #ddition of Social S1pport............................................................................................1;3
$.? M(DE6 (0 9(B S47&S04)7&(1...................................................................................................>JG
$.C 4&MS 41D HEP(7HESES.............................................................................................................>JJ
$.B ME7H(D.....................................................................................................................................>A$
2.".1 Participants.......................................................................................................................1)2
2.".2 %aterials ..........................................................................................................................1)3
2.".3 Proced1re..........................................................................................................................200
$.G 3ES"67S.....................................................................................................................................$%>
2./.1 Data Screenin$ and 0hecBin$ of #ss1mptions.................................................................201
2./.2 Descriptive Statistics and :nter20orrelations ..................................................................202
2./.3 Preliminar! E6amination of the Primar! 0ontrol and Secondar! 0ontrol Scale............203
$.D HEP(7HES&S 7ES7&1;................................................................................................................$%J
2.,.1 !pothesis .ne: 9evels of Job #1tonom! and Job Satisfaction.......................................20;
2.,.2 !potheses T&o and Three: E6aminin$ ho& Job #1tonom! :nfl1ences the #mo1nt of
Primar! and Secondar! 0ontrol Strate$ies...............................................................................20)
2.,.3 !potheses 3o1r and 3ive: E6aminin$ ho& Job #1tonom! :nfl1ences the Celationship
Det&een the 0ontrol Strate$ies and Job Satisfaction................................................................210
2.,.* !pothesis Si6: E6aminin$ the Proposed E6planation for the Celationship Det&een Job
#1tonom! and Job Satisfaction..................................................................................................21*
2.,." !pothesis Seven: .cc1pational Differences in Job Satisfaction and 9ife Satisfaction. .21"
2.,./ !pothesis Ei$ht: E6aminin$ ho& Social S1pport at ?orB %oderates the Celationship
bet&een Diffic1lties at ?orB and Job Satisfaction.....................................................................21)
2.,., !pothesis Nine: The %oderatin$ Cole of Need for #1tonom! on the Celationship
Det&een Job #1tonom! and Job Satisfaction ............................................................................22*
2.,.; !pothesis Ten: %aEor Predictors of Job Satisfaction.....................................................22"
i/
2.,.) 0oncl1sion.........................................................................................................................22;
$.J D&S)"SS&(1................................................................................................................................$$A
2.;.1 #ss1mption2 The #cademics Cepresent a i$h Job #1tonom! =ro1p and the Teachers
Cepresent a 9o& Job #1tonom! =ro1p......................................................................................22)
2.;.2 !pothesis Testin$............................................................................................................232
2.;.3 Job #1tonom! :nfl1ences the #mo1nt of the 0ontrol Strate$ies.......................................232
2.;.* Job #1tonom! :nfl1ences the Celationship Det&een the 0ontrol Strate$ies and Job
Satisfaction.................................................................................................................................23"
2.;." 9imitations in the !potheses E6aminin$ Job #1tonom! and 0ontrol Strate$ies ..........23/
2.;./ .ther Predictors of Job Satisfaction.................................................................................23;
2.;., .cc1pational Differences in Job Satisfaction and 9ife Satisfaction.................................23;
2.;.; The :nfl1ence of Social S1pport at ?orB on the Celationship Det&een ?orB Diffic1lties
and Job Satisfaction...................................................................................................................2*2
2.;.) The :nfl1ence that Need for Job #1tonom! has on the Celationship Det&een Job #1tonom!
2.;.10 %aEor predictors of Job Satisfaction...............................................................................2**
2.;.11 0oncl1sion.......................................................................................................................2*"
/ C!A"E# 1 % SUD+ !#EE))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))*10
?.> 4BS734)7..................................................................................................................................$CD
?.$ P3(P(S46 0(3 S7"DE 7H3EE...................................................................................................$CJ
3.2.1 Specificit! of !potheses Testin$ the Proposal that Job #1tonom! :nfl1ences the 0ontrol
Strate$ies....................................................................................................................................2*;
3.2.2 E6aminin$ ho& the 0ontrollabilit! of a Diffic1lt! :nfl1ences the 4se of the 0ontrol
Strate$ies....................................................................................................................................2*)
3.2.3 Empirical St1dies E6aminin$ if the 0ontrollabilit! of a Sit1ation :nfl1ences the 4se of
0ontrol Strate$ies......................................................................................................................2"0
3.2.* E6aminin$ ho& 0ontrollabilit! :nfl1ences the #daptiveness of the 0ontrol Strate$ies. . .2"*
/
3.2." Developin$ a Sit1ation Specific Primar! and Secondar! 0ontrol Scale..........................2";
3.2./ E6aminin$ the %oderatin$ Cole of Primar! and Secondar! 0ontrol Strate$ies..............2/2
3.2., E6aminin$ the %oderatin$ Cole of Social S1pport at ?orB.............................................2/*
?.? 3E=&SED M(DE6 (0 9(B S47&S04)7&(1....................................................................................$GG
9(B S47&S04)7&(1..........................................................................................................................$GJ
?.C HEP(7HESES..............................................................................................................................$D%
?.B ME7H(D.....................................................................................................................................$D$
3.".1 Participants.......................................................................................................................2,2
3.".2 %aterials...........................................................................................................................2,3
3.".3 Proced1re..........................................................................................................................2,;
?.G 3ES"67S.....................................................................................................................................$DA
3./.1 Data Screenin$ and 0hecBin$ of #ss1mptions.................................................................2,)
3./.2 Descriptive Statistics and :nter20orrelations...................................................................2;0
3./.3 3actor #nal!ses.................................................................................................................2;2
3./.* Primar! and Secondar! 0ontrol Scale..............................................................................2;2
3./." Social S1pport at ?orB.....................................................................................................2;,
&7EMS *&7H 6(4D&1;S 6ESS 7H41 %.?% 43E 1(7 SH(*1.............................................................$JJ
?.D HEP(7HES&S 7ES7&1;................................................................................................................$JA
3.,.1 !pothesis .ne2 4se of 0ontrol Strate$ies for 0ontrollable and 4ncontrollable
Diffic1lties..................................................................................................................................2;)
3.,.2 !pothesis T&o2 #daptiveness of the 0ontrol Strate$ies for 0ontrollable and
4ncontrollable Diffic1lties.........................................................................................................2)3
3.,.3 !pothesis Three2 The %oderatin$ Cole of Primar! and Secondar! 0ontrol.................2)/
3.,.* !pothesis 3o1r 2 %oderatin$ Cole of :nstr1mental S1pport..........................................301
3.,." !pothesis 3ive2 %oderatin$ Cole of Emotional S1pport................................................30"
3.,./ !pothesis Si62 %aEor Predictors of Job Satisfaction......................................................30;
3.,., 0oncl1sion.........................................................................................................................30)
?.J D&S)"SS&(1................................................................................................................................?>>
/i
?.A HEP(7HESES 7ES7&1;...............................................................................................................?>>
3.).1 Primar! 0ontrol+ Self2Protective Secondar! 0ontrol+ and Self2#ffirmative Secondar!
0ontrol.......................................................................................................................................312
3.).2 Proposal .ne: The 0ontrollabilit! of the Diffic1lt! :nfl1ences the #mo1nt and
#daptiveness of the 0ontrol Strate$ies 4sed to %ana$e that Diffic1lt! ..................................31"
3.).3 Proposal T&o: %oderators of 0ontrollable and 4ncontrollable Diffic1lties on Job
Satisfaction.................................................................................................................................32,
3.).* Proposal Three: Predictors of Job Satisfaction................................................................332
3.)." 0oncl1sion.........................................................................................................................33*
1 C!A"E# 2 % 3',A& D'SCUSS'O,)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))//2
C.> 4BS734)7..................................................................................................................................??D
C.$ 7HE DE=E6(PME17 (0 4 1E* M(DE6 (0 9(B S47&S04)7&(1................................................??J
1- Primar! and Secondar! 0ontrol Strate$ies %ediate the Celationship Det&een Job #1tonom!
*.2.2 0oncl1sion: Do the 0ontrol Strate$ies %ediate the Celationship Det&een Job #1tonom!
and Job Satisfaction@.................................................................................................................3*;
*.2.3 2- Social S1pport at ?orB and 9ife Satisfaction Directl! Predict Job Satisfaction..........3*)
*.2.* 3- The 0ontrol Strate$ies and Social S1pport at ?orB %oderate the Celationship Det&een
?orB Diffic1lties and Job Satisfaction.......................................................................................3"1
C.? 3E=&SED M(DE6 (0 9(B S47&S04)7&(1....................................................................................?BB
9(B S47&S04)7&(1..........................................................................................................................?BD
C.C )(1)6"S&(1..............................................................................................................................?BJ
C.B 0&146 *(3D..............................................................................................................................?BA
C.G 3E0E3E1)ES..............................................................................................................................?G%
C.D 4PPE1D&)ES...............................................................................................................................?AD
/ii
&ist of ables
A4&E $% SOU#CES O3 5OOD64AD '7ES 3O# ACCOU,A,S A,D E,5',EE#S
8,9*::;))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))**
A4&E *% SECO,DA#+ CO,#O& S#AE5'ES))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))</
A4&E /% 7EA,S A,D SA,DA#D DE('A'O,S O3 7A=O# (A#'A4&ES 3O#
ACADE7'CS A,D SU"E#7A#>E WO#>E#S))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))$$2
A4&E 1% ',E#%CO##E&A'O,S 3O# !E ACADE7'CS A,D !E SU"E#7A#>E
WO#>E#S)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))$$0
A4&E 2% 3ACO# A,A&+S'S O3 =O4 SA'S3AC'O, SCA&E))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))$$.
A4&E 0% OA& (A#'A,CE E?"&A',ED 4+ A 3'(E%3ACO# SO&U'O,)))))))))))))))))$*:
A4&E <% 3ACO# A,A&+S'S O3 "#'7A#+ A,D SECO,DA#+ CO,#O& SCA&E) )$*$
A4&E .% 3ACO# A,A&+S'S O3 =O4 AUO,O7+ SCA&E))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))$*/
A4&E -% 7EA,S A,D SA,DA#D DE('A'O,S O3 CO,#O& 7EASU#ES 3O#
ACADE7'CS A,D SU"E#7A#>E WO#>E#S))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))$*<
A4&E $:% 7U&'"&E #E5#ESS'O, O3 "#'7A#+ A,D SECO,DA#+ CO,#O& O,
=O4 SA'S3AC'O, 3O# ACADE7'CS A,D SU"E#7A#>E WO#>E#S))))))))))))))))))))$*-
A4&E $$% 7ODE#A',5 #O&E O3 "#'7A#+ A,D SECO,DA#+ CO,#O& O, !E
#E&A'O,S!'" 4EWEE, =O4 AUO,O7+ A,D =O4 SA'S3AC'O,)))))))))))))))))))))))$/1
A4&E $* %!'E#A#C!'CA& 7U&'"&E #E5#ESS'O, ES',5 !E 7ED'A',5
#O&E O3 !E CO,#O& S#AE5'ES)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))$/<
/iii
A4&E $/% 7EA,S A,D SA,DA#D DE('A'O,S O3 =O4 SA'S3AC'O, SCA&E
3O# ACADE7'CS A,D SU"E#7A#>E WO#>E#S))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))$1$
A4&E $1% 7EA,S A,D SA,DA#D DE('A'O,S O3 &'3E SA'S3AC'O, 3O#
ACADE7'CS A,D SU"E#7A#>E WO#>E#S))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))$1/
A4&E $2% 7U&'"&E #E5#ESS'O, O3 =O4 AUO,O7+@ CO,#O& S#AE5'ES@
"E#SO,A&'+@ A,D &'3E SA'S3AC'O, 3O# ACADE7'CS A,D SU"E#7A#>E
WO#>E#S)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))$12
A4&E $0% 3ACO# A,A&+S'S O3 "#'7A#+ A,D SECO,DA#+ CO,#O& SCA&E $0.
A4&E $<% O#'5',A& A,D #E('SED "#'7A#+ CO,#O& 'E7S))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))$<*
A4&E $.% O#'5',A& A,D #E('SED SECO,DA#+ CO,#O& 'E7S))))))))))))))))))))))))))$<0
A4&E $-% 3U,C'O,S O3 !E SECO,DA#+ CO,#O& S#AE5'ES)))))))))))))))))))))))$<0
A4&E *:% DE7O5#A"!'CS O3 !E ACADE7'CS A,D EAC!E#S)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))$-/
A4&E *$% 3ACO# A,A&+S'S O3 !E ,EED 3O# =O4 AUO,O7+ SCA&E)))))))))))))$-0
A4&E **% 7EA,S A,D SA,DA#D DE('A'O,S O3 7A=O# (A#'A4&ES 3O#
ACADE7'CS A,D EAC!E#S)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))*:*
A4&E */% ',E#%CO##E&A'O,S 3O# !E ACADE7'CS A,D EAC!E#S)))))))))))))*:/
A4&E *1% 3#EAUE,C+ O3 "#'7A#+ A,D SECO,DA#+ CO,#O&))))))))))))))))))))))))))))*:1
A4&E *2% 3ACO# A,A&+S'S O3 !E #E('SED "#'7A#+ A,D SECO,DA#+
CO,#O& SCA&E)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))*:0
A4&E *0% 7U&'"&E #E5#ESS'O, O3 "#'7A#+ A,D SECO,DA#+ CO,#O& O,
=O4 SA'S3AC'O, 3O# ACADE7'CS A,D EAC!E#S)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))*$$
/i#
A4&E *<% !'E#A#C!'CA& 7U&'"&E #E5#ESS'O, ES',5 !E 7ODE#A',5
#O&E O3 !E CO,#O& S#AE5'ES O, !E #E&A'O,S!'" 4EWEE, =O4
AUO,O7+ A,D =O4 SA'S3AC'O,))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))*$/
A4&E *.% !'E#A#C!'CA& 7U&'"&E #E5#ESS'O, ES',5 !E 7ED'A',5
#O&E O3 !E CO,#O& S#AE5'ES)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))*$1
A4&E *-% 7EA,S A,D SA,DA#D DE('A'O,S O3 !E ',#',S'C A,D
E?#',S'C =O4 SA'S3AC'O, 'E7S 3O# ACADE7'CS A,D EAC!E#S))))))))))))))*$<
A4&E /:% 7EA,S A,D SA,DA#D DE('A'O,S O3 !E DO7A',S O3 &'3E
SA'S3AC'O, 3O# ACADE7'CS A,D EAC!E#S))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))*$.
A4&E /$% !'E#A#C!'CA& 7U&'"&E #E5#ESS'O, A,A&+S'S E?A7',',5 '3
SU"E#('SO# SU""O# 7ODE#AES !E #E&A'O,S!'" 4EWEE, WO#>
D'33'CU&'ES A,D =O4 SA'S3AC'O,))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))**:
A4&E /*% !'E#A#C!'CA& #E5#ESS'O, A,A&+SES E?A7',',5 W!E!E# CO%
WO#>E# SU""O# 7ODE#AES !E #E&A'O,S!'" 4EWEE, WO#>
D'33'CU&'ES A,D =O4 SA'S3AC'O,) ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))**/
A4&E //% !'E#A#C!'CA& #E5#ESS'O, A,A&+SES E?A7',',5 W!E!E# ,EED
3O# =O4 AUO,O7+ 7ODE#AES !E #E&A'O,S!'" 4EWEE, =O4
AUO,O7+ A,D =O4 SA'S3AC'O,) ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))**2
A4&E /1% SA,DA#D 7U&'"&E #E5#ESS'O, "#ED'C',5 =O4 SA'S3AC'O,
3O# E7"&O+EES W'! &OW AUO,O7+ A,D E7"&O+EES W'! !'5!
AUO,O7+))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))**<
A4&E /2% ,O#7A'(E DAA 3O# !AC>7A, A,D O&D!A7BS 8$-.:; AUO,O7+
SCA&E)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))*/$
/#
A4&E /0% DE7O5#A"!'C C!A#ACE#'S'CS O3 !E SA7"&E))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))*<*
A4&E /<% 7EA,S A,D SA,DA#D DE('A'O,S O3 !E 7A=O# (A#'A4&ES)))))))*.$
A4&E /.% ',E#%CO##E&A'O,S A7O,5 7A=O# (A#'A4&ES))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))*.$
A4&E /-% 3ACO# A,A&+S'S O3 "#'7A#+ A,D SECO,DA#+ CO,#O& 'E7 ',
CO,#O&&A4&E S'UA'O,S))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))*.1
A4&E 1:% 3ACO# A,A&+S'S O3 "#'7A#+ A,D SECO,DA#+ CO,#O& 'E7S ',
U,CO,#O&&A4&E S'UA'O,)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))*.0
A4&E 1$%SECO,DA#+ CO,#O& 'E7S ',C&UDED ', A,A&+SES)))))))))))))))))))))))))))*.<
A4&E 1*% 3ACO# A,A&+S'S O3 !E SOC'A& SU""O# A WO#> SCA&E))))))))))))*..
A4&E 1/ % CO,#O&&A4&E A,D U,CO,#O&&A4&E D'33'CU&'ES #E"O#ED
4+ E7"&O+EES))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))*.-
A4&E 11% E7"&O+EES USE O3 "#'7A#+ A,D SECO,DA#+ CO,#O& ',
CO,#O&&A4&E A,D U,CO,#O&&A4&E S'UA'O,S))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))*-$
A4&E 12% 7EA,S A,D SA,DA#D DE('A'O,S O3 ',D'('DUA& CO,#O&
S#AE5'ES))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))*-/
A4&E 10% SA,DA#D 7U&'"&E #E5#ESS'O, A,A&+S'S "#ED'C',5 =O4
SA'S3AC'O, 3#O7 "#'7A#+ A,D SECO,DA#+ CO,#O&)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))*-2
A4&E 1<% CO##E&A'O,S 4EWEE, ',D'('DUA& CO,#O& S#AE5'ES A,D
=O4 SA'S3AC'O, 3O# CO,#O&&A4&E A,D U,CO,#O&&A4&E D'33'CU&'ES
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))*-0
/#i
A4&E 1.% !'E#A#C!'CA& 7U&'"&E #E5#ESS'O, ES',5 !E 7ODE#A',5
#O&E O3 CO,#O& S#AE5'ES O, !E #E&A'O,S!'" 4EWEE, WO#>
D'33'CU&'ES A,D =O4 SA'S3AC'O,))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))/::
A4&E 1-% !'E#A#C!'CA& #E5#ESS'O, A,A&+SES ES',5 !E 7ODE#A',5
#O&E O3 ',S#U7E,A& SU""O#)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))/:2
A4&E 2:% !'E#A#C!'CA& #E5#ESS'O, A,A&+SES ES',5 !E 7ODE#A',5
#O&E O3 E7O'O,A& SU""O#))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))/:<
A4&E 2$% SA,DA#D 7U&'"&E #E5#ESS'O, "#ED'C',5 =O4 SA'S3AC'O,
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))/:-
&ist of 3igures
3'5U#E $%=O4 C!A#ACE#'S'CS 7ODE&))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))1.
3'5U#E *% 7ODE& O3 =O4 SA'S3AC'O,))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))-<
3'5U#E /% E?"ECED 7ODE#AED E33EC O3 =O4 AUO,O7+ O, A; "#'7A#+
CO,#O& A,D =O4 SA'S3AC'O, A,D 4; SECO,DA#+ CO,#O& A,D =O4
SA'S3AC'O, )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))$/:
3'5U#E 1% =O4 AUO,O7+ 7ODE#AES !E #E&A'O,S!'" 4EWEE, A;
"#'7A#+ CO,#O& A,D 4; SECO,DA#+ CO,#O&@ A,D =O4 SA'S3AC'O,)))))$/*
3'5U#E 2% 7ED'A',5 #O&E O3 CO,#O& S#AE5'ES O, !E #E&A'O,S!'"
4EWEE, =O4 AUO,O7+ A,D =O4 SA'S3AC'O,))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))$/2
3'5U#E 0 %#E('SED 7ODE& O3 =O4 SA'S3AC'O, 3O# SUD+ * )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))$.<
/#ii
3'5U#E < % #E&A'O,S!'" 4EWEE, WO#> D'33'CU&'ES A,D =O4
SA'S3AC'O, 3O# E7"&O+EES W'! &OW6!'5! SU"E#('SO# SU""O#)))))))))))***
3'5U#E .% #E('SED 7ODE& O3 =O4 SA'S3AC'O, ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))*0.
3'5U#E - C "#'7A#+ A,D SECO,DA#+ CO,#O& 7ODE#AE !E
#E&A'O,S!'" 4EWEE, WO#> D'33'CU&'ES A,D =O4 SA'S3AC'O,)))))))))))))*-.
3'5U#E $: % #E5#ESS'O, O3 CO,#O&&A4&E WO#> D'33'CU&'ES O, =O4
SA'S3AC'O, 3O# E7"&O+EES W'! &OW ',S#U7E,A& CO%WO#>E#
SU""O# A,D E7"&O+EES W'! !'5! ',S#U7E,A& CO%WO#>E# SU""O#
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))/:/
3'5U#E $$% #E('SED 7ODE& O3 =O4 SA'S3AC'O, ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))/2<
/#iii
&ist of ADDendices
A""E,D'? A% "&A', &A,5UA5E SAE7E, 3O# SUD+ O,E)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))/-.
A""E,D'? 4% =O4 AUO,O7+ SCA&E USED ', SUD+ O,E 8#E('S'O, O3
5A,SE#@ $-.-@ C'ED ', DW+E# E 5A,SE#@ $--$;))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))/--
A""E,D'? C% "#'7A#+ A,D SECO,DA#+ CO,#O& SCA&E USED ', SUD+ O,E
8#E('S'O, O3 !EE"S E A&)@ *:::; ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))1:$
A""E,D'? D% =O4 SA'S3AC'O, SCA&E USED ', SUD+ O,E 8#E('S'O, O3
#OF,OWS>'@ $-.-; ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))1:1
A""E,D'? E% &'3E SA'S3AC'O, SCA&E USED ', SUD+ O,E 8CU77',S@ $--<;))1:0
A""E,D'? 3% "E#SO,A&'+ SCA&E USED ', SUD+ O,E 8COSA E 7CC#AE@ $--*;
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))1:<
A""E,D'? 5%&E(E&S O3 =O4 SA'S3AC'O, #E"O#ED 4+ (A#'OUS
OCCU"A'O,A& 5#OU"S)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))1$:
A""E,D'? !% "#'7A#+ A,D SECO,DA#+ CO,#O& SCA&E 3O# SUD+ WO
87A!E# E A&)@ *::$; )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))1$/
A""E,D'? '% "&A', &A,5UA5E SAE7E, 3O# SUD+ WO)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))1$<
A""E,D'? =% =O4 AUO,O7+ SCA&E 3O# SUD+ WO 8!AC>7A, E O&D!A7@
$-<2; ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))1$<
A""E,D'? >% ,EED 3O# AUO,O7+ SCA&E 3O# SUD+ WO 8DE #'=> E A&)@
$--.;)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))1$-
A""E,D'? &% =O4 SA'S3AC'O, SCA&E 3O# SUD+ WO 8WE'SS E A&)@ $-0<;) ) )1*:
/i/
A""E,D'? 7% SOC'A& SU""O# SCA&E 3O# SUD+ WO 8#E('S'O, O3 >A#ASE>
E !EO#E&&@ $--:;))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))1*/
A""E,D'? ,%"&A', &A,5UA5E SAE7E, USED ', SUD+ !#EE)))))))))))))))))))))))1*1
A""E,D'? O% "#'7A#+ A,D SECO,DA#+ CO,#O& SCA&E 3O# SUD+ !#EE
87A!E# E CU77',S@ *::*;)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))1*2
A""E,D'? "% &'3E SA'S3AC'O, SCA&E 3O# SUD+ / 8CU77',S E A&)@ *::$;) )1/$
A""E,D'? A% SOC'A& SU""O# SCA&E 3O# SUD+ / 8DUC!A#7E E 7A#',@ *:::;
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))1/*
//
Abstract
4lthough theories of Kob satisfaction ha#e been e/tensi#el studied, researchers are
et to agree on the maKor predictors of Kob satisfaction. (ne theor, .hich is
particularl appealing to the .or!place, is :arase! and 7heorell@s (>AA%) Kob
demand8control model. Essentiall, this model proposes that Kob autonom can
reduce the effects of Kob demands on Kob satisfaction b allo.ing .or!ers to redirect
the phsiological arousal produced from Kob demands into an appropriate response.
7his e/planation is criticised ho.e#er for being tautological, and a ne. e/planation
is de#eloped .hich incorporates the life span theor of control (Hec!hausen I
SchulL, >AAB) and the discrimination model (7hompson et al., >AAJ). Specificall it
is proposed that Kob autonom influences the use, and the adapti#eness of primar
and secondar control strategies. 7his proposal is de#eloped into a model of Kob
satisfaction that includes Kob autonom, primar and secondar control, life
satisfaction, personalit, and social support at .or!. 7his model of Kob satisfaction is
tested o#er three studies using uni#ersit academic staff, secondar school teachers,
supermar!et .or!ers and general emploees. (#erall, the results demonstrated that
Kob autonom did not influence the use or adapti#eness of the control strategies.
7hese results suggest that emploees ha#e trait control strategies, and the also
challenge the assumptions about primar control failure. 7he proposed model of Kob
satisfaction .as re#ised to include Kob autonom, primar and secondar control
strategies and their successfulness, life satisfaction, .or! difficulties, and
personalit.
//i
Chapter 1 - Literature Review
>
:)$ Abstract
4lthough theories of Kob satisfaction ha#e been e/tensi#el researched in the
organisational pscholog literature, researchers are et to agree on the maKor
predictors of Kob satisfaction. Se#eral predictors ha#e been in#estigated such as
needs, #alues, e/pectations and specific Kob characteristics such as Kob autonom and
Kob demands. 7his chapter re#ie.s such theories, focussing on the ones that ha#e
made the greatest contribution to the understanding of Kob satisfaction. 4lthough
these theories are .ell cited, man of them ha#e theoretical and empirical problems
as .ell as ha#ing limited applicabilit to the .or!place. (ne theor, .hich is less
problematic, and particularl appealing to the .or!place, is the Kob demand8control
model. 7his model proposes that Kob autonom can reduce the effect of Kob demands
on Kob satisfaction, and that the most satisfied .or!ers are those .ith high Kob
demands and high Kob autonom. 4ccording to the model, Kob autonom influences
Kob satisfaction because it allo.s .or!ers to redirect the phsiological arousal
produced from Kob demands into an appropriate response. 7his e/planation is
criticised ho.e#er for being non8specific and tautological. 4 ne. e/planation is
de#eloped, .here it is proposed that Kob autonom influences ho. emploees
respond to .or! difficulties. 7his e/planation forms the basis of a model of Kob
satisfaction, .hich includes the follo.ing predictors+ Kob autonomH primar control
and secondar controlH personalitH and life satisfaction.
$
:)* =ob Satisfaction
9ob satisfaction, the e/tent to .hich emploees li!e their Kob and its
components (Spector, >AAD), is one of the most e/tensi#el researched topic in the
industrial and organisational pscholog literature (Highhouse I Bec!er, >AA?).
7he number of articles and boo!s in#estigating this construct has increased from
o#er ?%%% in >ADG (6oc!e, >ADG), to o#er B%%% in >AA$ (Har.ood I 3ice, >AA$).
7oda, a re#ie. of pscholog and business databases demonstrates that o#er >%,%%%
publications on Kob satisfaction are a#ailable. 4lthough this increasing interest in Kob
satisfaction is no doubt beneficial to the field of industrial and organisational
pscholog, the amount of research has become o#er.helming to both researchers
and practitioners. 1o.here is this more clearl e#ident than in the theories of Kob
satisfaction.
0.2.1 Theories of Job Satisfaction: Environmental and Dispositional
Predictors
7heories of Kob satisfaction include dispositional and en#ironmental
predictors. 7he dispositional predictors of Kob satisfaction refer to characteristics of
the emploee, such as needs, #alues, and e/pectations. 7he en#ironmental predictors
refer to Kob characteristics, such as Kob control, .or!load, feedbac!, role ambiguit,
and role conflict. Some theorists focus on the dispositional predictors, .hilst others
focus on the en#ironmental predictors. More recent theorists recognise the
importance of both tpes of predictors.
?
Dispositional and en#ironmental theories of Kob satisfaction ha#e been
e/tensi#el researched, ho.e#er researchers ha#e still not reached consensus as to
the maKor predictors of Kob satisfaction. 4s a result, researchers continue to rel on
theories that ha#e theoretical and empirical problems, or ha#e limited applicabilit to
the .or!place. &n order to determine .hich theories are #alid and useful, this re#ie.
.ill e/amine the theories that ha#e made the greatest contribution to a shift in focus
of the determinants of Kob satisfaction. 7hese include Maslo.@s (>AD%) need
hierarch theor, HerLberg, Mausner and Snderman@s (>ABA) t.o8factor theor of
Kob satisfaction, =room@s (>AGC) e/pectanc theor, discrepanc theories, Hac!man
and (ldham@s (>ADG) Kob characteristics model, and :arase!@s (>ADA) Kob demand8
control model.
C
:)/ 7aslowBs 8$-21@ $-<:; !ierarchG of ,eeds
7he need hierarch theor .as one of the first theories to focus on the
dispositional predictors of Kob satisfaction. &t proposed that emploees@ needs
determine their le#el of Kob satisfaction.
0.3.1 Need ierarch! Theor!
7he need hierarch theor (Maslo., >ABC, >AD%) posits that indi#iduals are
born .ith a set of needs. 7here are fi#e needs+ phsiological, safet, belongingness,
esteem, and self8actualisation. 7hese are arranged in a hierarch of relati#e
prepotenc, meaning that lo.er8order needs are satisfied before higher8order needs
are acti#ated.
7he lo.est need, phsiological, refers to basic biological dri#es, such as
hunger, thirst and se/. 7hese phsiological needs are the most prepotent of all, as an
indi#idual depri#ed of all needs .ould see! to gratif these needs first. 7he .ould
not be concerned .ith safet, belongingness, esteem, or self8actualisation. (nce the
ha#e gratified the phsiological needs ho.e#er, the strength of that need decreases,
and the ne/t highest need, safet, becomes important.
7he safet need refers to securit, stabilit, dependenc, protection, and need
for structure, order, la. and limits. 7o gratif the safet need, an indi#idual requires
a safe, orderl, predictable, la.ful .orld. (nce the safet need is gratified, its need
strength is reduced, and the strength of the belongingness need increases. 7he
indi#idual .ill begin to hunger for affectionate relationships .ith people, and for a
place in their group or famil. (nce these belongingness needs are gratified, the
B
strength of the esteem need increases, and the indi#idual .ill desire a high e#aluation
of themsel#es, and others. (nce an indi#idual has gratified these four needs,
collecti#el !no.n as deficienc needs (D8needs), the ma begin to feel restless.
7his restlessness is indicati#e of the need for self8actualisation.
7he need for self8actualisation refers to the need for the indi#idual to become
e#erthing the are capable of becoming. *hen the strength of this need increases,
the indi#idual stri#es for self8fulfilment. 7his fifth need is referred to as a being need
(B8need) because it sustains an indi#idual@s interest .ithout being dri#en b feelings
of depri#ation. "nli!e the pre#ious four needs, .hen the need for self8actualisation is
gratified, it increases in need strength (Maslo., >AG$). ;ro.th is a continued
up.ard de#elopment, .here the more that one gets, the more that one .ants. 7his
gro.th is 'endless, and can ne#er be attained or satisfied- (Maslo., >AG$, p. ?>).
0.3.2 "ppl!in# $aslo%&s '1()*+ 1(,0- Theor! to .r#anisations
&n terms of appling this theor to organisations, the theor proposes that the
lo.er8order needs must be gratified before the higher8order needs are acti#ated. 4s
such, emploers must ensure that their emploees@ phsiological, safet,
belongingness and esteem needs are satisfied. 7he emploer can help the emploee
to gratif each need. 0or e/ample, to help them gratif their phsiological and safet
needs, emploers can increase their emploees@ pa. (nce these needs are satisfied,
the relationship bet.een the emploee and their super#isors and co8.or!ers ta!es on
increased strength. 7he emploer can help the emploee to gratif this need through
increasing the amount of social interaction among emploees. 7his process needs to
G
be continued until the emploees ha#e gratified all of the lo.er8order needs, and are
reaching for self8actualisation, should the nature of the Kob permit this le#el to be
attained.
0.3.3 /riticisms of $aslo%&s '1()*+ 1(,0- Need ierarch! Theor!
4lmost e#er aspect of Maslo.@s (>ABC, >AD%) .or! has been disputed on
both theoretical and empirical grounds (1eher, >AA>H *ahba I Brid.ell, >ADG).
0i#e fundamental propositions of Maslo.@s (>ABC, >AD%) theor ha#e been
questioned, including+ >) the higher the depri#ation of a need, the higher its need
strength (i.e., depri#ationMdomination paradigm)H $) the higher the satisfaction .ith a
need, the higher the need strength of the need at the ne/t le#el (i.e.,
gratificationMacti#ation paradigm)H ?) the measurement of self8actualisationH C) the
abilit to achie#e self8actualisationH and B) the applicabilit of the theor to
organisations. Each of these .ill no. be considered.
0.3.3.1 0riticism .ne: DeprivationADomination Paradi$m
7he depri#ationMdomination paradigm postulates that the higher the
depri#ation of a need, the higher its need strength. 4n earl re#ie. concluded that
the depri#ationMdomination paradigm .as onl partiall supported for self8
actualisation, and not supported for safet, belongingness and esteem needs (*ahba
I Brid.ell, >ADG). (n the basis of this re#ie., man researchers ha#e assumed that
the proposition is not supported (*ic!er, Bro.n, *iehe, Hagen I 3eed, >AA?).
7his assumption ma be inaccurate ho.e#er, as man of the studies included in the
D
re#ie. ha#e methodological limitations. 7hese limitations concern+ a) the
operationalisation of need strengthH and b) establishing causalit.
0.3.3.2 a- .perationalisin$ Need Stren$th
(ne of the main limitations in studies e/amining the depri#ationMdomination
paradigm concerns the operationalisation of need strength. Some researchers
measure need strength through desire, others through important or intention. 7.o
studies ha#e measured need strength through desire. &n 4lderfer@s (>AGA) stud,
subKects .ere as!ed to rate ho. much more of the follo.ing factors the .ould li!e
to ha#e in their KobsH pa, fringe benefits, lo#e, status, and gro.th. Similarl, in
;raham and Balloun@s (>AD?) stud, subKects .ere as!ed ho. much impro#ement
the .anted in their phsiological, securit, social and self8actualisation needs.
7hese measures of need strength .ere then correlated .ith corresponding measures
of satisfaction.
Both studies pro#ided some support for Maslo.@s (>ABC) theor suggesting
that as satisfaction .ith a need increases, the strength of that need decreases. 0or
e/ample, in ;raham and Balloun@s (>AD?) stud, the correlations bet.een need
strength and satisfaction ranged from r N O%.C$ to r N O%.D$. 0urthermore, in
4lderfer@s (>AGA) stud, satisfaction and need strength .ere negati#el correlated for
the relatedness need, .hich .as composed of a respect from co8.or!ers@ need, and a
respect from super#isors@ need. 0or the respect from co8.or!ers@ need, the
correlations .ere all significant, ranging from r N 8%.$> to r N 8%.?J. 0or the respect
from super#isors@ need, the correlations ranged from r N 8%.%G to r N 8%.CA. 4lthough
J
the correlations in 4lderfer@s (>AGA) stud .ere in the e/pected direction, the .ere
often small, and the correlations bet.een satisfaction and need strength for the
belongingness need .ere insignificant (r N %.%$ to r N %.%D).
7hese t.o studies appear to pro#ide some support for Maslo.Ps (>ABC)
theor. Both of these studies assessed need strength ratings b desire, .here
participants .ere as!ed ho. much more the .anted of a need. &t must be
questioned ho.e#er, if .anting or desiring more of a need is a measure of the
strength of the need. *anting more of a need ma actuall be another .a of
demonstrating dissatisfaction .ith the area co#ered b that need.
(ther researchers ha#e o#ercome this limitation b assessing need strength
using importance ratings, .hich ma be less li!el to measure satisfaction. 0or
e/ample, Hall and 1ougaim (>AGJ) conducted a longitudinal stud on managers,
inter#ie.ing them annuall for fi#e ears. 7he participants rated the importance of,
and satisfaction .ith a number of needs including safet, affiliation, achie#ement and
esteem, and self8actualisation. &nconsistent .ith Maslo.@s (>ABC) theor, the
correlations bet.een the satisfaction of needs and the importance of needs .ere
positi#e. 0or safet, importance and satisfaction correlated r N %.$G, for affiliation
r N %.>G, for achie#ement and esteem r N %.BC, and for self8actualisation r N %.$A.
&n addition, Hall and 1ougaim (>AGJ) also e/amined the longitudinal changes
in satisfaction and importance for each need. 4ccording to Maslo.@s (>ABC) theor,
it .ould be e/pected that if satisfaction of a need increased from one ear to the ne/t,
importance of that need .ould decrease. Ho.e#er, the found that the importance of
A
a need in a gi#en ear .as positi#el correlated .ith its o.n satisfaction in the
pre#ious ear. 7hese correlations .ere moderate for safet (r N %.$B), affiliation
(r N %.$>), achie#ement and esteem (r N %.B?) and self8actualisation (r N %.$J).
4lthough Hall and 1ougaim (>AGJ) failed to discuss these correlations in detail, the
clearl contradict Maslo.@s (>ABC) theor. &mportance .as positi#el related to
need satisfaction, suggesting that a satisfied need is an important need. 7his finding
does not support Maslo.@s (>AD%, p. ?A?) proposal that 'a satisfied need is not a
moti#ator.-
4lthough Hall and 1ougaim@s (>AGJ) findings are inconsistent .ith
Maslo.@s (>ABC) theor, their #alidit has been questioned. Specificall, the stud
relied on a small sample, and the inter#ie. .as not designed to produce data rele#ant
to Maslo.@s (>ABC) theor (6a.ler I Suttle, >AD$). 0urthermore, the inter8rater
reliabilit of the coding of inter#ie.s .as lo. (%.BB to %.BA).
4 stud designed to o#ercome the limitations identified in Hall and
1ougaim@s (>AGJ) stud .as conducted b 6a.ler and Suttle (>AD$). 7he
emploed a reasonabl large sample of emploees from go#ernment agencies and
retail stores. 7heir questionnaire, de#eloped b Porter (>AG?), .as designed to
measure Maslo.@s (>ABC) needs. 4ccording to Maslo.@s (>ABC) theor, the
importance of a need should be negati#el correlated .ith satisfaction of that need.
Hence, as satisfaction .ith a need increases, the importance of that need decreases.
6a.ler and Suttle@s (>AD$) results did not support this proposal for either the
go#ernment or retail organisations respecti#el, for social (r N 8%.%A, r N %.%D),
esteem (r N %.%G, r N 8%.%C), autonom (r N %.%D, r N%.%>), and self8actualisation
>%
needs (r N %.%>, r N 8%.>%). 7here .as ho.e#er, some support for the securit needs
(r N 8%.?C, r N 8%.>$).
4s their stud .as longitudinal the also conducted change analses. 7he
correlated the change in need importance .ith the change in need satisfaction. &t .as
e/pected that these correlations .ould be negati#e, indicating that increases in the
satisfaction of a need .ere associated .ith decreases in its importance. Ho.e#er,
these correlations .ere also positi#e ranging from r N %.%D to r N %.$C. Hence, the
direction of the correlations .ere inconsistent .ith Maslo.@s (>ABC) theor.
&n summar, Hall and 1ougaim@s (>AGJ) and 6a.ler and Suttle@s (>AD$)
findings are inconsistent .ith those of 4lderfer (>AGA) and ;raham and Balloun
(>AD$). 7he maKor difference bet.een these studies is that the latter t.o measured
need strength .ith desire or impro#ement, .hile the former t.o relied on measures
of importance. 4lthough the desire and impro#ement measures .ere criticised
earlier for being too similar to measures of satisfaction, the use of importance as an
indicator of need strength has also been criticised (*ic!er et al., >AA?).
4lthough Maslo. (>AD%) postulates that a need is important because of
depri#ation, it has been suggested that a person ma report that a need is important
because the ha#e attained it and #alue it (*ic!er et al., >AA?). &ndeed, Maslo.
(>ABC, p. >CJ) proposed that 'greater #alue is usuall placed on higher8order needs
b persons .ho ha#e gratified both !inds (i.e., lo.er and higher8order needs).-
Hence, people .ho are self8actualising ma report that all the higher needs are
important because the #alue them. 4 person ma thus report that a higher8order
need is important because the are depri#ed of it, or because the ha#e attained it and
>>
#alue it. &f indi#iduals report that a higher8order need is important because the ha#e
attained it, it .ould be positi#el related to satisfaction (*ic!er et al., >AA?).
4lthough importance ma be an ambiguous construct, the earl studies
conducted b Hall and 1ougaim (>AGJ) and 6a.ler and Suttle (>AD$) should still be
#alid. 7he maKorit of participants in these studies .ould not ha#e gratified both
lo.er8order and higher8order needs. 4s such, the .ould onl be e/pected to report
that a need .as important if the .ere depri#ed of the need. Hence, although the
earl studies tested the depri#ationMdomination paradigm using importance ratings,
this is not e/pected to reduce the #alidit of the findings, .hich are inconsistent .ith
Maslo.@s (>ABC) theor.
More recent researchers ha#e found some support for Maslo.@s (>ABC)
theor using a different measure of need strength, namel intention. *ic!er et al.,
(>AA?) e/amined ho. need strength relates to satisfaction .hen need strength is
operationalised in a number of different .as. 7he used, among others, ratings of
importance (i.e., '7o .hat e/tent is it an important goal-) and ratings of intention
(i.e., 'Ho. much do ou .ant to pursue it-). 7he correlated these #ariables .ith
attainment as a measure of depri#ation (i.e., '7o .hat e/tent do ou alread ha#e
it-). 4ccording to Maslo.@s (>AD%) theor, it .ould be e/pected that as attainment
of a need decreased, the intention of that need .ould increase. Ho.e#er, the found
the correlations of past attainment (depri#ation) and intention .ere positi#e, ranging
from r N %.?A to r N %.AG. 7his suggests that as attainment of a need increases, the
intention to pursue the need also increases.
>$
4lthough *ic!er et al@s., (>AA?) findings are inconsistent .ith Maslo.@s
(>AD%) theor, the suggest that the correlations ma ha#e been inflated b
halo8effects or carro#er rating bias. 7he postulate that the ratings ma be affected
b a general moti#ation factor, and b earlier ratings. 7o control for such effects,
de#iation scores .ere computed and correlated. De#iation scores are calculated b
subtracting the grand mean o#er all scales for a need from the mean of that need on
each particular scale. 7his remo#ed a need8means factor from the data, 'reducing
an biasing effect on correlations resulting from mean differences among needs-
(*ic!er et al., >AA?, p. >$G). "sing these de#iation scores, the direction of the
correlations .ere re#ersed. 0or importance, t.o of the four correlations .ere in the
e/pected negati#e direction, ho.e#er the .ere #er small (r N 8%.>? and r N O%.%D).
0or intention ho.e#er, all four of the correlations .ere strong and negati#e, ranging
from r N O%.G$ to r N O%.DC. 7his suggests that if need strength is measured through
intention, and de#iation scores are used, then it is negati#el related to attainment.
(n this basis, *ic!er et al., (>AA?) postulate that it is too earl to discard the
depri#ationMdomination paradigm. 7he propose that participants in earlier studies
(e.g., Hall I 1ougaim, >AGJH 6a.ler I Suttle, >AD$) ma ha#e reported that a lo.er
order need .as important because the had attained it and the #alued it (high
satisfaction), or because the .ere depri#ed of it (lo. satisfaction). 4s a result, the
correlations bet.een importance and satisfaction could be positi#e or negati#e,
depending on ho. need strength .as operationalised. Despite this, it remains
concerning that the depri#ationMdomination paradigm is onl supported .hen need
strength is operationalised as intention.
>?
0.3.3.3 b- Establishin$ 0a1salit!
4 second methodological problem, .hich ma reduce the #alidit of the
studies e/amining the depri#ationMdomination paradigm is that although the
depri#ationMdomination paradigm is causal, the relationship is assessed through
correlational analses (e.g., 4lderfer, >AGAH ;raham I Balloun, >AD$H Hall I
1ougaim, >AGJH 6a.ler I Suttle, >AD$). (nl one stud has attempted to establish
causalit through e/perimentall manipulating depri#ation and measuring
subsequent need strength. *ic!er and *iehe (>AAA) di#ided fort students into t.o
groups, .here one group .rote about a past e#ent .here the felt especiall close to
another person and the other group .rote about a time .hen the tried to get close to
someone, but felt unsuccessful. Both groups then rated their needs on each le#el of
the hierarch on prior attainment (i.e., '7o .hat e/tent to do ou alread ha#e it-),
intention (i.e., 'Ho. much do ou intend to pursue it-), and importance (i.e., '7o
.hat e/tent is it an important goal-).
7he interpersonal scenario .as e/pected to affect their belongingness
responses, .here the unsuccessful group .ould report lo.er attainment, and higher
need strength for the belongingness need. &nconsistentl ho.e#er, the t.o groups
did not report different le#els of attainment on the belongingness need. 7he t.o
groups did report different le#els of esteem attainment .here the unsuccessful group
reported less past attainment of esteem needs than the successful group. 7he
unsuccessful group also reported higher intention on all le#els of the hierarch than
the successful group. 7he t.o groups did not ho.e#er differ on importance ratings.
>C
7hese data .ere interpreted as supporting Maslo.@s (>AD%) theor, as .hen
the past attainment of esteem needs .ere lo., intentions .ere higher. 7he results
must be interpreted .ith caution ho.e#er as there .ere methodological limitations in
the stud. 4side from each group ha#ing a small sample siLe (1 N $%), need strength
.as not assessed prior to the inter#ention. Hence, the differences in their intentions
ma ha#e been a pre8e/isting difference. 0urthermore, although the groups .ere
as!ed to report a stor relating to belongingness needs, the t.o groups did not report
different le#el of past attainment on belongingness needs. Hence, the belongingness
manipulation .as not successful. &n summar, although *ic!er and *iehe (>AAA)
present their stud as supporting Maslo.@s (>AD%) theor, the findings should be
#ie.ed .ith caution.
0.3.3.* S1mmar!: DeprivationADomination Paradi$m
7he depri#ationMdomination paradigm .as reKected after se#eral earl studies
failed to find supporti#e correlations. *ic!er et al., (>AA?) re8introduced the
proposition into the literature, attributing the inconsistent findings to the
operationalisation of need strength. 7he demonstrated that positi#e correlations
bet.een attainment and need strength could be re#ersed if de#iation scores .ere
used, and need strength .as measured b intentions rather than importance. 7he
#alidit of these findings continues to be questioned ho.e#er, as the relationship
bet.een need strength and satisfaction, although causal has been assessed through
correlational analses. &n summar, the maKorit of research demonstrates that as
depri#ation increases, need strength does not necessaril increase.
>B
0.3.3." 0riticism T&o: =ratificationA#ctivation Paradi$m
7he gratificationMacti#ation paradigm postulates that the higher the
satisfaction .ith a need, the higher the need strength of the need at the ne/t le#el of
the hierarch. 7he gratificationMacti#ation paradigm is different from the
depri#ationMdomination paradigm as the former e/amines the correlation bet.een the
satisfaction of a need at one le#el .ith the importance of the need at the ne/t le#el,
.hereas the latter e/amines the correlation bet.een satisfaction and need strength of
a need on the same le#el.
7.o longitudinal studies ha#e been conducted to e#aluate the
gratificationMacti#ation paradigm. 4s pre#iousl mentioned, Hall and 1ougaim
(>AGJ) inter#ie.ed managers annuall throughout a fi#e8ear period, coding their
responses on need strength and satisfaction. 0or each ear, the correlated the
changes in need satisfaction from one ear to the ne/t .ith changes in need strength
at the ne/t highest le#el during the same period of time. 4ccording to Maslo.@s
(>ABC) theor, it .as e/pected that high correlations .ould e/ist bet.een the change
in satisfaction of a gi#en need le#el and the change in strength of the ne/t highest
le#el. 7he pooled correlations .ere lo. ho.e#er, ranging from r N %.%B to r N %.$$.
Hence, there .as little e#idence to suggest that the increasing satisfaction of a need
results in the increasing need strength of the ne/t highest need. &t must be noted
ho.e#er that this stud relied on a small sample siLe, and the inter#ie. used in the
stud .as not designed to produce data rele#ant to Maslo.@s (>ABC) theor. 7hese
limitations .ere addressed in 6a.ler and Suttle@s (>AD$) stud.
>G
4s pre#iousl mentioned, 6a.ler and Suttle (>AD$) relied on Porter@s (>AG?)
questionnaire, .hich .as specificall designed to measure Maslo.@s (>ABC) needs.
4ccording to Maslo.@s (>ABC) theor, it .as e/pected that the satisfaction of a need
.ould be positi#el correlated .ith the need strength of the need in the ne/t highest
le#el. 6a.ler and Suttle@s (>AD$) results demonstrated that one correlation bet.een
securit satisfaction, and social importance .as significant for the retail group
(r N %.$>), ho.e#er the rest .ere all lo. ranging from r N 8%.%> to r N %.>%. 7hese
findings, as .ith Hall and 1ougaim@s (>AGJ) findings clearl raise questions
concerning the #alidit of the gratificationMacti#ation paradigm.
&n summar, the gratificationMacti#ation paradigm proposes that as
satisfaction .ith a need increases, the need strength of the ne/t highest need
increases. Studies in#estigating this paradigm generall demonstrate that the
correlations bet.een need satisfaction and need strength of the ne/t highest need are
lo..
0.3.3./ 0riticism Three: %eas1rement of Self2#ct1alisation
7here is a poor le#el of concordance bet.een the definition of the need for
self8actualisation, and the measurement of the need for self8actualisation. Self8
actualisation is defined as 'the full use of one@s talents, capacities, potentialities-
(Maslo., >AD%, p. >B%). &t is the need for the indi#idual to become e#erthing the
are capable of becoming. Self8actualisers ha#e a more efficient perception of realit,
accept others, are autonomous, do not need others, are less concerned .ith
themsel#es, and ha#e deeper interpersonal relationships (Maslo., >AD%). 7hese
>D
characteristics must be regarded .ith caution ho.e#er as the .ere based on a social
discussion .ith a sample of $$ people .hom Maslo. (>ABC) belie#ed to be self8
actualisers. 7hese people .ere selected as the seemed to be fulfilling themsel#es,
and doing the best the .ere capable of. Perhaps as a consequence of this #ague
definition, operational definitions of the need for self8actualisation #ar e/tensi#el.
Se#eral earl studies measured self8actualisation using Porter@s (>AG?) need
scale (i.e., 6a.ler I Suttle, >AD$H 3oberts, *alter I Miles, >AD>). 7his scale
includes three items .hich assess the opportunit for personal gro.th and
de#elopment in the Kob, the feelings of self8fulfilment a person gets from being in the
Kob, and the feelings of .orth.hile accomplishment in the Kob. (ne problem .ith
these items ho.e#er, is that the appear to assess ho. the person feels about their
.or! rather than .hether the feel the are ha#e reached their potential.
4lthough more recent scales tend to be more comprehensi#e, their #alidit is
still questioned. 0or e/ample, Shoura and Singh (>AAA) assessed self8actualisation
through items measuring meaningfulness, self8sufficienc, effortlessness, creati#it,
professional creati#eness, self8understanding, independence, and harmon .ith the
uni#erse. E/amples of these items are 'do ou thin! ou ha#e enough talents and
capabilities to perform the Kob-, 'does our .or! come as second nature to ou- and
'do ou feel our Kob is in harmon .ith the uni#erse.- 7hese items are criticised for
being #ague, and it is questioned .hether the measure if a person has become all
that the are capable of. 0urthermore, these items onl refer to self8actualisation on
the Kob, and in some cases, self8actualisation ma occur off the Kob. &n summar,
>J
there seems to be a great deal of discrepanc bet.een the definition and
measurement of self8actualisation.
0.3.3., 0riticism 3o1r: #bilit! to #chieve Self2#ct1alisation
7he need for self8actualisation is the need for the indi#idual to become
e#erthing that the are capable of becoming. 7his suggests that anone performing
their Kob to the best of their abilities is self8actualising. Ho.e#er, Maslo. (>AD%)
screened ?%%% college students and concluded that onl one student .as
self8actualising. 0ollo.ing this stud, Maslo. (>AD%) proposed that
self8actualisation of the sort he had found in older adults .as not possible for
ounger de#eloping people. He proposed that oung people lac! man of the
e/periences needed for self8actualisation such as identit, autonom, and romantic
relationships. 7he proposal that ounger people do not self8actualise has not
recei#ed empirical support. 4 stud conducted on engineers demonstrated that the
Kunior engineers reported higher scores on self8actualisation than the senior engineers
(Shoura I Singh, >AAA). 0urthermore, in a stud of academics, ranging in age from
?% to GJ ears, age and self8actualisation .ere not related (Ha.!ins, Ha.!ins I
3an, >AJA). &t must be noted ho.e#er that, as pre#iousl mentioned, these studies
relied on questionable measures of self8actualisation.
0.3.3.; 0riticism 3ive: #pplicabilit! of %aslo&'s ierarch! of Needs to
.r$anisations
4lthough some of the propositions in the need hierarch theor ha#e not
recei#ed empirical support, the theor has been e/tensi#el accepted in the
>A
management literature (3oberts, >AJ$). Moreo#er, the general idea that the concepts
of lo#e, safet, self8esteem, and gro.th contribute to moti#ation and satisfaction are
acceptable to both pschologists and management scientists (Shoura I Singh, >AAA).
7he fundamental problem in appling Maslo.@s (>AD%) theor to .or!
organisations is that little is !no.n about ho. to reach the ultimate goal of self8
actualisation. Maslo.@s (>AD%, p.CG) definition of self8actualisation as '.hat a man
can be, he must be- is e/tremel #ague, and there is no agreed upon .a of
operationalising the construct, or facilitating it in emploees.
0.3.* /oncl0sion
7he need hierarch theor proposes that indi#iduals stri#e to gratif fi#e needs,
namel phsiological, safet, belongingness, esteem and self8actualisation needs.
7he theor proposes that the higher the depri#ation of a need, the higher its need
strength, and the higher the satisfaction .ith a need, the higher the need strength of
the ne/t highest need. 4lthough earl studies tended to reKect these propositions,
more supporti#e results .ere found .hen need strength .as operationalised as
intentions rather than importance or desire. E#en .ith some supporti#e findings, the
#alidit of the theor is still questioned as #er little is !no.n about the ultimate goal
for humans, the need for self8actualisation.
$%
:)1 !erHberg@ 7ausner and SnGdermanBs 8$-2-@ $--/; wo%3actor heorG of
=ob Satisfaction
0.*.1 o% the T%o12actor Theor! has /ontrib0ted to o0r 3nderstandin# of
Job Satisfaction
7he t.o8factor theor (HerLberg et al., >ABA) questioned the assumption that
Kob satisfaction and Kob dissatisfaction lie on a single continuum. 3ather, the theor
proposed that Kob satisfaction and Kob dissatisfaction are separate continua, and that
the factors .hich affect Kob satisfaction are different from the factors .hich affect
Kob dissatisfaction.
0.*.2 Development of the T%o12actor Theor!
7he t.o8factor theor is based on a stud of accountants and engineers.
7hrough an inter#ie., emploees recalled e/periences about times .hen the felt
especiall good or bad about their Kobs, and then rated ho. seriousl their feelings
(goodMbad) about their Kobs had been affected b .hat happened. "sing content
analsis, their responses .ere coded into >C categories.
4s demonstrated in 7able >, emploees reporting the sources of good times
tended to recall e#ents related to achie#ement, recognition, .or! itself,
responsibilit, and ad#ancement. 7hese sources of satisfaction .ere termed
moti#ator factors. Emploees reporting the sources of bad times tended to recall
e#ents related to compan polic and administration, super#ision8technical, salar,
recognition, and interpersonal relations .ith super#isor. 7hese sources of
$>
dissatisfaction .ere termed hgiene factors. 4n ob#ious e/ception to this
classification is for the factor salar. Salar .as reported a similar number of times
for emploees reporting the source of good e#ents and for those reporting the source
of bad e#ents.
(n the basis of these findings, HerLberg et al., (>ABA) proposed that paing
attention to moti#ator factors .ill increase Kob satisfaction, but .ill not affect Kob
dissatisfaction. 4lternati#el, paing attention to hgiene factors .ill decrease Kob
dissatisfaction but .ill not increase Kob satisfaction. 0or e/ample, increasing status
is e/pected to reduce Kob dissatisfaction, but not increase Kob satisfaction.
able $% Sources of 5ood64ad imes for Accountants and Engineers 8,9*::;
0actor 7ime felt especiall good 7ime felt especiall bad
Achievement C>QQ D
#ecognition ??QQ >J
Work 'tself $GQQ >C
#esDonsibilitG $?QQ G
Advancement $%QQ >>
Salar >B >D
Possibilit of ;ro.th G J
&38subordinate G ?
Status C C
&38Super#isor C >BQQ
&38Peer ? JQQ
Super#ision8technical ? $%QQ
)ompan polic and
administration
? ?>QQ
*or!ing conditions > >>QQ
Personal life > GQQ
9ob Securit > >
QQpR%.%>H 7otivator factors are bolded
0rom HerLberg, 0., Mausner, B., I Snderman, B. (>ABA). 7he Moti#ation to *or!.
(p.G%, D$). 1e. Eor!+ *ile.
$$
0.*.3 /riticisms of er4ber# et al&s.+ '1()(- Theor!
7he t.o8factor theor is criticised for deducing conclusions from a stud that+
a) failed to test the main propositionsH and b) .as methodologicall fla.ed. &n
regards to the first criticism, there is insufficient e#idence to demonstrate ho.
moti#ator and hgiene factors relate to Kob satisfaction. 4lthough the stud
demonstrated that emploees recalling good times tended to recall moti#ator factors,
and emploees recalling bad times tended to recall hgiene factors, there is no
empirical e#idence for the proposal that moti#ator factors can onl contribute to Kob
satisfaction and that hgiene factors can onl contribute to Kob dissatisfaction. 7he
stud did not measure Kob satisfaction, and as such, there is no basis for assuming
that the factors described in the incidents caused, or .ere e#en related to Kob
satisfaction (E.en, >AGC).
&n regards to the second criticism of HerLberg et al@s., (>ABA) theor,
concerning the methodolog of the stud, se#eral problems ha#e been identified.
7hese include+ >) some of the findings contradict the theorH $) the findings differ
depending on the method of data collectionH and ?) the hpotheses and criterion
measures are ambiguous. 7hese limitations .ill no. be discussed more e/tensi#el.
0.*.3.1 0riticism .ne: Eval1ation of Ces1lts
7he results from HerLberg et al@s., (>ABA) stud did not completel support
the theor. 4s can be seen in 7able >, emploees often report moti#ator factors, such
as recognition .hen the are recalling a time .hen the felt bad. 4lthough the
reported recognition significantl less for bad times than good times, recognition .as
$?
still the third highest source of a bad time. 0urthermore, some of the hgiene factors
.ere reported onl slightl more for bad e#ents than good e#ents (i.e., salar, status
and Kob securit). Hence, some of the findings are not supporti#e of the t.o8factor
theor.
0.*.3.2 0riticism T&o: The :ntervie& %ethod
3eplications of HerLberg et al@s., (>ABA) stud ha#e produced mi/ed results.
Some researchers ha#e found support for the theor (i.e., Schmidt, >ADG), .hilst
others ha#e contradicted the theor (e.g., 4rmstrong, >AD>H Brenner, )armac! I
*einstein, >AD>H Hill, >AJGH :ing >AD%H *aters I *aters, >AGA). 4 commonalit
among the studies that ha#e contradicted the theor is that the ha#e departed from
the traditional inter#ie. method (;ardner, >ADDH Salanci! I Pfeffer, >ADD). 7he
inter#ie. method is criticised for being retrospecti#e, and selecti#e (;ardner, >ADD).
7he emploees are e/pected to more readil recall positi#e e#ents .hich reflect upon
themsel#es, and negati#e e#ents .hich can be attributed to e/ternal conditions
(=room, >AGC). 4s a result, man researchers ha#e tested HerLberg et al@s., (>ABA)
theor .ith rating scales.
0.*.3.3 Catin$ Scales
(ne e/ample of such a stud is *aters and *aters (>AGA) stud of office
emploees. 3ather than using HerLberg et al@s., (>ABA) critical incidents inter#ie.,
emploees completed a Kob satisfaction scale, a Kob dissatisfaction scale (as these are
proposed to be t.o separate dimensions), and a scale e/amining satisfaction .ith
$C
specific facets of .or!. 7he correlated facet satisfaction .ith o#erall satisfaction
and o#erall dissatisfaction.
4ccording to HerLberg et al@s., (>ABA) theor, it .as e/pected that the
moti#ator factors (i.e., responsibilit, .or!, sense of achie#ement etc.) .ould
correlate .ith o#erall satisfaction more than o#erall dissatisfaction. 7his finding .as
not supported as the pattern of relationships .ith satisfaction and dissatisfaction .ere
similar (i.e., responsibilit of Kob correlated .ith satisfaction r N %.C> and .ith
dissatisfaction, r N 8%.?D). Similar results .ere obtained for the hgiene factor,
.here for e/ample, competent super#ision correlated r N %.CC .ith satisfaction and
r N 8%.C% .ith dissatisfaction, and salar correlated r N %.C? .ith satisfaction and
r N O%.$J .ith dissatisfaction. 4s moti#ator and hgiene factors acted as both
satisfiers and dissatisfiers, this stud did not pro#ide support for the t.o8factor
theor.
(ther researchers .ho ha#e relied on rating scales ha#e also found that their
results fail to support the theor. 0or e/ample, Brenner et al., (>AD>) conducted a
stud on accountants, assessing 'ho. much is there no.- for each moti#ator and
hgiene factor. 7he correlated each of the items .ith a measure of o#erall Kob
satisfaction. )onsistent .ith the t.o8factor theor, the moti#ator factors .ere
positi#el related to measures of Kob satisfaction, .ith the correlations ranging from
r N %.?A to r N %.G$. &nconsistentl ho.e#er, the hgiene factors .ere also positi#el
related to Kob satisfaction, .ith the correlations ranging from r N %.C> to r N %.BA.
7hese findings, fail to conform .ith HerLberg et al@s., (>ABA) theor, and suggest that
as moti#ator and hgiene factors increase, Kob satisfaction increases.
$B
4lthough *aters and *aters (>AGA) and Brenner et al@s., (>AD>) studies
failed to support the t.o8factor theor using a rating scale, Hill@s (>AJG) stud claims
to offer more support. Hill (>AJG) de#eloped a CB8item questionnaire to measure
intrinsic and e/trinsic factors of .or! in academia. 7he intrinsic factors
(i.e., teaching, con#enience, recognition8support) .ere similar to moti#ator factors,
.hilst the e/trinsic factors (i.e., economic, administration, and collegial) .ere similar
to the hgiene factors. &t .as e/pected that the intrinsic factors .ould lead to Kob
satisfaction and that the e/trinsic factors .ould lead to Kob dissatisfaction. 7o test
this proposal, Hill (>AJG) compared the mean le#el of satisfaction .ith each
dimension. 7he emploees .ere more satisfied .ith the intrinsic dimension
(M N C.C?) than the e/trinsic dimension (M N C.>J). Specificall, the follo.ing
means .ere obser#ed .here one is #er dissatisfied and si/ is #er satisfied+ teaching
(M N C.J$), con#enience (M N C.B$), recognition8support (M N ?.AG), economic
(M N C.$C), administration (M N C.%%), and collegial (M N C.$?). 0rom these results,
Hill (>AJG) concluded that the academics@ dissatisfaction .ith their .or! came from
e/trinsic factors (i.e., hgiene factors), .hilst their satisfaction came from intrinsic
factors (i.e., moti#ator factors).
7he #alidit of this conclusion is questioned ho.e#er, as the mean le#el of
satisfaction for the intrinsic and e/trinsic factors .ere #er similar. 7he difference
.as significant, ho.e#er this ma be due, in part, to the large sample siLe
(1 N >%%%). More importantl ho.e#er, it must be questioned .hether Hill@s (>AJG)
stud is e#en testing HerLberg et al@s., (>ABA) theor. 7he t.o8factor theor did not
propose that emploees are more satisfied .ith the moti#ator factors than the
$G
hgiene factors, but rather that the moti#ators ser#e to bring about Kob satisfaction,
and hgiene factors pre#ent Kob dissatisfaction. 4s such, although Hill@s (>AJG)
stud claims to support the t.o8factor theor using a rating scale, the #alidit of the
findings are questioned.
&n summar, it appears that studies testing the t.o8factor theor using rating
scales tend to be inconsistent .ith those using the inter#ie. method. 7he rating
scale ma be superior to the inter#ie. method, ho.e#er it is still problematic
(HerLberg, >AGGH Sil#er, >AJDH *hitsett I *inslo., >AGD). 3esearchers propose
that the rating scales ma induce respondents to indicate an attitude to.ards e#er
item, e#en on items that the ha#e ne#er thought about before (HerLberg, >AGG).
0urthermore, there is pressure for the respondents to appear rational .hen the report
their satisfaction .ith the Kob facets and o#erall satisfaction, .here the ma attempt
to !eep their responses consistent. 4s a result of these limitations, some researchers
ha#e opted for free response scales (e.g., Sil#er, >AJD).
0.*.3.* 3ree Cesponse Scales
Studies attempting to o#ercome the limits of both inter#ie. and ratings scales
ha#e relied on free response scales. 7hese scales are not retrospecti#e, and allo. the
emploee to de#elop their o.n ans.ers. 0or e/ample, 0riesen, Holda.a and 3ice@s
(>AJ?) stud of school Principals relied on t.o questions including '.hich t.o
factors contribute most to our o#erall satisfaction .ith the principalship- and
'.hich t.o factors contribute most to our o#erall dissatisfaction .ith the
principalship.- 7he then calculated ho. often the Principals mentioned moti#ator
$D
factors and hgiene factors .hen the referred to sources of their satisfaction and
dissatisfaction. 7hese .ere con#erted into ratios, .hich included the number of
times each factor .as mentioned as a satisfier, and the number of times each factor
.as mentioned as a dissatisfier (satisfier+ dissatisfier). 0or e/ample, sense of
achie#ement .as reported as a source of satisfaction JB times, and a source of
dissatisfaction B times (i.e., JB+ B). (ther factors that .ere reported as satisfiers
more than dissatisfiers included interpersonal relationship (DD+ %), importance of the
.or! ($C+ %), and relationship .ith central office (>>+ %). 7hese findings .ere
generall consistent .ith the t.o8factor theor, the e/ception being factors in#ol#ing
relationships (i.e., interpersonal relationships and relationships .ith central office).
3elationship factors are hgiene factors, and as such, are e/pected to be reported as
dissatisfiers more than satisfiers.
7he factors that .ere mentioned more as dissatisfiers than satisfiers include
amount of .or! (%+ GJ), o#erall constraints (%+ BG), attitudes of societ (%+ CA), stress
(%+ $>) and impact on home life (%+ >C). 7hese .ere also generall consistent .ith
the t.o8factor theor.
&t must be noted ho.e#er that man other factors .ere identified as sources
of both satisfaction and dissatisfaction, such as relationship .ith teachers (AC+ C$),
responsibilit (J>+ $%), autonom (D%+ >A), student attitudes (B>+ $B), challenge of
.or! (C>+ ?G), relationships .ith parents ($$+ B>) and salar (G+ D). &n fact, onl
eight of the $% factors occurred uniquel as either satisfiers or dissatisfiers and t.o
of these .ere in the .rong direction (i.e., interpersonal relationships, relationships
.ith central office). Hence, although researchers ha#e proposed that this stud
$J
'represents a maKor step in resol#ing the contro#ers in fa#our of HerLberg@s
assertion- (Sil#er, >AJD, p. B), it pro#ides at best, onl partial support.
4 similar stud .as conducted on educators b Sil#er (>AJD). 7he
participants .ere required to thin! of a time .hen the felt especiall goodMbad about
their Kobs, and .rite a paragraph describing .hat happened. &t .as hpothesised that
the emploees .ould cite moti#ator factors more often than hgiene factors .hen
describing positi#e e#ents, and cite hgiene factors more often than moti#ator factors
.hen describing negati#e e#ents. 4s hpothesised, the emploees mentioned more
moti#ator factors (JB) than hgiene factors (G), .hen recalling a positi#e e#ent.
&nconsistentl ho.e#er, the emploees reported more moti#ator factors (CJ) than
hgiene factors (C%), .hen recalling a negati#e e#ent. 4s such, Sil#er@s (>AJD) stud
pro#ides onl partial support for the t.o8factor theor.
Sil#er (>AJD) conducted a second stud using a questionnaire de#eloped b
*ernimont (>AGG). 7he questionnaire contained t.o lists of statements, one positi#e
and one negati#e, each referring to one of HerLberg et al@s., (>ABA) >G categories.
7he participants .ere required to indicate .hether an e#ent had occurred, and then to
indicate .hether it .as a positi#e or negati#e e#ent. 0or e/ample, for the pa facet,
on the negati#e list .as 'the pa increase & got .as insufficient for putting some
aside for the future- and on the positi#e list .as '& recei#ed a substantial increase in
pa.- &t .as hpothesised that on the positi#e8feelings list, respondents .ould chec!
more moti#ator than hgiene items, and on the negati#e8feelings list, respondents
.ould chec! more hgiene than moti#ator items. (n the positi#e list, the emploees
chec!ed ?$$ moti#ator factors and $BA hgiene factors, .hilst on the negati#e list,
$A
the chec!ed $BB hgiene and >DJ moti#ators factors. 7hese results are assumed to
be supporti#e of the t.o8factor theor as respondents chec!ed more moti#ator than
hgiene factors on the positi#e list and more hgiene than moti#ator factors on the
negati#e list. Ho.e#er, it is concerning that moti#ator and hgiene factors .ere
reported for both positi#e and negati#e e#ents.
0.*.3." S1mmar!
Studies that contradict the t.o8factor theor tend to depart from the
traditional inter#ie. method. 7hese studies, reling on rating scales or free response
scales, claim to pro#ide some support for the theor. )loser e/amination of the
results ho.e#er, demonstrates that these studies pro#ide at best, partial support of the
theor.
0.*.3./ 0riticism Three: #mbi$1o1s !potheses and 0riterion %eas1res
3esearchers testing the t.o8factor theor ha#e been criticised for emploing
se#eral different hpotheses and criterion measures (:ing, >AD%). 0irst, in regard to
the hpotheses, :ing (>AD%) cites se#eral different .as that researchers test the
main propositions of the theor. Some researchers propose that all moti#ator factors
combined together should contribute more to Kob satisfaction than Kob dissatisfaction,
and that all hgiene factors combined should contribute more to Kob dissatisfaction
than Kob satisfaction. (ther researchers e/amine each factor separatel, proposing
that each moti#ator factor should contribute more to Kob satisfaction than Kob
dissatisfaction, and each hgiene factor should contribute more to Kob dissatisfaction
than Kob satisfaction. 4 more precise #ersion of the theor proposes that onl
?%
moti#ators determine Kob satisfaction, and that onl hgienes determine Kob
dissatisfaction. 7hese e/amples ser#e to demonstrate that one researcher using a
broad hpothesis ma report that their findings support the theor, .hilst another
researcher using a specific hpothesis ma report that their results are inconsistent
.ith the t.o8factor theor.
&n regard to the criterion measures, researchers tend to e#aluate their findings
differentl (:ing, >AD%). 0or e/ample Sergio#anni (>AGD) conducted a stud on
teachers using the critical incident technique. 7he results indicated that teachers
reported achie#ement as a source of a positi#e e#ent (?%) more than a source of a
negati#e e#ent (A). Some researchers, including Sergio#anni (>AGD) propose that this
ratio is supporti#e of the t.o8factor theor as it is reported more in positi#e
e/periences than negati#e e/periences. Ho.e#er, other researchers (e.g., 0riesen et
al., >AJ?) propose that it is not supporti#e as achie#ement .as reported for some
negati#e e/periences. Most researchers opt for the former, proposing that if one part
of the ratio is greater than the other part, the results are supporti#e of the t.o8factor
theor (i.e., Sil#er, >AJD). E#en so, these different criterion measures certainl
create confusion.
&t must also be questioned .hether a stud can pro#ide support for the t.o8
factor theor .hen some of the ratios are in the .rong direction (i.e., salar $%+ >$).
HerLberg et al., (>AA?) did not comment on the issue, ho.e#er the accepted results
that .ere not in the proposed direction in their stud. :ing (>AD%) attempted to
specif some guidelines, proposing that failure to conform one item .ould not
contradict the .hole theor unless that one item had a significant negati#e difference.
?>
Ho.e#er, it still remains unclear ho. man items .ould need to be inconsistent for
the theor to be refuted.
0.*.* /oncl0sion
7he t.o8factor theor .as notable for proposing that Kob satisfaction and Kob
dissatisfaction are separate continua, and that the factors .hich affect Kob satisfaction
are different to the factors .hich affect Kob dissatisfaction. 7he original stud from
.hich the theor de#eloped .as methodologicall fla.ed, and as such, it is not
surprising that empirical studies e#aluating the t.o8factor theor often demonstrate
that moti#ator and hgiene factors affect both Kob satisfaction and Kob dissatisfaction.
3esearchers that report supporti#e findings often rel on less stringent hpotheses
and criterion measures. &n conclusion, the t.o8factor theor of Kob satisfaction has
recei#ed little empirical or theoretical support.
?$
:)2 (roomBs 8$-01; EIDectancG heorG of =ob Satisfaction
0.).1 o% E5pectanc! Theor! has /ontrib0ted to o0r 6no%led#e of Job
Satisfaction
E/pectanc theor (=room, >AGC) .as one of the first theories to focus on the
cogniti#e processes that underlie Kob satisfaction. &t has recei#ed considerable
theoretical and empirical attention for o#er ?% ears (=an Eerde I 7hierr, >AAG).
7he number of studies e/amining e/pectanc theor has decreased recentl ho.e#er,
.ith onl ten studies being conducted since the >AA%@s (4mbrose I :uli!, >AAA).
4s such, this re#ie. .ill mainl be based on the earlier studies.
0.).2 Description of E5pectanc! Theor!
E/pectanc theor describes its maKor constructs and propositions using its
o.n Kargon. &t refers to three maKor constructs, namel e/pectanc, #alence, and
instrumentalit. E/pectanc refers to ho. much a person percei#es that an action
.ill result in a certain outcome. 0or e/ample, ho. much a person belie#es that if
the .or! harder, the .ill get a pa rise. =alence refers to the degree of anticipated
satisfaction or desirabilit of an outcome. Hence, in the pre#ious e/ample, the
#alence .ould be a measure of ho. much the person desires a pa rise.
&nstrumentalit refers to the degree to .hich the person sees the outcome in question
as leading to the attainment of other outcomes. Hence, in our e/ample,
instrumentalit .ould be ho. much a person belie#es that a pa rise .ill result in
other outcomes, such as buing a house.
??
7he .a these constructs are combined depends on the #ariable that is being
predicted. 7hree dependent #ariables ha#e been e/amined, namel Kob effort, Kob
performance and Kob satisfaction. 7his re#ie. .ill onl e/amine the model
predicting Kob satisfaction, referred to as the #alence model. 7his incorporates t.o of
the abo#e8mentioned constructs, namel #alence and instrumentalit. &t proposes
that Kob satisfaction can be predicted b multipling the #alence of an outcome b its
instrumentalit. Hence, to predict Kob satisfaction, .e .ould need to determine ho.
much a person li!es or #alues an outcome of their Kob (i.e., being promoted) and
multipl this measure b ho. much the belie#e that this outcome .ill lead to other
outcomes (i.e., being offered a partnership in a business).
7here is a great deal of ambiguit surrounding the measurement of the maKor
constructs in the e/pectanc theor (=an Eerde I 7hierr, >AAG). 7he
instrumentalit construct has pro#ed to be the most troublesome for researchers
(*ahba I House, >ADJ). =room (>AGC) referred to instrumentalit as the
probabilit that an outcome .ill result in other outcomes (i.e., outcome8outcome
relationship), and e/pectanc as the probabilit that an action .ill result in an
outcome (i.e., action8outcome relationship). 3esearchers ha#e confused these
#ariables ho.e#er, and ha#e measured instrumentalit through e/amining the
probabilit that an action .ill result in an outcome (eg., )onstantinople, >AGDH
Pula!os I Schmitt, >AJ?H 3einharth I *ahba, >ADG). 7hese different
conceptualisations of instrumentalit influence the application of the #alence model
to the .or!place.
?C
0.).3 "pplications of the 7alence $odel
4ccording to the #alence model as defined b =room (>AGC), an emploer
can increase their emploees@ le#els of Kob satisfaction through ensuring that
emploees #alue the outcomes of their Kob (i.e., gaining admiration from other
.or!ers, being promoted, feeling a sense of accomplishment, pa rise), and belie#e
that these outcomes .ill lead to other outcomes.
4ccording to researchers .ho operationalise instrumentalit as e/pectanc,
emploers should ensure that their emploees #alue the outcomes of their Kobs, and
belie#e that their .or! .ill help them achie#e those outcomes.
0.).* St0dies of the 7alence $odel
Se#eral earl studies e/amined the relationship bet.een Kob satisfaction and
the #alence model (e.g., )onstantinople, >AGDH 0erris, >ADDH Pula!os I Schmitt,
>AJ?H 3einharth I *ahba, >ADGH Sobel, >AD>, 7eas, >AJ>). 4 re#ie. of such studies
demonstrates that correlations bet.een the #alence model (#alence / instrumentalit)
and Kob satisfaction are generall positi#e, ranging from r N %.%? to r N %.BD
(Mitchell, >ADC). 7his demonstrates that together, #alence and instrumentalit
predict Kob satisfaction.
4n e/ample of a tpical stud conducted to assess ho. the #alence model
influences satisfaction, is that conducted b )onstantinople (>AGD). 7his stud
e/amined ho. #alence and instrumentalit contributed to satisfaction in uni#ersit
students. 7he students .ere gi#en a list of >C outcomes of uni#ersit (e.g., learning
ho. to learn from boo!s and teachers). Each outcome .as rated in terms of its
?B
importance (i.e., #alence) and on the degree to .hich the uni#ersit .as helping the
students to achie#e the outcome (i.e., instrumentalit). 7he product of these t.o
ratings (i.e., instrumentalit and #alence) .as obtained for each outcome, and the
products .ere summed across all >C outcomes. 7his measure .as then correlated
.ith a measure of satisfaction .ith college. 4ccording to the #alence model, it .as
e/pected that the #alence times instrumentalit interaction .ould be positi#el
related to satisfaction. 7he results .ere generall supporti#e of the model .ith the
correlations ranging from r N %.?C to r N %.CA. &t must be noted ho.e#er that
)onstantinople (>AGD) did not e/amine ho. much each component of the model
contributed to satisfaction.
0.).) $ethodolo#ical 8imitations
4lthough man studies testing =room@s (>AGC) #alence model claim to
pro#ide moderate support for =room@s (>AGC) e/pectanc theor (e.g., 0erris, >ADDH
Pula!os I Schmitt, >AJ?H 3einharth I *ahba, >ADGH Sobel, >AD>, 7eas, >AJ>), these
studies ha#e some methodological limitations. 7hree such limitations ha#e been
identified and .ill be discussed belo. as+ >) the finding that the components of the
#alence model account for more of the #ariance in satisfaction on their o.n than
.hen combinedH $) #iolations of the assumptions of the multiplicati#e compositeH
and ?) inflated correlations due to common method #ariance.
?G
0.".".1 1- The 3indin$ that the 0omponents of the 8alence %odel #cco1nt
for more of the 8ariance in Satisfaction on their o&n than &hen 0ombined.
7he #alence model proposes that Kob satisfaction can be predicted b the
product of #alence and instrumentalit. Ho.e#er, man studies ha#e demonstrated
that the components of e/pectanc theor account for more of the #ariance in
satisfaction on their o.n than .hen included in the e/pectanc model (e.g., Pula!os
I Schmitt, >AJ?H 3einharth I *ahba, >ADGH 7eas, >AJ>H =an Eerde I 7hierr,
>AAG). &n these studies, one of the components, either #alence or instrumentalit, has
predicted Kob satisfaction as .ell, or better than, the #alence times instrumentalit
interaction.
4n e/ample of such a stud is that conducted b 3einharth and *ahba
(>ADG). 7he measured #alence and e/pectanc in a sample of sales force
emploees. 4lthough instrumentalit should ha#e been included in the model, their
measure of e/pectanc .as similar to a measure of instrumentalit. 7he measured
e/pectanc b assessing the e/tent of agreement .ith the follo.ing itemsH '7he
harder & .or!, the more & produce-, 'there are no re.ards for .or!ing hard in this
compan- and 'poor Kob performance ma get me fired.- 7heir results demonstrated
that e/pectanc .as as strongl correlated to Kob satisfaction (r N %.C?) as the
e/pectanc times #alence interaction (r N %.C%).
Similar findings .ere reported in Pula!os and Schmitt@s (>AJ?) stud of
graduating students. =alence of .or! outcomes .as assessed through rating the
importance of Kob facets (e.g., good pa, cooperati#e .or!ers, opportunities for
personal gro.th), and instrumentalit .as assessed through rating the li!elihood of
?D
each facet. 7he correlated these measures .ith internal Kob satisfaction and e/ternal
Kob satisfaction. 7he results demonstrated that #alence and instrumentalit
considered separatel correlated .ith Kob satisfaction as .ell or better than the
#alence times instrumentalit interaction. 0or e/ample, in regard to the co8.or!ers
facet, the correlations bet.een the #alence times instrumentalit interaction (r N %.%C,
internal, r N %.>>, e/ternal) .ere lo.er than the correlation for instrumentalit
considered on its o.n, (r N %.>>, internal, r N %.>$, e/ternal). Hence, in this e/ample,
the #alence model .as not more strongl related to Kob satisfaction than the
components considered separatel.
4 recent meta8analsis of studies using the #alence model to predict
occupational choice reached similar conclusions (=an Eerde I 7hierr, >AAG). 7he
results demonstrated that #alence (r N %.$D) and instrumentalit (r N %.$D) considered
separatel correlated as .ell .ith choice as the #alence times instrumentalit model
(r N %.$J)
&n conclusion, these studies suggest that the components of the #alence model
often account for more of the #ariance in Kob satisfaction .hen considered separatel
rather than .hen combined into the #alence model. 7hese results not onl question
the usefulness of the t.o components of the #alence model, but also ho. these
components are combined.
0.".".2 2- 8iolations of the #ss1mptions of the %1ltiplicative 0omposite
4lthough the #alence model proposes that #alence should be multiplied b
instrumentalit, man assumptions underling the multiplicati#e process ma not be
?J
met. 0irst, although it is assumed that for a multiplication to be #alid, the t.o
constructs are independent ()ampbell I Pritchard, >AD%), instrumentalit and
#alence are related to each other (e.g., r N %.CDH Pritchard I Sanders, >AD?). Second,
although it is assumed that multiplicati#e composites are based on a ratio scales .ith
a true Lero point (E#ans, >AA>), most researchers rel on inter#al scales (Mitchell,
>ADC). Some researchers ha#e attempted to establish a Lero8point on a li!ert scale b
ha#ing a scale that ranges from % to >% (i.e., Pritchard I Sanders, >AD?). 7his scale
does not ha#e a true Lero point, and rather, to establish a true Lero point, a comple/
and time8consuming process needs to be underta!en, that requires the scaling of
pairs, as .ell as indi#idual outcomes or obKects (7hurstone I 9ones, >ABD).
&n summar, although the #alence model proposes that the components of the
model should be multiplied, t.o maKor assumptions underling multiplicati#e
composites ma not be met.
0.".".3 3- :nflated 0orrelations d1e to 0ommon %ethod 8ariance
4lthough the assumptions of the multiplicati#e composites are often ignored,
the correlations bet.een the components, considered either on their o.n or in the
#alence model, .ith Kob satisfaction, are still moderate. )ritics suggest that these
moderate correlations occur as the measures of instrumentalit, #alence, and
satisfaction are all based on self8report (Sch.ab, (lian8;ottlieb I Heneman, >ADA).
&t has been proposed that .hen both the independent #ariables and dependent
#ariables are measured through self8report, the correlate higher than if one of the
#ariables is obser#ed (Mitchell, >ADCH Sch.ab et al., >ADA). 7he problem .ith this
?A
reasoning ho.e#er is that self8report measures are e/pected to differ from obKecti#e
measures. (bKecti#e life satisfaction, for e/ample, is poorl correlated .ith
subKecti#e life satisfaction (r N %.>$H )ummins, $%%%a). 7hus, the subKecti#e
measures cannot be #erified through obKecti#e measures. 0urthermore, it is the
subKecti#e measures, .hich are important to the indi#iduals@ le#els of satisfaction.
4s long as the emploee percei#es that b .or!ing hard, the .ill recei#e a pa rise
(instrumentalit), and #alue a pa rise (#alence), their satisfaction .ill be influenced.
4s such, there is no e#idence for the proposal that the correlations among #ariables
in the #alence model are inappropriatel inflated through common method #ariance.
3ather, the correlations used to ma!e such claims are based on in#alid comparisons
bet.een obKecti#e and subKecti#e #ariables.
4lthough common method #ariance is not deemed to be a problem in this
regard, researchers ha#e tested the #alence model using measures other than
self8report. Sobel (>AD>) conducted a stud .ith students, e/perimentall
manipulating instrumentalit. 7.o groups .ere formedH one .ith high
instrumentalit and one .ith lo. instrumentalit. Both groups .ere told that the
.ere required to complete a tas! of mental agilit. Before completing this tas!, the
rated the #alence of this tas! to themsel#es. 7he then completed the tas!, and their
score .as calculated. 7he .ere gi#en a table of norm probabilities .hich indicated
ho. li!el it .as that the .ould perform .ell on the ne/t tas!. (ne group .as
gi#en a table of norms, .hich contained high probabilities (i.e., high instrumentalit
group), .hilst the other group .as gi#en a table of norms .hich contained lo.
probabilities (i.e., lo. instrumentalit group). Both groups .ere then as!ed to rate
C%
their satisfaction .hilst considering the importance of the tas!, and the probabilit
that the .ould do .ell in the ne/t tas!.
4ccording to the #alence model, it .as e/pected that people .ith higher
instrumentalit and higher #alence .ould report higher satisfaction. &n regard to
instrumentalit, the high instrumentalit group consistentl reported higher
satisfaction (M N >A.B) than the lo. instrumentalit group (M N >?.B), thus
supporting the model. &n regard to the proposed interaction effect, it .as e/pected
that for the high or lo. instrumentalit group, people .ho reported high #alence
.ould also report higher satisfaction than people .ho reported lo. #alence.
&nconsistentl ho.e#er, the results demonstrated that for the high instrumentalit
group, there .as no difference in the le#el of satisfaction reported b the high
#alence group (M N $%.?) and the lo. #alence group (M N >J.D). 0urthermore, for
the lo. instrumentalit group, the lo. #alence group reported significantl higher
satisfaction (M N >B.%) than the high #alence group (M N >$.>).
4lthough these results are generall inconsistent .ith the #alence model,
there .as a maKor limitation in the stud. 7he researchers failed to measure
instrumentalit after the subKects had completed the inter#ention. 4s such, the
failed to demonstrate that their inter#ention altered le#els of instrumentalit.
&n summar, researchers ha#e suggested that instrumentalit and #alence
correlate .ell .ith Kob satisfaction because the are measured b self8report.
4lthough there is no e#idence for this proposition, Sobel@s (>AD>) stud suggests that
.hen the #ariables are e/perimentall manipulated, the results are inconsistent .ith
the #alence model.
C>
0.).9 /oncl0sion
E/pectanc theor proposes that Kob satisfaction can be predicted b
multipling the #alence of an outcome b its instrumentalit. 3e#ie.s conducted on
the #alence model ha#e demonstrated that the t.o maKor components of the model
correlate .ell .ith Kob satisfaction. Ho.e#er, the indi#idual components of the
model often account for more of the #ariance in Kob satisfaction than the
multiplicati#e composite. 7his has led researchers to not onl question the #alidit
of the indi#idual components of the model, but also the #alidit of the multiplicati#e
composite. &n conclusion, .hile the #alence model appears to be simple, it combines
a set of comple/ #ariables in a problematic manner.
C$
:)0 DiscreDancG heories
0.9.1 o% Discrepanc! Theories have /ontrib0ted to o0r 6no%led#e of Job
Satisfaction
Discrepanc theories of Kob satisfaction focus on the cogniti#e processes that
underlie Kob satisfaction. 7hese theories are particularl notable for proposing that
emploees@ le#els of Kob satisfaction are dependent on this source of comparison.
0.9.2 Description of Discrepanc! Theories
Discrepanc theories propose that Kob satisfaction is a result of a comparison
bet.een the perception of the current situation and some standard of comparison
(6a.ler I Suttle, >AD?H 6oc!e, >AGAH Michalos, >AJBH Porter, >AG>). 3esearchers
ha#e defined this standard of comparison in #arious .as, including .hat the .ant,
.hat the feel the are entitled to, .hat the see others as getting, .hat the had in
the past, or .hat the e/pected to ha#e (Har.ood I 3ice, >AA$H Michalos, >AJB). &n
all of these theories ho.e#er, the larger the difference bet.een the perceptions of the
current situation and the standard of comparison, the lo.er the le#el of Kob
satisfaction.
0.9.3 Empirical St0dies :nvesti#atin# Discrepanc! Theories
4lthough onl a fe. empirical studies ha#e e/amined the relationship
bet.een discrepanc and Kob satisfaction, the ha#e generall been supporti#e. 0or
e/ample, 3ice, Mc0arlin and Bennett (>AJA) measured ho. much emploees ha#e,
C?
and .ant, thirteen Kob facets. 7he then calculated the amount of discrepanc
bet.een .hat the emploee has and .hat the .ant. 7he found that the percei#ed
ha#e8.ant discrepancies .ere moderatel negati#el correlated .ith facet
satisfaction, .here r N 8%.CJ. Hence, as the ha#e8.ant discrepanc increases,
satisfaction decreases.
4lthough 3ice et al@s., (>AJA) stud onl e/amined ha#e8.ant discrepancies,
similar results ha#e also been found for other discrepancies. 0or e/ample, Har.ood
and 3ice (>AA$) e/amined comparisons .ith+ a) co8.or!ersH b) .hat the person
belie#ed that the should ha#eH c) .hat the e/pectedH and d) .hat the currentl
e/pect. 7he correlations bet.een these discrepancies and satisfaction, although all in
the predicted direction, #aried depending on the comparison. 7he ha#e8.ant
discrepanc .as most highl correlated .ith satisfaction, .here the a#erage
correlation .as r N 8%.B>. 0or the ha#e8should ha#e, r N 8%.C$, ha#e8e/pected,
r N 8%.??, ha#e8e/pect, r N 8%.$B, and ha#e8co8.or!ers discrepanc, r N 8%.$$. &n
summar, studies e/amining the discrepancies theories are generall supporti#e.
0.9.* Theoretical Problems %ith Discrepanc! Theories
4lthough the discrepanc bet.een .hat a person has and some standard of
comparison correlates .ell .ith Kob satisfaction, there are difficulties in using
discrepancies to e/plain satisfaction ()ummins I 1istico, in press). *hen the
discrepanc theor is used to e/plain Kob satisfaction in the .or!place, the
e/planation becomes tautological. 0or e/ample, the theor .ould propose that an
CC
emploee has a lo. le#el of Kob satisfaction because the .ant more from their Kob.
4s such, these discrepancies ma define Kob satisfaction rather than e/plain it.
0.9.) /oncl0sion
Discrepanc theories propose that Kob satisfaction can be determined b
cogniti#e comparati#e processes. Empirical studies ha#e demonstrated that the
discrepanc bet.een .hat an emploee has and some standard of comparison is
moderatel correlated .ith Kob satisfaction. Ho.e#er, .hen discrepancies are used
as an e/planation of Kob satisfaction, the e/planation becomes tautological.
CB
:)< =ob Characteristics 7odel 8=C7J !ackman E Oldham@ $-<0;
0.,.1 o% the Job /haracteristics $odel has /ontrib0ted to o0r 6no%led#e
of Job Satisfaction
7he Kob characteristics model (Hac!man I (ldham, >ADG) .as one of the
first theories to focus on the en#ironmental determinants of Kob satisfaction.
0.,.2 Description of the Job /haracteristics $odel
7he Kob characteristics model proposes that comple/ Kobs are associated .ith
increased Kob satisfaction, moti#ation and performance. &t postulates that fi#e core
Kob characteristics are associated .ith positi#e outcomes (refer to 0igure >). 7hese
include s!ill #ariet, tas! identit, tas! significance, autonom, and feedbac!.
S!ill #ariet is the degree to .hich the Kob requires emploees to use different
s!ills. 7as! identit is the degree to .hich the Kob requires completion of a .hole
piece of .or!. 7as! significance is the degree to .hich the Kob has an effect on other
peoples@ li#es, and autonom is the degree to .hich the Kob pro#ides freedom.
0inall, feedbac! is the degree to .hich the Kob pro#ides clear information about the
effecti#eness of the emploees@ performance.
7hese fi#e #ariables do not directl relate to Kob satisfaction, rather the
relationship is mediated b three critical pschological states, including e/perienced
meaningfulness of the .or!, responsibilit for outcomes, and !no.ledge of results.
Scores on these critical pschological states are determined b the fi#e Kob
characteristics. E/perienced meaningfulness of the .or! refers to the degree to
CG
.hich the indi#idual e/periences the Kob as being meaningful and .orth.hile. &t is
determined b s!ill #ariet, tas! identit, and tas! significance. E/perienced
responsibilit, determined b autonom, is the degree to .hich the indi#idual feels
accountable for their .or!. :no.ledge of results, determined b feedbac!, refers to
the degree to .hich the indi#idual is a.are of ho. the are performing the .or!.
7hese critical pschological states are e/pected to predict a number of
personal and .or! outcome measures including .or! moti#ation, .or! performance,
.or! satisfaction, absenteeism and turno#er. Ho.e#er, the relationship bet.een the
critical pschological states and outcomes is mediated b gro.th need strength.
;ro.th need strength is the need for personal gro.th and de#elopment. &t is
proposed that indi#iduals .ith high gro.th need strength .ill respond more
positi#el to their critical pschological states than those .ith lo. gro.th need
strength.
CD
3igure $%=ob Characteristics 7odel
S!ill =ariet
7as! &dentit E/perienced meaningfulness High internal
7as! Significance of .or! .or! moti#ation

High qualit
4utonom E/perienced responsibilit .or! performance
for outcomes of the .or!
High satisfaction
0eedbac! :no.ledge of the actual results .ith .or!
of .or! acti#ities
6o. absenteeism
and turno#er

Emploee ;ro.th
1eed Strength

Source+ Hac!man, 9.3., I (ldham, ;.3. (>ADB). De#elopment of the 9ob Diagnostic
Sur#e. 9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog, G%, p. >G>.
)ore Kob
dimensions
)ritical
Pschological States
Personal and
.or! outcomes
CJ
0.,.3 Empirical St0dies of the $odel
7he Kob characteristics model has been e/tensi#el researched in o#er $%%
studies (3enn I =andenberg, >AAB), and at least three re#ie.s (0ried I 0erris, >AJDH
6oher, 1oe, Moeller I 0itLgerald, >AJBH 3oberts I ;lic!, >AJ>). 7hese studies
ha#e e/amined four maKor propositions of the model. 7hese include that+ >) the fi#e
core Kob characteristics contribute to the three critical pschological statesH $) the
critical pschological states .ill mediate the relationship bet.een the Kob
characteristics and the outcome #ariablesH ?) the model is moderated b gro.th need
strengthH and C) the model can be applied to the .or!place. 7hese propositions .ill
be e/amined for onl one outcome #ariable, general satisfaction. ;eneral
satisfaction is an o#erall measure of the degree to .hich the emploee is satisfied
and happ .ith their Kob (Hac!man I (ldham, >ADB).
0.,.3.1 Proposal .ne: The 3ive 0ore Job 0haracteristics 0ontrib1te to the
Three 0ritical Ps!cholo$ical States
4s demonstrated in 0igure >, each Kob characteristic contributes to one
critical pschological state. 7he first three Kob characteristics (s!ill #ariet, tas!
identit and tas! significance) contribute to e/perienced meaningfulness. 4utonom
contributes to e/perienced responsibilit, and feedbac! contributes to !no.ledge. &t
is proposed that each Kob characteristic should onl correlate .ith its designated
critical pschological state. Ho.e#er, studies e/amining the relationships among the
core Kob characteristics and the critical pschological states ha#e pro#ided onl
moderate support for this proposal.
CA
;enerall, the Kob characteristics correlate .ith their designated critical
pschological state, but the also correlate .ith other critical pschological states.
0or e/ample, autonom, as e/pected, correlates .ith e/perienced responsibilit
(r N %.C%, 0o/ I 0eldman, >AJJH r N %.C>, Hac!man I (ldham, >ADGH r N %.CB, *all,
)legg I 9ac!son, >ADJ). Ho.e#er, autonom also correlates .ith e/perienced
meaningfulness (r N %.CG, Hac!man I (ldham, >ADGH r N %.?D, *all et al., >ADJ),
and !no.ledge of results (r N %.$B, 0o/ I 0eldman, >AJJH r N %.$G, Hac!man I
(ldham, >ADGH r N %.?$, *all et al., >ADJ).
4nother e/ample of a Kob characteristic that correlates .ith more than one
critical pschological state is s!ill #ariet. S!ill #ariet correlates .ith e/perienced
meaningfulness (r N %.CG, 0o/ I 0eldman, >AJJH r N %.B>, Hac!man I (ldham,
>ADGH r N %.?%, *all et al., >ADJ) and .ith e/perienced responsibilit (r N %.?B, 0o/
I 0eldman, >AJJH r N %.C%, Hac!man I (ldham, >ADGH r N %.$$, *all et al., >ADJ).
7hese results suggest that, inconsistent .ith the Kob characteristics model, the core
Kob characteristics ma predict se#eral critical pschological states.
0.,.3.2 Proposal T&o: The De$ree to &hich the 0ritical Ps!cholo$ical States
%ediate the Celationship Det&een the Job 0haracteristics and the .1tcome
8ariables
4lthough the three critical pschological states are proposed to be the 'causal
core of the model- (Hac!man I (ldham, >ADG, p. J), onl a fe. researchers ha#e
e/amined the mediation hpothesis (e.g., 4rnold I House, >AJ%H 0o/ I 0eldman,
>AJJH Hac!man I (ldham, >ADGH 3enn I =andenberg, >AABH *all et al., >ADJ).
B%
7his hpothesis proposes that the relationship bet.een the fi#e core Kob
characteristics and outcome #ariables is mediated b the three critical pschological
states.
7his hpothesis has been tested b e/amining the correlations bet.een the
Kob characteristics and the outcome #ariables before, and after, the rele#ant critical
pschological states ha#e been controlled for. 7hese results ha#e pro#ided some
support for the mediation hpothesis. 0or e/ample, Hac!man and (ldham (>ADG)
found that the correlations bet.een the Kob characteristics and the outcome #ariables
.ere lo.er after controlling for the critical pschological state for s!ill #ariet and
tas! significance. Ho.e#er, for autonom and feedbac!, the correlations remained
moderate (r N %.$A, r N %.$?). 7hese results suggest that the critical pschological
states ma be partial mediators for onl some of the Kob characteristics.
7he mediation hpothesis has also been tested using multiple regression
analses. 7o support the mediation hpothesis, these analses should demonstrate
that the critical pschological states account for siLeable proportions of the #ariance
in each of the dependent #ariable, and that the core Kob dimensions add little to this
.hen considered in the same analsis (Hac!man I (ldham, >ADG). 3esults ha#e
demonstrated that the critical pschological states ha#e accounted for siLeable
amounts of the #ariance in Kob satisfaction, .here 3 N %.GJ (Hac!man I (ldham,
>ADG), and 3 N %.BC (*all et al., >ADJ). *hen the fi#e core Kob dimensions .ere
added to these analses, the #alue of 3 increased b %.%> in Hac!man and (ldham@s
(>ADG) stud and b %.>% in *all et al@s., (>ADJ) stud. 7his increase .as significant
in Hac!man and (ldham@s (>ADG) stud, suggesting that the #ariance in the fi#e core
B>
Kob characteristics is e/plained b the three critical pschological states. &t must be
noted ho.e#er that the increase in 3 .as small, and the significance ma ha#e
reflected that the emploed a large sample siLe (1NGBJ).
4lthough the abo#e studies e/amined the fi#e Kob characteristics together,
3enn and =andenberg (>AAB) e/amined the Kob characteristics separatel. 7he
e/amined the effects of the Kob characteristics before and after the rele#ant critical
pschological state .ere controlled for. 7he demonstrated that the effects of the Kob
characteristics .ere lo.er in magnitude .hen the critical pschological states .ere
controlled for, than .hen considered on their o.n. 0or e/ample, .hen predicting
general satisfaction, the partial regression coefficient of tas! identit on its o.n .as
%.$D, and .hen meaningfulness of .or! .as controlled for, the partial regression
coefficient .as %.$%. Ho.e#er, the partial regression coefficient representing tas!
identit effects on general satisfaction after meaningfulness .as controlled for .as
still significant (%.$%). 7his .as the case for three of the fi#e Kob characteristics.
Specificall, after the rele#ant critical pschological state .as controlled for, the
partial regression coefficients for s!ill #ariet .as %.%J, tas! identit .as %.$%, tas!
significance .as %.>B, autonom .as %.B?, and feedbac! .as %.>>. 7hese results
concur .ith the earlier studies that the critical pschological states are onl partial
mediators of the relationship bet.een Kob characteristics and outcomes.
&n summar, although onl a fe. studies ha#e tested the mediation
hpothesis, the generall suggest that the critical pschological states are, at best,
onl partial mediators of the relationship bet.een the core Kob characteristics and
general satisfaction.
B$
0.,.3.3 Proposal Three: The De$ree to &hich the %odel is %oderated b!
=ro&th Need Stren$th.
;ro.th need strength is a need for personal gro.th and de#elopment. &t is
postulated that people .ho ha#e a high need for personal gro.th .ill respond more
positi#el to the critical pschological states than people .ho ha#e a lo. need for
personal gro.th. 4lthough an earl stud conducted b Hac!man and (ldham
(>ADG) demonstrated that the relationship bet.een the critical pschological states
and general satisfaction .as significantl higher for emploees .ith high gro.th
need strength than for those .ith lo. gro.th need strength, later studies ha#e been
less supporti#e ()hampou/, >AJ%H 0ried I 0erris, >AJDH 7iegs, 7etric!, I 0ried,
>AA$).
0or e/ample, 7iegs et al., (>AA$) tested the moderating role of gro.th need
strength .ith o#er G,%%% subKects. "sing uni#ariate and multi#ariate hierarchical
moderated regression analses, the demonstrated that gro.th need strength did not
moderate the relationships among Kob characteristics, critical pschological states,
and moti#ation and affecti#e outcomes. &n summar, more recent studies ha#e
questioned the moderating role of gro.th need strength.
0.,.3.* Proposal 3o1r: #ppl!in$ the Job 0haracteristics %odel to ?orB
.r$anisations
4ccording to the Kob characteristics model, an emploer can increase Kob
satisfaction through increasing the fi#e Kob characteristics (e.g., s!ill #ariet, tas!
identit etc). 7hrough increasing these Kob characteristics, the emploees@ critical
B?
pschological states .ill increase, and Kob satisfaction .ill subsequentl increase.
Ho.e#er, as tests of the theor ha#e not e/amined changes in Kob characteristics, and
the theor does not specif ho. to ma!e changes to the Kob characteristics, it ma be
problematic to appl the Kob characteristics model to the .or!place.
7ests of the theor tend focus on naturall occurring #ariations rather than
e/amining changes in Kob characteristics. Ho.e#er, the effects of changing the Kob
characteristics for an emploee through Kob re8design ma ha#e different effects than
if the person .as recruited into the alread re8designed Kob (:ell, >AA$). 7his is
important because if the model .ere applied to a .or!place, the fi#e Kob
characteristics .ould be changed in an attempt to increase Kob satisfaction.
4s researchers ha#e not e/amined the effects of changing the Kob
characteristics, there is little research specifing ho. to change the Kob
characteristics (3oberts I ;lic!, >AJ>). 3esearchers ha#e attempted to change them
using their o.n techniques, ho.e#er these ha#e not been particularl successful.
:ell (>AA$) re#ie.ed such studies, demonstrating that Kob re8design led to
impro#ements in Kob satisfaction in >D out of ?% cases, a distribution that .as not
significantl different from chance. 7his suggests that Kob re8design did not
consistentl lead to increased Kob satisfaction. &t must be noted ho.e#er, that in
man of the studies, the emploees did not alter their perceptions of the Kob after Kob
re8design. *hen this finding .as ta!en into account, perceptions of Kob content and
Kob satisfaction .ere associated. 7he important finding from this re#ie. ho.e#er is
that Kob re8design ma not change emploees@ perceptions of their Kobs. 7his finding
has serious implications for emploers intending to implement Kob re8design. &t ma
BC
be costl and time8consuming to change the Kob characteristics, particularl if onl a
fe. emploees recognise and benefit from the changes.
0.,.* /oncl0sion
7he Kob characteristics model focuses on the en#ironmental determinants of
Kob satisfaction. 7he model proposes that fi#e Kob characteristics relate to Kob
satisfaction through influencing three critical pschological states. Empirical tests of
the model ha#e pro#ided partial support for the main propositions, ho.e#er these
tests ha#e also demonstrated that man of the relationships that e/ist bet.een
#ariables .ere e/cluded from the model. E#en if these relationships .ere added to
the model, practical difficulties in appling the findings to the .or!place reduce the
usefulness of the theor.
BB
:). =ob Demand%Control 7odel 8>arasek@ $-<-J >arasek E heorell@ $--:;
0.;.1 o% the Job Demand1/ontrol $odel /ontrib0tes to o0r 3nderstandin#
of Job Satisfaction
7he Kob demand8control model, de#eloped b :arase! (>ADA) is one of the
most .ell !no.n models in the occupational Kob stress literature (0letcher I 9ones,
>AA?). 6i!e the Kob characteristics model (Hac!man I (ldham, >ADG), it focuses on
the characteristics of the Kob rather than the person. "nli!e the Kob characteristics
model ho.e#er, it proposes that Kob satisfaction can be increased .ithout altering
.or! demands.
0.;.2 Description of the Job Demand1/ontrol $odel
7he Kob demand8control model proposes that Kob satisfaction is a function of
the Kob demands placed on the .or!er (Kob demands), and the discretion permitted in
deciding ho. to address those demands (Kob decision latitudeH :arase! I 7heorell,
>AA%). 9ob demands are the pschological stressors in the .or! en#ironment (i.e.,
high pressure of time, high .or!ing pace, difficult and mentall e/acting .or!). 9ob
decision latitude is the .or!er@s potential control o#er hisMher tas!s and conduct
during the .or!ing da. "sing the Kob demand and Kob decision latitude dimensions,
the Kob demand8control model predicts four outcomes. 7.o of these outcomes occur
.hen Kob demands are high (i.e., acti#e model, high8strain model), .hilst the other
t.o occur .hen Kob demands are lo. (i.e., lo.8strain model, and passi#e model).
BG
7he most positi#e outcomes, including learning and gro.th, result from
acti#e Kobs, .here both Kob demands and Kob decision latitude are high. 4lthough
high Kob demands increase phsiological arousal (i.e., increase heart rate or
adrenaline), high Kob decision latitude allo.s this arousal to be reduced. *or!ers
.ith high Kob decision latitude redirect the arousal into an appropriate response.
7he can choose ho. the deal .ith their demands. 7hrough dealing .ith demands
in their o.n .a, the can reduce the arousal.
4 high strain Kob is one in .hich Kob demands are high and Kob decision
latitude is lo.. 7his tpe of Kob results in the most ad#erse reactions of
pschological strain (i.e., fatigue, an/iet, depression, phsical illness). 7his is
because the arousal from the high Kob demands cannot be redirected. 4s the
emploees ha#e lo. Kob decision latitude, the cannot choose ho. to handle their
.or! demands. 4s a result, their arousal increases, producing a larger phsiological
reaction.
7he t.o other models are the lo.8strain model and the passi#e model. 6o.
strain Kobs are those in .hich Kob demands are lo. and Kob decision latitude is high.
7hese lo.8strain Kobs, although clearl not common, ma characterise some self8
emploed .or!ers, .ho onl ha#e the occasional customer. Emploees in these Kobs
ha#e a lo. ris! of Kob strain as the ha#e fe. demands that produce arousal. E#en
.hen the do ha#e the occasional demand, the can redirect the arousal into an
appropriate response. 0inall, a passi#e Kob is one in .hich both Kob demands and
Kob decision latitude are lo.. Emploees in these Kobs face fe. challenges and are
BD
unable to test ideas for impro#ing the .or! en#ironment. 4s a result, the often
suffer from reduced .or! moti#ation.
More recentl, in addition to Kob demands and Kob decision latitude, :arase!
and 7heorell (>AA%) added social support at .or!. Social support at .or! is defined
as the 'o#erall le#els of helpful social interaction a#ailable on the Kob from both co8
.or!ers and super#isors- (:arase! I 7heorell, >AA%, p. GA). &t is proposed that
social support at .or! is positi#el related to Kob satisfaction, and that Kob demands,
Kob decision latitude and social support at .or! interact to predict Kob satisfaction.
0.;.3 Empirical St0dies of the Job Demand1/ontrol $odel
&nitial tests of the Kob demand8control model demonstrated that both Kob
demands and Kob decision latitude predicted a number of dependent #ariables,
including e/haustion, depression, Kob dissatisfaction, life satisfaction, pill
consumption and sic! das (:arase!, >ADA). 9ob demands .ere positi#el related to
these #ariables, .hilst Kob decision latitude .as negati#el related to these #ariables.
3eplications of :arase!@s (>ADA) stud ha#e demonstrated that Kob demands and Kob
decision latitude separatel predict the dependent #ariables (D.er I ;anster, >AA>H
0letcher I 9ones, >AA?H Pane I 0letcher, >AJ?H Spector, >AJDH *arr, >AA%).
4lthough these results are supporti#e of the model, the central proposition of
the Kob8demand control model is that Kob demands and Kob decision latitude interact
to predict Kob strain. 7his interaction effect .as tested through regression analses
.here the interaction term .as added (:arase!, >ADA). 7hese analses demonstrated
that Kob demands and Kob decision latitude interacted to predict e/haustion, Kob
BJ
dissatisfaction, and life dissatisfaction. 7he follo.ing beta #alues .ere obser#ed for
e/haustion, (decision latitude N 8%.%%C, demands N %.%D, interaction N %.>>), Kob
dissatisfaction, (decision latitude N 8%.$$, demands N %.%%>, interaction N %.>$), and
life dissatisfaction, (decision latitude N 8%.>?, demands N 8%.%?, interaction N %.>>).
4lthough these interaction terms .ere significant, the method of analsis .as
subsequentl criticised (0letcher I 9ones, >AA?H ;anster I 0usilier, >AJA).
3esearchers propose that :arase! (>ADA) reKected the traditional tests of interaction
based on partialed product terms in regression analses, and rather relied on #ariables
that reflected differences bet.een demands and control (0letcher I 9ones, >AA?H
;anster I 0usilier, >AJA).
*hen researchers ha#e replicated these analses using an appropriate test of
the interaction effect specified b )ohen and )ohen (>AJ?), the interaction effect
tends to be insignificant (0letcher I 9ones, >AA?H Pane I 0letcher, >AJ?H *arr,
>AA%). 0or e/ample, Pane and 0letcher (>AJ?) tested the Kob demand8control model
on secondar school teachers. "sing multiple regression the demonstrated that the
interaction term did not predict the dependent #ariables, including depression,
an/iet, obsession, somatic smptoms, and cogniti#e failures.
4lthough these studies suggest that Kob demands and Kob decision latitude do
not interact to predict Kob satisfaction, a maKor problem has been identified in the
measurement of Kob decision latitude. 9ob decision latitude is defined as 'the
.or!ing indi#idual@s potential control o#er his tas!s and his conduct during the
.or!ing da- (:arase!, >ADA, p. $JA8$A%). Ho.e#er, the most recent measure of Kob
decision latitude, de#eloped b :arase! and 7heorell (>AA%), includes items
BA
reflecting decision latitude and decision authorit. Decision latitude refers to
.hether the Kob in#ol#es learning ne. things, and de#eloping s!ills. Decision
authorit refers to .hether the person has the freedom to ma!e their o.n decisions
and if the can choose ho. the perform their .or!. 4lthough the decision authorit
items are consistent .ith the definition of Kob decision latitude, the decision latitude
items ha#e been criticised for measuring s!ill le#el, s!ill #ariet, and Kob comple/it
(;anster, >AJA). 0actor analses of this scale ha#e confirmed that t.o factors
emerge (Smith, 7isa!, Hahn, I Schmeider, >AAD), namel decision latitude and
decision authorit. Ho.e#er, onl the decision authorit items are consistent .ith
the definition.
Man researchers ha#e proposed that the definition of Kob decision latitude is
similar to the definition of Kob autonom (de 9onge, Breu!elen, 6ande.eerd I
1iKhuis, >AAAH ;anster I 0usilier, >AJAH Spector, >AJG). &ndeed, ;anster and
0usilier (>AJA, p. $BG) propose that the 'definition of Kob decision latitude mirrors
Kob autonom.- 9ob decision latitude is 'the .or!ing indi#iduals potential control
o#er his tas!s and his conduct during the .or!ing da- (:arase!, >ADA, p. $JA8$A%),
.hilst Kob autonom is 'the degree to .hich the Kob pro#ides substantial freedom,
independence, and discretion to the indi#idual in scheduling the .or! and in
determining the procedures to be used in carring it out- (Hac!man I (ldham,
>ADG, p.$BJ). 4s a result of this similarit, researchers ha#e tested the Kob demand8
control model using measures of Kob autonom (de 9onge, Mulder I 1iKhuis, >AAAH
D.er I ;anster, >AA>). &t must be noted that these researchers ma refer to their
G%
scales as measuring Kob control, ho.e#er Kob control and Kob autonom appear to be
interchangeable (de 9onge et al., >AAAb).
0or e/ample, the interaction effect of the Kob demand8control model .as
tested using ;anster@s (>AJA, cited in D.er I ;anster, >AA>) multidimensional
control scale. 7his scale e/amines the amount of choice emploees ha#e in se#eral
areas of their .or!, such as their .or! tas!s, .or! pacing, .or! scheduling, phsical
en#ironment, decision ma!ing, interaction and mobilit.
"sing regression analses, D.er and ;anster (>AA>) demonstrated that the
interaction term predicted absenteeism, satisfaction .ith .or!, tardiness and sic!
das. Specificall, the interaction term contributed an additional >BS to e/plaining
the #ariance in absences, CS in satisfaction .ith .or!, $GS in tardiness, and CS in
sic! das. 7hese findings suggest that further research on the Kob demand control
model is required using ;anster@s (>AJA, cited in D.er I ;anster, >AA>) scale.
0.;.* /oncl0sion
7he Kob demand8control model is intuiti#el appealing, proposing that Kob
decision latitude can ameliorate Kob demands. 7his theor has recei#ed partial
support as Kob demands and Kob decision latitude ha#e separatel predicted the
dependent #ariables. *hether these t.o #ariables interact to predict Kob satisfaction
continues to be debated.
0.;.) E5tensions on the Job Demand1/ontrol $odel
4lthough the e#idence for the Kob demand8control model has been equi#ocal,
there are t.o main reasons .h this theor, o#er the other re#ie.ed theories,
G>
deser#es further attention. 0irst, the proposition that Kob autonom can someho.
ameliorate Kob demands is certainl appealing to emploers (;anster I 0usilier,
>AJA). &t suggests that emploers can increase Kob satisfaction .ithout altering .or!
demands. Second, although fe. researchers are continuing to in#estigate the other
theories, the Kob demand8control model continues to be the subKect of man papers
(e.g., de 9onge et al., >AAAaH Dollard, *inefield, *inefield, I de 9onge, $%%%H
Hallq#ist, Diderichsen, 7heorell, 3euter.all, I 4hlbom, >AAJH 6u, >AAAH Par!er I
Sprigg, >AAA).
0.;.9 "ddressin# the <=aps> in the Job Demand1/ontrol $odel
4lthough the Kob demand8control model deser#es further attention, it must be
recognised that, in addition to the operationalisation of Kob decision latitude, there is
a maKor gap in the theor. 7his in#ol#es the e/planation of ho. Kob decision latitude
results in positi#e outcomes.
0.;./.1 The E6planation of ho& Job Decision 9atit1de Ces1lts in Positive
.1tcomes
7he model proposes that Kob decision latitude increases Kob satisfaction b
allo.ing emploees to redirect the phsiological arousal produced from Kob
demands. Specificall, :arase! and 7heorell (>AA%) propose that emploees .ith
high Kob decision latitude can translate the phsiological arousal produced from Kob
demands into action through effecti#e problem sol#ing. 7he propose that .or!ers
.ith high Kob autonom are 'gi#en the freedom to decide .hat is the most effecti#e
course of action in response to a stressor- (:arase! I 7heorell, >AA%, p. ?G). 9ob
G$
decision latitude gi#es emploees the 'freedom of action in accomplishing the formal
.or! tas!2and the freedom to engage in the informal rituals- (:arase! I 7heorell,
>AA%, p. ?C).
4 maKor problem .ith this e/planation ho.e#er is that it is tautological. 7his
e/planation proposes that Kob decision latitude, or the abilit to choose at .or!, is
beneficial because it allo.s people to choose ho. the deal .ith their .or!
demands. 0urthermore, the model is non8specific, failing to discuss ho. the
phsiological arousal produced from Kob demands is redirected, and failing to define
the most effecti#e course of action. 4s such, it is un!no.n ho. a person .ith lo.
Kob decision latitude handles a Kob demand, and ho. this is different from a person
.ith high Kob decision latitude. &n response to this criticism, a ne. e/planation for
the relationship bet.een Kob decision latitude and Kob satisfaction is de#eloped. 7his
e/planation specifies ho. emploees .ith lo. Kob autonom differ from emploees
.ith high Kob autonom.
:)- DeveloDment of a new EIDlanation for the #elationshiD 4etween =ob
AutonomG and =ob Satisfaction: 'nfluencing EmDloGeesB #esDonses to
Work Difficulties
7he Kob demand8control model proposes that .or!ers .ith higher Kob
autonom ha#e higher Kob satisfaction because the can channel the arousal produced
from Kob demands into an appropriate response. 4 ne. e/planation is de#eloped
.hich proposes that emploees .ith lo. Kob autonom respond differentl to .or!
difficulties than emploees .ith high Kob autonom.
G?
&t must be noted that this e/planation focuses on .or! difficulties rather than
Kob demands. 9ob demands are the pschological stressors in the .or! en#ironment
(i.e., high pressure of time, high .or!ing pace, difficult and mentall e/acting .or!H
:arase! I 7heorell, >AA%). &t is e/pected that Kob autonom .ill influence
emploees@ responses to these Kob demands, but that the hpothesis can be e/tended
to an tpe of .or! difficult. 7hus, Kob autonom is e/pected to influence
emploees@ responses to their super#isors, co8.or!ers, pa, opportunities for
promotion, and so forth.
&n response to a .or! difficult, emploees can change the situation to suit
themsel#es, or the can change themsel#es to suit the situation (Hec!hausen I
SchulL, >AABH 3othbaum, *eisL I Snder, >AJ$). 7hese t.o strategies are referred
to as primar control and secondar control strategies respecti#el. Before
discussing ho. Kob autonom influences the control strategies that emploees use,
the t.o strategies .ill firstl be e/amined. Specificall, the nature of the strategies
.ill be e/amined, follo.ed b a discussion of the strategies that people generall use
and the most adapti#e strategies.
0.(.1 a- Primar! /ontrol Strate#ies and Secondar! /ontrol Strate#ies
7.o strategies implemented b emploees .hen the face difficult situations
are primar control strategies and secondar control strategies (3othbaum et al.,
>AJ$). Primar control in#ol#es changing the .or! en#ironment to suit one@s needs,
.hilst secondar control strategies in#ol#e changing oneself to suit the .or!
en#ironment. 0or e/ample, if an emploee felt the .ere being underpaid, the
GC
could use a primar control strateg, such as confronting their emploer, or the
could use a secondar control strateg and compare themsel#es to others .ho are
.orse off.
7his conceptualisation of primar and secondar control is similar to 6aLarus
and 0ol!man@s (>AJC) conceptualisation of problem8focussed coping and emotion8
focussed coping. &n this case, coping refers to the 'constantl changing cogniti#e
and beha#ioral efforts to manage specific e/ternal andM or internal demands that are
appraised as ta/ing or e/ceeding the resources of the person- (6aLarus I 0ol!man,
>AJC, p. >C>). )oping strategies are emploed to manage the problem causing the
distress (i.e., problem8focussed coping) and to regulate the accompaning emotions
(i.e., emotion8focussed copingH 0ol!man I 6aLarus, >AJ%).
7he theor underling problem8focussed and emotion8focussed coping and
the questionnaire designed to assess these strategies (i.e., *as of )oping
5uestionnaireH *)5H 0ol!man I 6araLus, >AJ%) is shrouded in methodological
limitations (Ed.ards I (@1eill, >AAJ). 0irst, the definition of coping focuses on
managing demands that ta/ or e/ceed personal resources. 7hus, coping strategies
should manage or reduce demands and enhance personal resources to meet demands.
7he *as of )oping 5uestionnaire (0ol!man I 6araLus, >AJ%) e/amines ho. an
indi#idual can cope .ith a situation b changing the en#ironment or the self,
ho.e#er it is not specified ho. these strategies manage demands or enhance
personal resources (Ed.ards I (@1eill, >AAJ).
Second, there is often a great deal of o#erlap among the coping dimensions,
.here some problem8focussed coping strategies resemble emotion8focussed coping
GB
strategies (Ed.ards I (@1eill, >AAJ). Problem8focussed coping is aimed at problem
sol#ing, or doing something to alter the situation, ho.e#er it also includes strategies
that alter the self. 0or e/ample, the problem8focussed coping strateg of 'shifting
one@s aspiration le#el- in#ol#es the person attempting to mo#e one@s goals to be
more in line .ith the current situation (6aLarus I 0ol!man, >AJC). 0urthermore,
'reducing ego in#ol#ement- in#ol#es the person attempting to reduce the o#erall
significance of the situation to oneself (6aLarus I 0ol!man, >AJC). 7hese strategies
alter the self and are more consistent .ith emotion8focussed coping strategies, .hich
aim to reduce the emotional distress associated .ith the problem.
7hird, and perhaps most concerning is that factor analses of the *as of
)oping 5uestionnaire are highl inconsistent. 3esearchers ha#e found support for
three factors (Par!es, >AJC), si/ factors (=italiano, 3usso, )arr, Maiuro I Bec!er,
>AJB) and eight factors (4ld.in I 3e#enson, >AJDH 0ol!man et al., >AJGH 6aLarus I
0ol!man, >AJC). Ed.ards and (@1eill (>AAJ) used confirmator factor analsis to
e#aluate these alternati#e factor structures, concluding that these models ielded poor
fit.
7he conceptualisation of primar control and secondar control is superior to
problem8focussed and emotion8focussed coping because it maintains the distinction
bet.een changing the en#ironment (i.e., primar control), and changing the self (i.e.,
secondar control). 7he control model not onl addresses responses to threat and
negati#e e#ents, but also beha#iour directed at gro.th and potential (SchulL I
Hec!hausen, >AAG). 0urthermore, the items on the scale are consistent .ith the
definitions of the control strategies.
GG
0.(.2 b- "mo0nts of Primar! /ontrol and Secondar! /ontrol
7he life span theor of control, de#eloped b Hec!hausen and SchulL (>AAB)
specifies .hich !ind of strategies people rel on throughout their life. 7he propose
that adults implement both primar and secondar control strategies, ho.e#er in
*estern samples, primar control strategies tend to be implemented first, and are
generall preferred o#er secondar control strategies.
3esearch e/amining the frequenc of primar control and secondar control8
tpe strategies in the .or! en#ironment is generall supporti#e of Hec!hausen and
SchulLPs (>AAB) propositions (e.g., Boe, >AAJH :oes!e, :ir! I :oes!e, >AA?). 0or
e/ample, Boe@s (>AAJ) stud on nurses demonstrated that, using a scale ranging
from % to C, on a#erage, problem8focussed strategies (M N $.CD) .ere reported more
than emotion8focussed strategies (M N >.G?). &n general, theoretical and empirical
research suggests that people tend to rel on primar control more than secondar
control. 7he ne/t step is to determine .hether primar control strategies are also the
most adapti#e strategies.
0.(.3 c- ?hich /ontrol Strate#ies are more "daptive for Emplo!ees@
7o determine .hich control strategies are more adapti#e for emploees,
theoretical and empirical research is e/amined. 7he theoretical propositions are
based on the life span theor of control (Hec!hausen I SchulL, >AAB), and the
empirical studies specif the correlations bet.een the control strategies and Kob
satisfaction.
GD
0.).3.1 Theoretical Propositions: The 9ife span Theor! of 0ontrol
7he life span theor of control (Hec!hausen I SchulL, >AAB) proposes that
primar control is more adapti#e than secondar control as it allo.s indi#iduals to
meet their o.n needs. &f a person successfull changes their en#ironment using
primar control, the o#ercome their difficult and also enhance their general
perceptions of control.
Secondar control strategies are less adapti#e than primar control strategies,
ho.e#er the ha#e t.o main benefits (Hec!hausen I SchulL, >AAB). 7he
compensate for primar control failure and the assist indi#iduals to focus on goals
that e/pand primar control (Hec!hausen I SchulL, >AAB).
Secondar control compensates for primar control failure, .hich ma
threaten self8esteem, self8efficac, and general perceptions of control (Hec!hausen,
SchulL I *rosch, >AAD). &f an indi#idual e/periences repeated primar control
failure, the ma become #ulnerable to e/periencing learned helplessness. Ho.e#er,
if the implement secondar control after primar control failure, the can protect
their self8esteem, and reduce the li!elihood of e/periencing repeated primar control
failure.
0or e/ample, an indi#idual ma face a difficult at .or!, .here a co8.or!er
is .or!ing at a slo. pace. 7o handle this difficult, the could use a primar control
strateg or a secondar control strateg. &t is e/pected that the .ould firstl
implement a primar control strateg, .here the ma confront their co8.or!er.
7he ma discuss the problem .ith them, and the co8.or!er ma agree to put in
more effort. &f this primar control strateg is successful, the o#ercome their
GJ
difficult. &f the strateg fails ho.e#er and the co8.or!er continues to .or! at the
same pace, the emploee is li!el to e/perience a loss in their general perception of
primar control. 7o a#oid repeating this situation, the could implement a secondar
control strateg, such as .isdom control, .here the thin!, '& can@t al.as get .hat &
.ant.- 7hrough implementing this strateg, the a#oid ris!ing repeated primar
control failure.
Secondar control strategies are also beneficial in assisting indi#iduals to
focus on goals that e/pand primar control. 4n indi#idual ma continue to persist to
sol#e a difficult if the implement secondar control strategies such as focussing on
past success. 7hrough such a focus, the indi#idual ma feel more confident in their
abilit to o#ercome the problem. &n summar, theoreticall, primar control is more
adapti#e than secondar control.
0.).3.2 ii- Empirical St1dies E6aminin$ the #daptiveness of Primar! and
Secondar! 0ontrol
Empirical studies e/amining the relationship bet.een primar control and
secondar control8tpe strategies and Kob satisfactionMKob stress ha#e pro#ided some
support for the life span theor of control (Boe, >AAJH Bur!e I ;reenglass, $%%%H
:oes!e et al., >AA?H :ohn, Ha I 6egere, >AACH 1orman, )ollins, )onner, Martin I
3ance, >AAB).
7hese studies generall demonstrate that primar control strategies are more
positi#el related to Kob satisfaction than secondar control strategies. 0or e/ample,
GA
1orman et al@s., (>AAB) stud of tele.or!ers demonstrated that problem8focussed
coping .as positi#el correlated .ith Kob satisfaction (r N %.??) and
emotion8focussed coping .as negati#el related to Kob satisfaction (r N 8%.$$). &n
Bur!e and ;reenglass@s ($%%%) stud of nurses, control coping .as also positi#el
related to Kob satisfaction (r N %.>C) and escape coping .as negati#el related to Kob
satisfaction (r N 8%.>$). 0urthermore, in :ohn et al@s., (>AAC) stud of teachers,
tas!8oriented coping .as negati#el related to percei#ed stress (r N 8%.?J) and
emotion8oriented coping .as positi#el related to stress (r N %.G?).
4lthough these results suggest that, consistent .ith the life span theor of
control, primar control is more adapti#e than secondar control, it is important to
note ho.e#er that these studies ha#e conceptualised primar control and secondar8
tpe strategies using se#eral different constructs and scales.
0or primar control, man of the scales are poorl designed, including items
that do not appear to measure primar control8tpe strategies. 0or e/ample, Bur!e
and ;reenglass (>AAB) relied on 6atac!@s (>AJG) measure of control coping. )ontrol
coping refers to actions and cogniti#e reappraisals that are proacti#e. Man of these
items refer to secondar control8tpe strategies that ma!e the person feel better about
the problem. 0or e/ample, the item 'tr to see the situations as an opportunit to
learn and de#elop ne. s!ills- is measuring a secondar control strateg !no.n as
positi#e re8interpretation. 0urthermore, the items 'tr to thin! of mself as a .inner8
as someone .ho al.as comes through- and 'tell mself that & can probabl .or!
things out to m ad#antage- refers to another secondar control strateg !no.n as
illusor optimism.
D%
4nother scale .hich confounds primar control strategies .ith secondar
control tpe strategies is the control coping scale implemented in :oes!e et al@s.,
(>AA?) stud. Man of the items included in this scale appear to measure secondar
control strategies. 0or e/ample, 'tal!ed .ith spouse or other relati#e about the
problem-, 'tried to see the positi#e side of the situation-, 'got bus .ith other things
to !eep m mind off the problem-, 'told mself things that helped me feel better-,
'let m feelings out someho.-, and 'e/ercising more.- 7hese strategies attempt to
ma!e the person feel better, rather than change a situation.
7he secondar control scales ha#e also been criticised for confounding
secondar control strategies .ith primar control strategies. 0or e/ample, Bur!e and
;reenglass ($%%%) relied on 6atac!@s (>AJG) measure of escape coping. 7his scale
included primar control8tpe strategies, such as 'delegate .or! to others- and 'set
m o.n priorities based on .hat & li!e to do.- Man other scales focused on
negati#e responses, such as a#oidance and denial. 0or e/ample, 1orman et alPs.,
(>AAB) re#ised #ersion of the )(PE scale relied on onl fi#e emotion8focussed
coping items, such as '& use alcohol or drugs to ma!e me feel better- and '& gi#e up
the attempt to get .hat & .ant.- 0urthermore, Boe (>AAJ) measured a#oidance
coping through items in#ol#ing suppression of feelings, blaming others, and getting
mad at people (i.e., ta!ing more tranquillising drugs, drin!ing more, a#oided being
.ith people in general).
4lthough a#oidance and denial are t.o tpes of secondar control, there are
man other .as that people can change the self to fit in .ith the en#ironment.
0ourteen secondar control strategies ha#e actuall been identified in the Primar
D>
and Secondar Scale (Heeps, )roft I )ummins, $%%%). 7hese strategies, displaed
in 7able $, concur .ith 3othbaum et al@s., (>AJ$) and Hec!hausen and SchulLPs
(>AAB) definition of secondar control.
&n summar, the empirical studies suggest that secondar control8tpe
strategies are negati#el related to Kob satisfaction. Ho.e#er, these findings ma not
be generalised to secondar control as conceptualised b Hec!hausen and SchulL
(>AAB), since these authors recognise that there are man positi#e secondar control
strategies.
D$
able *% SecondarG Control Strategies
&tem Secondar control strateg
& can see that something good .ill come of it. Positi#e re8interpretation
& remember ou canPt al.as get .hat ou .ant. *isdom
& !no. things .ill .or! out (: in the end. &llusor8optimism
& remember & am better off than man other people. Do.n.ard social
comparison
& remember & ha#e alread accomplished a lot in
life.
Past success
& remember the success of m famil and friends. =icarious
& thin! nice thoughts to ta!e m mind off it. Positi#e approach
& tell mself it doesnPt matter. ;oal disengagement
& donPt feel disappointed because & !ne. it might
Happen.
Predicti#e8negati#e
& can see it .as not m fault. 4ttribution
& ignore it b thin!ing about other things. 4cti#e a#oidance
& realise & didnPt need to control it an.a. Sour grapes
& thin! about m success in other areas. Present success
Source+ Heeps, 6., )roft, )., I )ummins, 3.4. ($%%%). Primar control and
Secondar )ontrol Scale ($
nd
ed.). Melbourne+ Dea!in "ni#ersit.
0.).3.3 0omparin$ the 9ife Span Theor! of 0ontrol and Empirical St1dies
E6aminin$ the most #daptive 0ontrol Strate$!
7he life span theor of control (Hec!hausen I SchulL, >AAB) proposes that
primar control strategies are more adapti#e than secondar control strategies as the
allo. indi#iduals to meet their o.n needs, and the facilitate general perceptions of
control. Secondar control strategies are still useful ho.e#er in compensating for
primar control failure and assisting indi#iduals to focus on goals that e/pand
primar control. 7he empirical studies partl concur .ith these propositions,
demonstrating that primar control8tpe strategies are positi#el related to Kob
satisfaction. &nconsistentl ho.e#er, se#eral studies demonstrate that secondar
control tpe strategies are negati#el related to Kob satisfaction (Boe, >AAJH Bur!e I
D?
;reenglass, $%%%H 0riedman et al., >AA$H :oes!e et al., >AA?H :ohn et al., >AACH
1orman et al., >AAB). &t must be noted ho.e#er, that these empirical studies ha#e
relied on man different scales, some of .hich are methodologicall fla.ed.
0.(.* S0mmar!
Emploees implement primar control and secondar control strategies .hen
the face a difficult at .or!, ho.e#er the tend to rel on primar control more
than secondar control. Primar control strategies allo. indi#iduals to meet their
o.n needs, and are positi#el related to Kob satisfaction. Secondar control
strategies are assumed to compensate for primar control failure, and assist
indi#iduals to focus on goals that e/pand primar control. 4lthough the ha#e been
negati#el related to Kob satisfaction in pre#ious studies, the scales ha#e been
criticised for focussing on negati#e strategies. &t is e/pected that secondar control
strategies, as assessed through the Primar )ontrol and Secondar )ontrol Scale
(Heeps et al., $%%%), .ill be beneficial for people after the ha#e e/perienced
primar control failure.
:)$: EIDlaining the #elationshiD 4etween =ob AutonomG and =ob Satisfaction:
!ow =ob AutonomG 'nfluences "rimarG and SecondarG Control
7he e/planation for the relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob
satisfaction proposes that Kob autonom influences the .a emploees respond to
their .or! difficulties. &t is e/pected that Kob autonom .ill influence the use and
adapti#eness of primar and secondar control strategies.
DC
Past research has tended to confuse Kob autonom and primar control
(7hompson, )ollins, 1e.comb I Hunt, >AAG) and as such, these t.o .ill be
differentiated. 9ob autonom refers to .hether emploees percei#e that the can
control aspects of their .or! en#ironment, .hereas primar control is a strateg that
emploees use to change their .or! en#ironment. 4n emploee .ho has high Kob
autonom percei#es that the can choose, or control man aspects of their .or!. 4n
emploee .ho has high primar control percei#es that the change their en#ironment
.hen the face a difficult at .or!.
4lthough Kob autonom and primar control are different, the are e/pected
to be related to each another. Specificall, Kob autonom should influence+ >), .hich
control strategies emploees rel onH and $) the adapti#eness of the control strategies
(i.e., the relationship bet.een the control strategies and Kob satisfaction).
0.10.1 1- 3se of Primar! and Secondar! /ontrol
&t is e/pected that all indi#iduals, .ith either lo. or high Kob autonom, .ill
implement both primar control and secondar control strategies. Both groups .ill
implement primar control strategies first, and if the e/perience primar control
failure, the .ill then implement secondar control strategies. 7he difference
bet.een the t.o groups lies in the amount of primar control failure that the
e/perience. Emploees .ith lo. Kob autonom ha#e little influence o#er their .or!
en#ironment are e/pected to e/perience more primar control failure than emploees
.ith high Kob autonom. 4s the need to compensate for this failure, it is e/pected
that these emploees (i.e., lo. Kob autonom) .ill implement more secondar
DB
control than emploees .ith high Kob autonom. Hence, it is proposed that the
abilit to choose is in#ersel related to the probabilit of primar control failure,
.hich in turn, influences the use of secondar control strategies.
7hese propositions are based on Hec!hausen and SchulL@s (>AAB) life span
theor of control. 7his theor proposes that as people age, the e/perience reduced
autonom, and the begin to e/perience primar control failure more often. 7o
compensate for this primar control failure, the need to increase their reliance on
secondar control strategies. 0or e/ample, an older indi#idual .ith restricted
mobilit ma e/perience primar control failure .hen .or!ing hard to maintain their
garden. 7o reduce the amount of primar control failure that the e/perience, the
can rel on secondar control strategies such as do.n.ard comparison (e.g. '& am
better off than others m age-). 7he proposal that older people rel on more
secondar control strategies than ounger people has been confirmed in se#eral
studies (i.e., )hipperfield, Perr I Menec, >AAAH Maher I )ummins, $%%>H
Mc)onatha I Huba, >AAA).
0.10.2 2- "daptiveness of Primar! and Secondar! /ontrol
&n addition to influencing the relati#e use of primar and secondar control
strategies, Kob autonom ma also influence the adapti#eness of such strategies.
4lthough it .as pre#iousl demonstrated that primar control8tpe strategies .ere
positi#el related to Kob satisfaction, and secondar control8tpe strategies .ere
negati#el related to Kob satisfaction, it has been suggested that these relationships
ma change if the person percei#es that the situation is uncontrollable (7hompson et
DG
al., >AAGH 7hompson, 1anni I 6e#ine, >AACH 7hompson, Sobole.8Shubin,
;albraith, Sch.an!o#s! I )ruLen, >AA?H 7hompson et al., >AAJ).
7.o models ha#e been de#eloped to e/plain this relationship, namel the
discrimination model and the primacMbac!8up model (7hompson et al., >AAJ). 7he
discrimination model proposes that primar control is more adapti#e than secondar
control .hen the situation is controllable, and that secondar control is more
adapti#e than primar control .hen the situation is uncontrollable. 7his model
underlies the philosoph of the serenit praerH ';rant me the strength to change
.hat & can, the patience to accept .hat & cannot, and the .isdom to !no. the
difference- (7hompson et al., >AAJ, p. BJD). &n regard to Kob autonom, this model
suggests that primar control strategies are more adapti#e for emploees .ith high
Kob autonom, and secondar control strategies are more adapti#e for emploees
.ith lo. Kob autonom.
7he primacMbac!8up model, on the other hand, proposes that primar control
is more adapti#e than secondar control in controllable and relati#el uncontrollable
situations. 7he role of secondar control is onl to 'compensate for lo. primar
control, and help increase feelings of o#erall control- (7hompson et al., >AAJ,
p. BJD). 7hus secondar control is onl beneficial .hen primar control is lo.. &n
regard to Kob autonom, the primacMbac!8up model proposes that primar control
strategies are the most adapti#e strateg for emploees .ith high Kob autonom and
for emploees .ith lo. autonom, unless primar control is lo..
&t is difficult to differentiate the primacMbac!8up model from the
discrimination model. 7he primacMbac!8up model proposes that primar control is
DD
more adapti#e than secondar control unless primar control is lo.. &f a person has
lo. primar control, the belie#e that the cannot change the en#ironment using an
acti#e strateg, such as .or!ing hard. Ho.e#er, this means that the percei#e the
situation to be uncontrollable. Hence, the primacMbac!8up model is proposing that
secondar control is onl useful .hen primar control is lo., ho.e#er primar
control is lo. .hen the situation is percei#ed as being uncontrollable. 7his is indeed
similar to the discrimination model, .hich proposes that secondar control is best in
uncontrollable situations. 4s such, it appears that there ma be some o#erlap in the
models.
&n order to reduce the o#erlap in the models, the primacMbac!8up model
should be re#ised to propose that primar control is the most adapti#e strateg in
controllable and uncontrollable situations. 7he proposal that secondar control is
beneficial .hen primar control is lo. needs to be e/cluded as it o#erlaps .ith the
discrimination model. 3esearchers .ho ha#e tested the primacMbac!8up model
generall focus on the proposal that primar control is adapti#e in lo.8control and
high8control situations.
0.10.2.1 Empirical St1dies E6aminin$ the Discrimination %odel and the
Primac!ADacB24p %odel
(nl a fe. studies ha#e e/amined the most adapti#e control strategies in
lo.8control situations (7hompson et al., >AAGH >AACH >AA?H >AAJ). &n a re#ie. of
these studies, 7hompson et al., (>AAJ) concluded that the generall supported the
DJ
primacMbac!8up model. 4s se#eral serious methodological problems ha#e been
identified in these studies, the .ill be re#ie.ed.
0.10.2.2 Primac!ADacB24p %odel
7he first stud that 7hompson et al., (>AAJ) cites as supporting the
primacMbac!8up model is 7hompson et al@s., (>AA?) stud. 4ccording to 7hompson
et al., (>AAJ), this stud demonstrated that cancer patients .ith higher le#els of
primar control .ere less depressed than those .ith lo.er le#els of primar control.
)ontrol .as negati#el related to maladKustment (r N 8%.CG) and positi#el related to
phsical functioning (r N %.?A) and marital satisfaction (r N %.$C). 4s such, it .as
concluded that this stud supported the primacMbac!8up model (7hompson et al.,
>AAJ).
Ho.e#er, this conclusion is inaccurate as the stud did not measure primar
control, rather it measured percei#ed control. 7he participants .ere firstl as!ed
about ho. much control the had o#er #arious facets of their li#es (i.e., percei#ed
control o#er emotions, phsical smptoms, relationship .ith famil). 7he .ere
then as!ed .hat tpe of things the ha#e done to control their feelings o#er each
facet, and ho. effecti#e these .ere. 7he items measuring amount of percei#ed
control .ere then added to the effecti#eness item for each facet. 7he resulting scale
assessed percei#ed control, and the effecti#eness of the control strategies, but clearl
failed to measure primar control.
*hen the findings are reinterpreted using percei#ed control rather than
primar control, the are intuiti#e. &t is not surprising that it is beneficial for cancer
DA
patients to belie#e that the can control areas of their li#es. &ndeed, a fundamental
belief about human nature is that .e ha#e a need to control e#ents, people and
situations (De)harms, >AGJH *hite, >ABA). Ho.e#er, percei#ed control is not the
same as primar control. *hereas autonom or control refers to .hether a person
percei#es that can change the en#ironment, primar control refers to the specific
strategies people use to change the en#ironment to suit their needs. 4s such,
7hompson et al@s., (>AA?) stud does not adequatel test the primacMbac!8up model.
4nother stud .hich claims to support the primacMbac!8up model is
7hompson et al@s., (>AAG) stud on H&=8positi#e men in prison. 7he e/amined the
relationship bet.een primar and secondar control and distress. 3egression
analses demonstrated that primar control .as negati#el related to distress and
secondar control .as positi#el related to distress. 4lthough these findings suggest
that people in a lo.8control en#ironment should rel on primar control, the
measurement of primar and secondar control in the stud is questionable.
7o measure primar control, the participants .ere as!ed ho. much control
the had o#er a #ariet of outcomes, such as their feelings, da8to8da acti#ities,
nutrition, and H&=8related smptoms. 7his measure is criticised ho.e#er, as the
items do not refer to primar control strategies, but rather refer to le#els of percei#ed
control. 4s mentioned pre#iousl, primar control is not the same as percei#ed
control. 4s such, a person ma report that the can control their relationship .ith
their cellmates and ho. their correctional officers treat them, ho.e#er this does not
indicate that the use primar control strategies .hen the ha#e a difficult .ith
their cellmates or correctional officers.
J%
4 further problem .ith 7hompson et al@s., (>AAG) stud concerns the
measurement of secondar control. Secondar control .as measured b the
follo.ing itemH 'Ho. much do ou feel o!a about (an outcome) because ou Kust
accept it and don@t tr to change it,- 4lthough secondar control generall in#ol#es
acceptance of the situation, this item is criticised as it fails to ma!e respondents
a.are of the different .as the can accept a situation. 0or e/ample, the can
belie#e that it .ill .or! out o!a in the end (i.e., illusor optimism), or the can
thin! that the canPt al.as get .hat the .ant (i.e., .isdom). 7he respondents in
7hompson et al@s., (>AAG) stud .ere not made a.are of these different strategies,
and as such ma ha#e underestimated their use of secondar control. 4 further
problem .ith this measure of secondar control is that it does not Kust as! if the
person uses acceptance, rather it confounds acceptance .ith feeling o!a.
(ne final stud .hich claims to support the primacMbac!8up model is
7hompson et al@s., (>AAJ). 7he e/amined .hether adults (oung, middle, and
older) use primar or secondar control to handle their appearance8related changes
due to aging. 7he oungest group .as e/pected to ha#e the most percei#ed control
o#er age8related changes, .hilst the oldest group .as e/pected to ha#e the least.
4#eraging o#er all age groups, primar control (r N %.CG) and secondar
control (r N %.C$) .ere positi#el related to satisfaction .ith phsical appearance,
and primar control (r N 8%.$%) and secondar control (r N 8%.$C) .ere negati#el
related to emotional distress. 4lthough these correlations suggest that secondar
control is adapti#e, multiple regression analses indicated that secondar control .as
onl beneficial .hen primar control .as lo.. 7here .as no relationship bet.een
J>
secondar control and distress for those .ith high primar control, but for those .ith
lo. primar control, secondar control .as negati#el related to distress.
4lthough these results appear to pro#ide support for the primacMbac!8up
model, the items measuring primar and secondar control .ere poorl constructed.
Primar control .as measured b the follo.ing fi#e items rated on a scale from
strongl agree to strongl disagree+ >) '& feel that & ha#e some control o#er the
effects of aging on m appearance-H $) '& dread the thought of aging, but there is not
much & can do about it- (re#ersed coded)H ?) '4s long as & put the effort in & can !eep
loo!ing attracti#e-H C) '& can sta attracti#e and outhful as long as possible if & Kust
.or! at itTH and B) '& get depressed .hen & thin! about .hat@s coming as & get older-
(re#erse coded).
7hese items are criticised as some of them are based on the assumption that
aging is a negati#e process (items t.o and fi#e). 0or e/ample, although 7hompson
et al., (>AAJ) proposed that a person .ho disagreed .ith the item '& dread the thought
of aging, but there is not much & can do about it- has high primar control, it ma be
that the do not dread the thought of aging. 0urthermore, the item '& get depressed
.hen & thin! about .hat@s coming as & get older- does not refer to a secondar
control strateg, and simpl refers to the persons attitude to.ards aging. (ther items
are based on the assumption that people percei#e themsel#es as being attracti#e
(items three and four). 0or e/ample, a person ma disagree .ith the item '& can sta
attracti#e and outhful as long as possible if & Kust .or! at it-, not because the ha#e
lo. primar control, but because the do not belie#e that the are attracti#e.
J$
7he items in the secondar control scale are also criticised for being based on
the assumption that aging is a negati#e process. 7he scale includes items such as 'as
long as & !no. .hat@s coming, it doesn@t bother me too much to get older- and '& am
not .orried about getting older, because & trust that ;od .ill ta!e care of me.- 7hese
items confound the perceptions of aging .ith the secondar control strateg. 4s
such, it is impossible to tell if the person is referring to the part of the question
referring to aging or the part referring to the strateg. 0or e/ample, a respondent
ma report that the strongl agree the are Tnot .orried about getting older, because
the trust that ;od .ill ta!e care of them- because the are not .orried about getting
older, or because the trust that ;od .ill ta!e care of them. &n summar, as .ith the
other re#ie.ed studies, se#eral measurement issues limit the #alidit of 7hompson et
al@s., (>AAJ) findings.
0.10.2.3 Discrimination %odel
(ne stud conducted b 7hompson et al., (>AAC) supported the
discrimination model. 7his stud e/amined the relationship bet.een primar and
secondar control and depression for men .ith a diagnosis of H&=. Both strategies
appeared to be adapti#e for people .ho presumabl .ere in a lo.8control situation.
Primar control (r N 8%.?G) and secondar control (r N 8%.C>) .ere negati#el related
to depression. 0urthermore, for the group that .as lo. in primar control, secondar
control .as negati#el related to depression. 0or those high in primar control,
secondar control .as .ea!l related to depression. 7he #alues of these correlations
cannot be discussed ho.e#er, as the authors onl reported them in graphical form.
J?
7his stud pro#ided some support for the discrimination model, ho.e#er the
measurement of primar control and secondar control strategies .as once again
limited. 7he items measuring the control strategies .ere the same as 7hompson et
al@s., (>AAG) stud, .here primar control strategies .ere measured b percei#ed
control and secondar control strategies .ere measured b acceptance.
0.10.2.* 0oncl1sion: Does Cesearch S1pport the Primac!ADacB24p %odel or
the Discrimination %odel@
Most of the studies re#ie.ed thus far ha#e concluded that their findings
support the primacMbac!8up model. Ho.e#er as these studies ha#e often failed to
#alidl measure primar control and secondar control strategies, further research is
required to determine .hether primar control is adapti#e in lo.8control situations.
7his research must rel on a measure of primar and secondar control that concurs
.ith Hec!hausen and SchulLPs (>AAB) conceptualisation of control.
&t is e/pected that emploees .ith lo. Kob autonom .ill rel on less primar
control and more secondar control than emploees .ith high Kob autonom.
Emploees .ith lo. Kob autonom are e/pected to ha#e a higher probabilit of
failing .hen implementing primar control. 7o compensate for this primar control
failure, the can rel on secondar control.
0.10.3 S0mmar!
9ob autonom refers to the percei#ed abilit to e/ert choice in the .or!
en#ironment. &t ma influence emploees use of primar and secondar control, and
the adapti#eness of the control strategies. &n regard to the use of the control
JC
strategies, it is e/pected that the abilit to choose facilitates the probabilit of
primar control failure, .hich in turn, influences the use of secondar control
strategies. &n regard to the adapti#eness, empirical studies suggest that primar
control strategies are more positi#el related to Kob satisfaction than secondar
control strategies in lo.8control situations. 7hese studies are criticised ho.e#er for
their measurement of primar and secondar control, and it is e/pected that .hen
the are measured #alidl, primar control is more adapti#e in controllable
situations, and secondar control is more adapti#e in uncontrollable situations.
JB
:)$$ Other 7aKor "redictors of =ob Satisfaction
&n addition to Kob autonom and the control strategies, t.o other maKor
predictors of Kob satisfaction are e/amined. 7he are personalit and life
satisfaction.
0.11.1 Personalit!
3esearchers ha#e recentl paid considerable attention to the role of
personalit in predicting Kob satisfaction. 7he most common ta/onom of
personalit, the fi#e8factor model ()osta I Mc)rae, >AJB) includes neuroticism,
e/tro#ersion, conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness to e/perience.
3esearchers ha#e e/amined ho. some of these personalit #ariables, namel
neuroticism and e/tro#ersion, influence le#els of Kob satisfaction.
0.11.1.1 Personalit! and Job Satisfaction
Personalit ma directl influence Kob satisfaction. 4s e#idence for this
proposal, researchers ha#e demonstrated that Kob satisfaction is consistent o#er time
and across situations. 0or e/ample, Sta. and 3oss (>AJB) demonstrated that Kob
attitudes remained consistent o#er time, e#en if the person changed emploer, andMor
occupation. 7he conducted a longitudinal sur#e, administering a one8item
measure of Kob satisfaction to o#er B%%% men in >AGG, >AGA and >AD>. 7he
correlated the scores on this measure of Kob satisfaction o#er time. 7he correlation
bet.een satisfaction scores .hen the emploer and occupation .ere the same, .ere
moderate (r N %.?D to r N %.CJ). *hen the emploer or the occupation had changed,
JG
the correlations .ere onl slightl lo.er (r N %.>A to r N %.?C). 7hese correlations
pro#ide support for the stabilit of Kob satisfaction, ho.e#er more supporti#e results
.ere pro#ided b the regression analses.
&n the regression analses, the authors used the >AGG and >AGA Kob
satisfaction scores to predict the >AD> Kob satisfaction scores. 7he prior Kob
satisfaction scores (i.e., >AGG, >AGA data) .ere almost al.as a better predictor of the
>AD> Kob satisfaction scores than situational #ariables, such as changes in pa and Kob
status. 7his .as e#en the case .hen the sample had changed emploers but had the
same occupation, and .hen the sample had changed occupation but still had the
same emploer. Situational #ariables, including change in pa .as a significant
predictor of the >AD> Kob satisfaction score onl .hen the emploer and occupation
had changed. Ho.e#er, the strength of the relationship .as considerabl less than
prior Kob attitudes. Hence, Sta. and 3oss@s (>AJB) stud demonstrated that Kob
satisfaction scores could be predicted fi#e ears later b earlier Kob satisfaction
scores, e#en if the indi#idual had changed their emploers or changed their
occupation.
4lthough Sta. and 3oss@s (>AJB) stud demonstrated that Kob satisfaction
remained stable, the authors did not specificall e/amine the relationship bet.een
personalit and Kob satisfaction. Ho.e#er, Sta., Bell and )lausen (>AJG) used
measures of childhood personalit to predict adulthood le#els of Kob satisfaction.
7he combined three longitudinal sur#es, and compared the subKects at earl
adolescence (>$8>C ears), late adolescence (>B8>J ears) and adulthood. 7he
correlated childhood measures of personalit .ith facet Kob satisfaction, and an
JD
o#erall one8item measure of career satisfaction. 7he correlations .ere all positi#e,
ranging from r N %.%C to r N %.CB. Hence, these results suggest that childhood
personalit is related to Kob satisfaction in adulthood.
7o add support to the proposal that Kob satisfaction is influenced b
dispositional #ariables such as personalit, researchers ha#e more recentl tested
.hether there is a genetic component to Kob satisfaction. 4r#e, Bouchard, Segal
and 4braham@s (>AJA) studied monoLgotic t.ins .ho .ere reared apart. 7he
completed the Minnesota Satisfaction 5uestionnaire (*eiss, Da.is, England I
6ofquist, >AGD), .hich consists of an intrinsic satisfaction scale, an e/trinsic
satisfaction scale, and a general satisfaction scale. &ntraclass correlations, adKusted
for age and se/, .ere significant for intrinsic satisfaction (r N %.?$) and for general
satisfaction (r N %.?>). Similar findings .ere found b 4r#e, Mc)all, Bouchard,
7aubman and )a#anaugh (>AAC) .here r N %.$D, and 6!!en and 7ellegen (>AAB)
.here r N %.CC to r N %.B$.
&n summar, these findings suggest that Kob attitudes are consistent o#er time,
that personalit measured in adolescence predicts Kob satisfaction in adulthood, and
that there is a genetic component to Kob satisfaction. 7he ne/t step is to e/amine the
relationship bet.een specific personalit characteristics and le#els of Kob
satisfaction.
JJ
0.11.1.2 The Celationship Det&een Ne1roticism and E6troversion and Job
Satisfaction
1euroticism tends to be negati#el related to Kob satisfaction, .here r N 8%.$A
(9udge, Bono I 6oc!e, $%%%), r N 8%.>J (7o!ar I Subich, >AAD), r N 8%.$B (7err,
1ielsen I Perchard, >AA?), r N 8%.$> (Smith, (rgan I 1ear, >AJ?), and r N 8%.C%,
r N 8%.$G, r N 8%.?C (Hart, >AAA). 7he relationship bet.een e/tro#ersion and Kob
satisfaction tends to be much .ea!er than that of neuroticism. 7he follo.ing
correlations bet.een e/tro#ersion and Kob satisfaction ha#e been reportedH r N %.$B,
r N %.%J, r N %.>J (Hart, >AAA), and r N %.>G (7o!ar I Subich, >AAD). &n summar,
people reporting higher e/tro#ersion and lo.er neuroticism tend to report higher Kob
satisfaction.
0.11.1.3 S1mmar!
Personalit appears to be an important predictor of Kob satisfaction. 3esearch
has demonstrated that Kob attitudes are consistent o#er time, and that personalit
measured in adolescence predicts Kob satisfaction in adulthood. People high on
e/tro#ersion and lo. on neuroticism tend to report higher Kob satisfaction.
0.11.2 8ife Satisfaction
3esearchers ha#e long been interested in the relationship bet.een life
satisfaction and Kob satisfaction (9udge I *atanabe, >AAC). 4lthough #aring
definitions and theories of life satisfaction ha#e been proposed, theoretical and
empirical support has been pro#ided for se#en domains of life satisfaction. 7hese
JA
include material .ell8being, emotional .ell8being, producti#it, health, intimac,
safet, and communit ()ummins, >AAGH 0elce I Perr, >AAB). Before the
relationship bet.een life satisfaction and Kob satisfaction is e/amined, it .ill be
demonstrated that life satisfaction, li!e Kob satisfaction, is influenced b personalit.
0.11.2.1 Personalit! and 9ife Satisfaction
&n addition to Kob satisfaction, neuroticism and e/tro#ersion also predict life
satisfaction (De1e#e, >AAA). 1euroticism is negati#el related to life satisfaction
.here r N 8%.$A to r N 8%.?D (Mc)rae I )osta, >AA>), r N 8%.C$ ()osta I Mc)rae,
>AJA), and r N 8%.CG (9udge et al., $%%%). E/tro#ersion is positi#el related to life
satisfaction, (e.g., r N %.>A to r N %.$$ (Mc)rae I )osta, >AA>), and r N %.>D to
r N %.$% ()osta I Mc)rae, >AJA). (n the basis of these lo. to moderate
correlations, e/tro#ersion and neuroticism ha#e been proposed as the !e to the
relationship bet.een personalit and life satisfaction (De1e#e, >AAAH Diener, Suh,
6ucas I Smith, >AAA).
0.11.2.2 9ife Satisfaction and Job Satisfaction
9ob satisfaction is e/pected to be related to life satisfaction, as .or! is a
significant and central aspect of man peoples@ li#es. 7.o models ha#e been
de#eloped to e/plain the lin!age bet.een Kob satisfaction and life satisfaction,
namel the spillo#er model, and the compensator model (*ilens!, >AG%). 7he
spillo#er model assumes that satisfaction in one domain of an indi#idual@s life
e/tends into other areas. 6ife satisfaction ma spillo#er into Kob satisfaction or Kob
satisfaction ma spillo#er into life satisfaction. Either .a, life satisfaction and Kob
A%
satisfaction .ould be positi#el related. 4lternati#el, the compensator model
proposes that Kob satisfaction and life satisfaction .ould be negati#el related. 4n
emploee .ith lo. Kob satisfaction .ould be e/pected to compensate for this b
engaging in satisfing non8.or! acti#ities.
4 meta8analsis of ?C studies e/amining the relationship bet.een Kob
satisfaction and life satisfaction demonstrated that the t.o #ariables .ere positi#el
correlated, .ith an a#erage correlation of r N %.CC (7ait, Padgett I Bald.in, >AJA).
Se#eral more recent studies found correlations of similar magnitudes. 0or e/ample,
&#erson and Maguire ($%%%) found a correlation of r N %.$?, and Beutell and
*ittig8Berman (>AAA) reported a correlation of r N %.?A. 9udge, 6oc!e, Durham and
:luger (>AAJ) found that r N %.GJ and r N %.C$, and 6andr ($%%%) found that
r N %.CC. 7hese findings demonstrate that Kob satisfaction and life satisfaction are
moderatel related, and as such, support the spillo#er model.
3esearchers ha#e also e/amined ho. life satisfaction relates to the specific
facets of Kob satisfaction (*right, Bennett I Dun, >AAAH 9udge I 6oc!e, >AA?).
9udge and 6oc!e@s (>AA?) stud of clerical .or!ers demonstrated that life
satisfaction .as positi#el related to all facets of Kob satisfaction, including nature of
.or! (r N %.?A), co8.or!ers (r N %.>D), super#ision (r N %.$G), pa (r N %.?B), and
promotion (r N %.$C). &n *right et al@s., (>AAA) stud of professional card dealers,
onl satisfaction .ith pa (r N %.??) and satisfaction .ith the .or! itself (r N %.$J),
.ere related to life satisfaction. Satisfaction .ith super#ision (r N %.$%), satisfaction
.ith promotional opportunities (r N %.>G), and satisfaction .ith co8.or!ers
(r N 8%.%C) .ere not significantl related to Kob satisfaction.
A>
Studies generall pro#ide support for the spillo#er model, and most
researchers tend to rel on this model (3ain, 6ane I Steiner, >AA>). 4lthough it has
been suggested that this model ma not be appropriate for e#erone, 9udge and
*atanabe (>AAC) concluded that Kob satisfaction and life satisfaction .ere positi#el
related for appro/imatel J%S of the participants in their stud.
4lthough these studies ha#e supported the spillo#er model, the methodolog
has been criticised. 0irst, common method #ariance has been identified as a problem
as both Kob satisfaction and life satisfaction are measured b self8report (3ain et al.,
>AA>). 7his issue is e/tremel difficult to a#oid ho.e#er as there is no acceptable
.a to measure attitudes other than self8report. (bKecti#e measures of life
satisfaction correlate poorl .ith self8reported life satisfaction ()ummins, $%%%a),
and beha#ioural measures of Kob satisfaction correlate onl .ea!l .ith self8reported
measures of Kob satisfaction (&affaldano I Muchins!, >AJB).
7he second methodological limitation concerns the cross8sectional stud
designs, .hich cannot determine the direction of causalit bet.een t.o #ariables.
)ramer (>AAB) used cross8lagged correlations to e/amine a time8related relationship
bet.een Kob satisfaction and life satisfaction o#er >? months. 9ob satisfaction and
life satisfaction .ere positi#el related at the initial testing and also >? months later,
suggesting that the t.o #ariables ma be causall related.
&n summar, the direction of the relationship bet.een Kob satisfaction and life
satisfaction continues to be debated (&#erson I Maguire, $%%%). &t is generall
assumed that Kob satisfaction contributes to life satisfaction, but it is possible that life
satisfaction influences Kob satisfaction, or that the relationship is reciprocal. &t is
A$
clear ho.e#er, that life satisfaction and Kob satisfaction are positi#el related. 7his
suggests that people .ith high Kob satisfaction .ill also ha#e high life satisfaction,
and that people .ith lo. Kob satisfaction .ill also ha#e lo. life satisfaction.
Ho.e#er, the relationship ma not be quite so straightfor.ard as life satisfaction is
held under homeostatic control.
0.11.2.3 0onsistenc! of 9ife Satisfaction
3ecent publications ha#e proposed a model for the homeostatic maintenance
of life satisfaction ()ummins, $%%%b). 7he basis of this model is the finding that life
satisfaction, .hen measured either b a single question about 'satisfaction .ith life
as a .hole- or b satisfaction a#eraged across a number of domains, is remar!abl
predictable. 7he demonstration of this phenomenon has rested on a statistic called a
percentage of scale ma/imum (SSM) .hich con#erts 6i!ert scale data into a range
from % to >%%. 4ppling this statistic to the combined mean #alues from large
population sur#es has re#ealed that the a#erage DB U $.BSSM. &n other .ords,
using t.o standard de#iations to define the normati#e range, it can be predicted that
the mean le#el of life satisfaction of *estern population samples .ill lie .ithin the
range D%8J%SSM ()ummins, >AAB).
7he consistenc of these data pro#ides a basis for the proposal that life
satisfaction is held under homeostatic control. 7he model that describes ho. such
homeostasis can be achie#ed proposes t.o le#els of influence. 7he first in#ol#es an
affecti#e 'set8point range- .hich is determined b personalit. 7he second le#el
in#ol#es a buffering sstem comprising the three processes of percei#ed control,
A?
optimism, and self8esteem ()ummins, $%%%b). 7hus, it is proposed, through the
interaction of these mechanisms, the a#erage life satisfaction for normati#e
population samples is held .ithin the range D%8J%SSM.
7his model of homeostasis can be used to ma!e predictions about the life
satisfaction of emploees .ith lo. Kob autonom and emploees .ith high Kob
autonom. Pro#ided that their homeostatic sstems are operating normall, their life
satisfaction is predicted to lie .ithin the normal range. Ho.e#er, the homeostatic
sstem can be defeated b a substantial source of negati#e input, and the lo. Kob
autonom group ma ha#e an increased probabilit of encountering such
circumstances. 7his ma be, for e/ample, through e/posure to circumstances of
reduced personal control. 7hus it is predicted that a sample of emploees .ith lo.
Kob autonom .ill contain more people e/periencing homeostatic defeat than a
sample of emploees .ith high Kob autonom. 7he emploees e/periencing such
defeat are e/pected to report an a#erage le#el of life satisfaction that appro/imates
the lo.er boundar of the normati#e range (D%SSM) or e#en falls belo. this le#el.
0.11.2.* S1mmar!
4s postulated b the spillo#er model, life satisfaction and Kob satisfaction are
positi#el related. 4lthough the are e/pected to co8#ar, life satisfaction is held
under homeostatic control and ma not be free to #ar. 7he a#erage le#el of life
satisfaction reported b emploees is e/pected to lie .ithin D%8J%SSM. 7he ma
report a lo.er le#el of Kob satisfaction ho.e#er, if the are e/periencing homeostatic
defeat.
AC
:)$* 7odel of =ob Satisfaction
7his re#ie. has identified fi#e main predictors of Kob satisfaction. 4s
demonstrated in 0igure $, these include Kob autonom, primar control, secondar
control, personalit, and life satisfaction. 7he maKor proposal of the model is that
primar and secondar control mediate the relationship bet.een Kob autonom and
Kob satisfaction. 7his is represented b the arro.s from Kob autonom, through
primar and secondar control, to Kob satisfaction. Primar and secondar control
ma not account for all of the #ariance in Kob autonom, and thus Kob autonom is
also directl related to Kob satisfaction.
&t is e/pected that Kob autonom influences the use and adapti#eness of the
control strategies. &n terms of the use of the control strategies, emploees .ith high
Kob autonom are e/pected to rel on more primar control and less secondar
control than emploees .ith lo. Kob autonom. Emploees .ith high Kob autonom
are e/pected to be more successful .hen implementing primar control, and thus
ha#e less need for secondar control, .hich ser#es to compensate for primar control
failure. &n 0igure $, this relationship is represented b the arro. from Kob autonom
to the control strategies.
&n regard to the adapti#eness of the control strategies, it is proposed that
emploees .ho match their le#el of Kob autonom .ith their control strategies .ill
be most satisfied .ith their Kobs. &t is e/pected that primar control .ill be more
adapti#e for emploees .ith high Kob autonom and that secondar control .ill be
more adapti#e for emploees .ho cannot control their en#ironment. &t is thus
e/pected that Kob autonom moderates the relationship bet.een the control strategies
AB
and Kob satisfaction. &n 0igure $, this moderation effect is represented b the
interaction terms (i.e., Kob autonom / primar control, Kob autonom / secondar
control). 7hese interaction terms are e/pected to predict Kob satisfaction.
&n addition to the control strategies, personalit and life satisfaction are
e/pected to directl influence Kob satisfaction. People higher on e/tro#ersion and
lo.er on neuroticism are e/pected to report a higher le#el of Kob satisfaction and life
satisfaction. 6ife satisfaction and Kob satisfaction are also proposed to influence one
another.
&n summar, the model proposes that Kob satisfaction can be predicted from
Kob autonom, primar and secondar control, personalit and life satisfaction. 7his
model .ill be tested in stud one, .ith emploees that are lo. in Kob autonom and
emploees that are high in Kob autonom.
AG
3igure *% 7odel of =ob Satisfaction
9ob 4utonom
Primar )ontrol
=ob Satisfaction
Personalit 6ife Satisfaction
Secondar )ontrol
9ob 4utonom /
Secondar )ontrol
9ob 4utonom /
Primar )ontrol
AD
1 Chapter 2 - Study One
AJ
$)$ Abstract
7his stud tests the model of Kob satisfaction de#eloped in chapter >. 7he maKor
proposal of this model is that Kob autonom influences the use of the control
strategies and the relationship bet.een the control strategies and Kob satisfaction
(refer to 0igure $). Emploees .ith high Kob autonom are e/pected to rel on more
primar control strategies and less secondar control strategies than emploees .ith
lo. Kob autonom. 0urthermore, primar control is e/pected to be the most adapti#e
strateg for emploees .ith high Kob autonom, .hilst secondar control is e/pected
to be the most adapti#e strateg for .or!ers .ith lo. Kob autonom. 7hese
propositions .ere tested b comparing a sample of high Kob autonom emploees
(uni#ersit academic staff) .ith a sample of lo. Kob autonom emploees
(supermar!et register operators). 4s hpothesised, the academics reported higher Kob
autonom and lo.er secondar control than the supermar!et .or!ers, ho.e#er the
t.o groups did not report different le#els of primar control. 4dditionall, primar
control appeared to be the most adapti#e strateg for both occupational groups, and
secondar control .as not related to Kob satisfaction. 7hese findings are discussed in
relation to the life span theor of control and the discrimination model.

AA
$)* "roDosal for StudG One
7he model of Kob satisfaction de#eloped in chapter > proposes that Kob
autonom relates to Kob satisfaction through influencing the use of the control
strategies, and the relationship bet.een the control strategies and Kob satisfaction.
7he model also proposes that personalit and life satisfaction predict Kob satisfaction
(refer to 0igure $). &n order to test these propositions, stud one .ill compare
.or!ers .ith lo. Kob autonom .ith .or!ers .ith high Kob autonom. 7he first step
is to identif .hat tpe of emploees fit into these t.o groups.
1.2.1 :dentif!in# Emplo!ees %ith 8o%Ai#h Job "0tonom!
4ccording to ;anster@s (>AJA, cited in D.er I ;anster, >AA>) scale,
emploees .ith high Kob autonom can e/ert choice in se#eral domains of their
.or!, such as in the scheduling of their rest brea!s, procedures and policies, and in
the #ariet of tas!s the perform. 4n occupational group that appears to e/emplif
high Kob autonom, is uni#ersit academic staff. 7heir le#el of Kob autonom has
rarel been assessed (6eung, Siu, I Spector, $%%%), ho.e#er academics ha#e
traditionall had fle/ibilit in their .or!, and freedom to pursue their o.n research
interests (*inefield, $%%%). 7he can often choose among a #ariet of tas!s,
including research, teaching, and administration (0isher, >AAC).
&t is particularl important to stud academics@ le#el of Kob autonom as
researchers ha#e recentl suggested that 'although in theor, the freedom indicati#e
of high control still e/ists, in practice, there has been a stead erosion of Kob control-
(0isher, >AAC, p. G>). 7his has been attributed to the increasing demands placed on
>%%
academics, .here their .or!loads ha#e increased and there is increasing pressure to
attract e/ternal funding (*inefield, $%%%). Ho.e#er, the current stud proposes that
e#en if their le#el of Kob autonom is decreasing, the should still be in the upper
range.
Emploees in the lo.er range of Kob autonom are those that ha#e little
opportunit to e/ert choice in their .or!. 7he tend to ha#e 'routinised- Kobs and
ha#e fe. tas!s from .hich to choose. Supermar!et register operators .ere selected
as representing such lo. autonom .or!ers. 7hese .or!ers are e/pected to ha#e
little control o#er man aspects of their Kob, such as their rest brea!s, the tas!s the
.or! on, and their .or!ing pace.
>%>
$)/ Aims and !GDotheses
7his stud aims to compare the le#els of Kob autonom, control strategies,
and Kob satisfaction of supermar!et register operators .ith academics. 4 number of
hpotheses ha#e been de#eloped as follo.s+
>) 9ob autonom .ill be positi#el related to Kob satisfaction, and academics .ill
report higher Kob autonom than supermar!et .or!ers.
7his hpothesis tests the basic assumptions of the stud. 7he stud aims to
e/tend :arase!@s (>ADA) Kob demand8control model, proposing that emploees .ith
high Kob autonom ha#e high Kob satisfaction because the rel on different control
strategies. 4s such, it needs to be demonstrated that Kob autonom is related to Kob
satisfaction, and that the t.o groups selected for this stud differ in their le#els of Kob
autonom as e/pected.
$) 7he academic group .ill report less secondar control and more primar control
than the supermar!et .or!ers.
7his hpothesis e/amines ho. Kob autonom influences the use of the control
strategies. 4s the academics are e/pected to ha#e more control o#er their .or!ing
en#ironment than the supermar!et .or!ers, the are more li!el to successfull
change it using primar control. 4s secondar control is used to compensate for, and
a#oid future primar control failure, it is e/pected that the supermar!et .or!ers .ill
report more secondar control than the academics.
>%$
?) 9ob autonom is positi#el related to primar control and negati#el related to
secondar control.
7his hpothesis also tests .hether Kob autonom influences the use of the
control strategies, ho.e#er, unli!e hpothesis t.o, it is based on the measured le#el
of Kob autonom rather than the assumed le#el.
C) Primar control .ill be more positi#el related to Kob satisfaction than secondar
control for the academics, and secondar control .ill be more positi#el related to
Kob satisfaction than primar control for the supermar!et .or!ers.
7his hpothesis tests .hether Kob autonom influences the relationship
bet.een the control strategies and Kob satisfaction. 4ccording to the discrimination
model (7hompson et al., >AAJ), primar control is most adapti#e in controllable
situations and secondar control is most adapti#e in uncontrollable situations.
4lthough empirical studies ha#e generall failed to support this model, the studies
ha#e been criticised for their measurement of primar and secondar control
strategies.
B) 7he relationship bet.een primar and secondar control and Kob satisfaction .ill
be moderated b Kob autonom.
&t is e/pected that the relationship bet.een primar and secondar control
and Kob satisfaction .ill change depending on the le#el of measured Kob autonom.
7his hpothesis is similar to hpothesis four, ho.e#er, rather than being based on the
assumed le#el of Kob autonom, it is based on the measured le#el of Kob autonom.
>%?
G) 7he relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction is mediated b
primar and secondar control strategies.
7his hpothesis tests the proposed e/planation for the relationship bet.een
Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction. &t offers an alternati#e to :arase! and 7heorell@s
(>AA%) e/planation of the Kob demand8control model. 7he propose that Kob decision
latitude (i.e., similar to Kob autonom) is positi#el related to Kob satisfaction because
it gi#es .or!ers the freedom to choose ho. the complete their .or! and thereb
reduces the arousal produced from Kob demands. 4n alternati#e e/planation, to be
tested here, is that .or!ers .ith high Kob autonom mostl rel on the preferred
control strategies, namel primar control.
D) 4cademics .ill report higher Kob satisfaction and higher life satisfaction than the
supermar!et .or!ers.
4s the academics are e/pected to report higher Kob autonom and more
primar control than the supermar!et .or!ers, the are e/pected to report a higher
le#el of Kob satisfaction. 7his le#el of Kob satisfaction is e/pected to be positi#el
related to life satisfaction.
J) Primar control, secondar control, Kob autonom, personalit, and life
satisfaction .ill predict Kob satisfaction.
7hese #ariables are assumed to be the maKor predictors of Kob satisfaction, as
depicted in 0igure $.
>%C
$)1 7ethod
1.*.1 Participants
7he sample consisted of >%C uni#ersit academic staff, and AG supermar!et
register operators. 7he academic group .as obtained from se#en Schools .ithin
Dea!in "ni#ersit. 7he response rate .as ?$S. 7he supermar!et .or!ers group
.as obtained from t.o supermar!et chains, .ith >G stores being in#ol#ed. 4s these
emploees onl collected a questionnaire if the .ere interested in participating in
the stud, a response rate could not be calculated.
1.*.2 $aterials
Both the academics and the supermar!et .or!ers recei#ed a plain language
statement (refer to 4ppendi/ 4) and an anonmous questionnaire. 7he questionnaire
consisted of se#eral scales, .hich measured Kob autonom, Kob related primar
control and secondar control, Kob satisfaction, life satisfaction and personalit.
1.*.2.1 Job #1tonom!
4lthough this stud is e/amining the Kob demand8control model, :arase! and
7heorell@s (>AA%) scale of Kob decision latitude .as not used. 7his scale is criticised
for confounding Kob control .ith s!ill le#el, s!ill #ariet, and Kob comple/it
(;anster, >AJA). &n response to this criticism, ;anster (>AJA, cited in D.er I
;anster, >AA>) de#eloped an .or! control scale .hich e/amined the amount of
choice an emploee has in se#eral areas of their .or!, such as their .or! tas!s, .or!
>%B
pacing, .or! scheduling, phsical en#ironment, decision ma!ing, interaction, and
mobilit.
4lthough the scale has good reliabilit (0o/, D.er I ;anster, >AA?H
;anster, D.er I 0o/, $%%>H Schaubroec! I Merritt, >AAD), a factor analsis
demonstrated that t.o factors emerged (Smith et al., >AAD). (ne factor included
items on Kob autonom (>G items), .hile the other factor included items on
predictabilit (B items). 7he predictabilit items include 'ho. much can ou
generall predict the amount of .or! ou .ill ha#e to do on a gi#en da- and 'ho.
much are ou able to predict .hat the results of decisions ou ma!e on the Kob .ill
be.- 4s these predictabilit items load on a different factor from the Kob autonom
items, the should be e/cluded from the scale. Hence, for the purpose of the present
stud, onl the former items .ere used.
4 further potential problem .ith this scale is that some of the items directl
refer to control. &n an attempt to disguise the purpose of the scale, these items .ere
changed from 'control- to 'choice.- 0or e/ample, the item 'ho. much control do
ou ha#e o#er the qualit of our .or!- .as changed to '&n m Kob, & can choose the
qualit of m .or!.-
0urthermore, to reduce the number of items in the scale, t.o repetiti#e items
.ere deleted. 7he items 'ho. much control do ou ha#e o#er .hen ou come to
.or! and lea#e- and 'ho. much control do ou ha#e o#er .hen ou ta!e #acations
or das off- .ere deemed to be too similar to the follo.ing itemH 'ho. much control
do ou ha#e o#er the scheduling and duration of our rest brea!s.- 4ll items refer to
the timing and scheduling of rest brea!s, and as such, onl the latter item .as
>%G
retained. 7his re#ised Kob autonom scale consisted of >C items (refer to 4ppendi/
B). 7he .ere rated on a >%8point scale ranging from > (do not agree at all) to >%
(agree completel).
1.*.2.2 Primar! 0ontrol and Secondar! 0ontrol
7he control strategies .ere assessed b the Primar and Secondar )ontrol
Scale, de#eloped b Heeps et al., ($%%%). 7his includes fi#e items assessing primar
control strategies and >C items assessing secondar control strategies. 4ll of these
items .ere re#ised to be rele#ant to the .or!place (refer to 4ppendi/ )). 7he .ere
measured on a >%8point scale, ranging from > (do not agree at all) to >% (agree
completel). 4lthough this scale .as onl de#eloped recentl, earl factor analses
suggest that t.o factors emerge (Maher I )ummins, $%%>H MisaKon I )ummins, in
press).
7his scale .as deemed to be superior to Hec!hausen et al@s., (>AAD)
(ptimisation in Primar and Secondar )ontrol Scale ((PS). 7he reason this scale
.as not selected merits discussion, as the proposed model of Kob satisfaction is partl
based on the life span theor of control. &n this theor, Hec!hausen and SchulL
(>AAB) propose that humans face t.o challenges in lifeH the need to be selecti#e and
the need to compensate for failure. (n this basis, the (ptimisation in Primar and
Secondar )ontrol Scale (Hec!hausen et al., >AAD) measures t.o tpes of primar
and secondar controlH selecti#e and compensator.
Selecti#e primar control is the in#estment of resources to reach goals, .hilst
compensator primar control is used .hen internal resources are insufficient
>%D
(i.e., others help, technical aids). Selecti#e secondar control refers to self8
management directed at enhancing commitment to goals, and compensator
secondar control ser#es to buffer the negati#e effects of failure.
4n alternati#e simpler e/planation for the use of primar and secondar
control is offered. 3ather than assisting .ith the need to be selecti#e and the need to
compensate for failure, it is proposed that people use control strategies .hene#er
the ris! losing control. E/amples of such situations are .hen people are unable to
sol#e a problem, or .hen something bad happens to them. Primar control pro#ides
a sense of control deri#ed from changing one@s realities, .hereas secondar control
pro#ides a sense of control deri#ed from accepting or adKusting to one@s realities
(Hallida I ;raham, $%%%H 7hompson et al., >AAC).
4s this ne. e/planation is not consistent .ith the (ptimisation in Primar
and Secondar )ontrol Scale (Hec!hausen et al., >AAD), this scale .as not
appropriate for this stud. 7he scale includes some situations, .hich do not appear
to prompt the use of control strategies, such as '.hen & ha#e decided on something.-
7he scale also includes statements that are assessing general beliefs rather than
strategies. 0or e/ample, '& in#est m time in de#eloping broad s!ills that can be
used in man areas-, '& sta acti#e and in#ol#ed in se#eral different areas of life-,
and 'man life goals become important to me because it is the right time for them.-
4s a ne. e/planation for the use of control strategies has been de#eloped, the
(ptimisation in Primar and Secondar )ontrol Scale (Hec!hausen et al., >AAD) is
no longer appropriate. 4s such, the Primar and Secondar )ontrol Scale (Heeps et
>%J
al., $%%%) .ill be used in this stud. 7his scale e/amines ho. people react to
situations .here the ris! losing control.
1.*.2.3 Job Satisfaction
7.o scales of Kob satisfaction .ere administeredH a facet scale and a global
scale. 7he facet scale is a re#ision of the 9ob Descripti#e &nde/ (Smith, :endall I
Hulin, >AGA). 7his scale, reported to be the most frequentl used measure of Kob
satisfaction (&ronson, Smith, Brannic!, ;ibson I Paul, >AJA), assesses fi#e facets of
Kob satisfaction. 7he scale contains D$ items assessing nature of .or!, super#ision,
pa, co8.or!ers, and opportunit for promotion. 7his scale is reliable and
con#ergent and discriminant #alidit has been demonstrated (;illet I Sch.ab, >ADBH
9ohnson, Smith I 7uc!er, >AJ$). 7his scale has been criticised ho.e#er, as the
items ha#e not been re#ised since the scale .as de#eloped.
&n response to this criticism, 3oLno.s!i (>AJA) de#eloped a re#ised scale b
calculating the discriminating po.er of the e/isting items, as .ell as some ne.
items. 7his re#ised scale had higher reliabilit .ith the alpha coefficient ranging
from %.J> to %.A>. 4lthough this re#ised scale ma be more rele#ant to toda@s
.or!force, it still contains D$ items. 7o reduce the number of items for the current
stud, a further re#ision .as made. (nl three items .ere selected to measure each
facet (refer to 4ppendi/ D). 7hese items .ere selected as the had the highest
discrimination po.er.
7his facet measure of Kob satisfaction is useful to diagnose the strengths and
.ea!nesses of organisations, ho.e#er it cannot be summed to produce an o#erall
>%A
measure of Kob satisfaction (&ronson et al., >AJA). Man researchers continue to use
facet scales to obtain an o#erall measure of Kob satisfaction (e.g., (@Driscoll I
Beehr, $%%%H Schappe, >AAJ), ho.e#er facet scales ha#e been criticised as the ma
e/clude areas that are important to the respondent, or include areas that are
unimportant to the respondent. 7herefore, in addition to the facet measure, a global
item of Kob satisfaction .as also used.
7he global measure of Kob satisfaction is a one8item measure. 7he item is
'ta!ing into consideration all the things about our Kob, ho. satisfied are ou .ith
it,- 7his item .as rated on a >%8point scale ranging from > (completel dissatisfied)
to >% (completel satisfied). 7his global scale requires the respondent to combine
their reactions to #arious aspects of the Kob into a single response. *hen ans.ering
this question, the respondent ma incorporate aspects of their Kob not included in the
facet scale. 4lthough internal consistenc cannot be established, a meta8analsis of
single8item measures of Kob satisfaction has demonstrated that single8item measures
correlate .ith other measures, such as the 9ob Diagnostic Sur#e (Hac!man I
(ldham, >ADG), the 9ob in ;eneral Scale (&ronson et al., >AJA), and the Minnesota
Satisfaction 5uestionnaire (*eiss et al., >AGD). (n a#erage, the correlation bet.een
other scales and single item scales .as r N %.G? (*anous, 3eichers I Hud, >AAD).
1.*.2.* 9ife Satisfaction
7he subKecti#e dimension of the )omprehensi#e 5ualit of 6ife Scale ()om8
5(6) de#eloped b )ummins (>AAD) assesses satisfaction .ith se#en domains of
life, including material .ell8being, health, producti#it, intimac, safet, communit,
>>%
and emotional .ell8being (refer to 4ppendi/ E). 4n >>8point scale .as utilised,
ranging from % (completel dissatisfied) to >% (completel satisfied). 7he scale is
pschometricall sound, .ith internal reliabilit ranging from %.B to %.J ()ummins,
>AAD) and #alidit has been established using data from a re#ie. of the 5(6
domains ()ummins, >AAG).
1.*.2." Personalit!
7he neuroticism and e/tro#ersion subscales of the 1E( 0i#e 0actor
&n#entor (short formH )osta I Mc)rae, >AA$) .as used to measure personalit.
7his scale contains >$ items to measure e/tro#ersion and >$ items to measure
neuroticism (refer to 4ppendi/ 0). Si/ facet scales are measured in each factor.
1euroticism is the sum of scales measuring an/iet, angr hostilit, depression, self8
consciousness, impulsi#eness, and #ulnerabilit. E/tro#ersion is the sum of .armth,
gregariousness, asserti#eness, e/citement8see!ing, and positi#e emotions.
)on#ergent and discriminant #alidit of both of these factors has been established
()osta I Mc)rae, >AA$, 6eong I Dollinger, >AA>H 7insle, >AAC).
1.*.3 Proced0re
Ethics appro#al .as obtained from Dea!in "ni#ersit, and consent .as
obtained from the Heads of School for the academics, and the Human 3esource
Managers for the supermar!et .or!ers. 7he recruitment procedure differed
depending on the group. 7he academics .ere sent the questionnaire #ia the internal
mail sstem. 7he returned the questionnaire b post. 7he supermar!et .or!ers
questionnaires .ere left in the staff room. 4s the .ere e/pected to complete the
>>>
questionnaire outside of .or! time, a VB lotter tic!et .as gi#en to each participant
to than! them for their time. 7he lotter tic!ets .ere gi#en to the managers of the
store. 7he supermar!et .or!ers that returned the questionnaire collected their lotter
tic!et from the ser#ice des!. 4t the conclusion of the stud, the participating Heads
of School and the Human 3esource Managers recei#ed a summar of the aggregated
results for all academics and supermar!et .or!ers.
>>$
$)2 #esults
1.).1 Data Screenin# and /hecBin# of "ss0mptions
Procedures for data screening, and chec!ing the procedural analtic
assumptions for all dependent #ariables follo.ed those appropriate for group data.
7he data set .as initiall e/amined for missing #alues, acquiescence, outliers,
normalit and linearit. &n regard to missing #alues, less than CS of the #alues for
academics, and less than BS of the #alues for supermar!et .or!ers .ere missing for
an one item. 4s there .as no pattern to these missing #alues, the .ere replaced
.ith the group mean. 4lthough this reduces the #ariance of the #ariables and
bi#ariate correlations (7abachnic! I 0idell, >AAG), the replacement is a conser#ati#e
estimate.
(nce the missing #alues .ere replaced, the data set .as e/amined for
participants consistentl reporting e/treme scores (i.e., > or >%), in an attempt to
reduce the influence of acquiescence. (ne participant .as omitted from the entire
sample for consistentl reporting e/treme scores on e#er scale. (ther participants
reporting e/treme scores on Kust one scale .ere e/cluded from that particular
analsis. Specificall, se#en participants@ (all supermar!et .or!ers) responses .ere
deleted from the life satisfaction analses, and nine participants@ responses .ere
omitted from the primar control analses (three academics, si/ supermar!et
.or!ers).
"ni#ariate outliers .ere identified on the facet Kob satisfaction scale, the life
satisfaction scale, and the control scales. Specificall, fi#e cases of Kob satisfaction,
>>?
>$ cases of life satisfaction, three cases of primar control, and nine cases of Kob
autonom, la outside three standard de#iations from the mean. 4s these cases are
from the intended population, et ha#e more e/treme #alues than the normal
distribution, the .ere recoded to three standard de#iations from the mean.
(n completion of the screening process, normalit .as assessed using the
s!e.Mstandard error R?, :olmogoro#8Smirnof #alues, frequenc histograms, and
normal probabilit plots. &n the academic group, o#erall life satisfaction (8?.A>) and
the one8item measure of Kob satisfaction (8B.G%) .ere mildl negati#el s!e.ed. &n
the supermar!et .or!ers group, primar control .as negati#el s!e.ed (8?.$D). 4s
transformations are not recommended for data that are mildl and naturall s!e.ed
(7abachnic! I 0idell, >AAG), these data .ere not transformed. 0inall,
homoscedasticit and linearit .ere assessed through bi#ariate scatterplots and these
appeared to demonstrate reasonable linear relationships bet.een the #ariables.
>>C
1.).2 Descriptive Statistics and :nter1/orrelations
7able ? contains the means and standard de#iations for the maKor #ariables in
the stud for each occupational group. &n this table, and the tables thereafter, all
mean scores are con#erted to a percentage of scale ma/imum (SSM) .hich ranges
from %8>%%. 7he formula is+
SSM N (mean score for the original domain O >) / >%%M (number of scale points O >).
7able ? demonstrates that the academics report slightl higher Kob
satisfaction, primar control and Kob autonom, and lo.er secondar control than the
supermar!et .or!ers. 7able C displas the correlations among all of the maKor
#ariables for the academics and the supermar!et .or!ers. 7his demonstrates that Kob
autonom and primar control are positi#el related to Kob satisfaction for both
occupational groups.
able /% 7eans and Standard Deviations of 7aKor (ariables for Academics
and SuDermarket Workers
=ariable 4cademics Supermar!et *or!ers
M SD M SD
9ob Satisfaction 8 > item GG.%B $>.%A BA.D> $B.GA
9ob autonom B>.AC >C.G? ?C.B% $%.$C
Primar )ontrol D>.BG >>.AB GD.%G >J.G$
Secondar )ontrol ?G.G? >B.GC CG.DC >A.DD
6ife Satisfaction DJ.$$ >%.AG D?.?% >B.AD
1euroticism ?G.G% >B.DJ ?A.$B >D.JJ
E/tro#ersion G>.D> >$.C> GB.$J >?.AA
>>B
able 1% 'nter%Correlations for the Academics and the SuDermarket Workers
9S 94 P) S) 6S 1eu E/t
9S :)*2L :)/.LL :)$1 :):< %:)*/L :)$<
94 %.C>QQ :)1/LL :):/ :):0 %:)$0 :)$<
P) %.CCQQ %.C?QQ :):< %:):* %:):/ :)1*LL
S) %.%C %.%J 8%.%$ %:):< :):1 :):*
6S %.$%Q %.>B %.>> 8%.%> %:)2:LL :)*-LL
1eu 8%.$D 8%.>AQ 8%.>C %.%B 8%.BAQQ %:)/:LL
E/t %.%A %.%A %.$BQQ 8%.>$ %.$BQQ 8%.>DQ
Q pR%.%B , QQ pW%.%>H Correlations for suDermarket workers are bolded.
9S N 9ob satisfactionH 94 N 9ob autonomH P) N Primar controlH S) N Secondar
controlH 6S N 6ife satisfactionH 1eu N 1euroticismH E/t N E/tro#ersion
>>G
1.).3 2actor "nal!ses
Prior to testing the hpotheses, factor analses .ere conducted on the re#ised
scales of Kob satisfaction, primar and secondar control, and Kob autonom.
1.).* 2actor "nal!sis of the Job Descriptive :nde5
7o ensure the >B Kob satisfaction items represented each of the fi#e facets, a
principle components analsis .ith direct oblimin rotation .as conducted. 7he
assumptions of sample siLe, normalit, outliers, linearit, and the factorabilit of the
correlation matri/ .ere initiall e/amined.
0actor analsis requires a minimum of fi#e subKects per #ariable (B / >B N DB)
()oa!es I Steed, >AAA), hence the sample siLe of >AA .as adequate. Some of the
Kob satisfaction items .ere not normall distributed ho.e#er the solution is still
.orth.hile if normalit is not met (7abachnic! I 0idell, >AAG). 0i#e outling cases
.ere recoded to three standard de#iations from the mean. 3easonabl linear
relationships e/isted among the #ariables. &n regard to the factorabilit of the
correlation matri/, all of the correlations e/ceeded %.?%. 7he measures of sampling
adequac (MS4) .ere W %.B%. Bartlett@s test of Sphericit .as large and significant
(>BDC.JA), and :aiser8Meer8(l!in (:M() Measure of Sampling 4dequac
e/ceeded %.G%.
4 principal components analsis, .ith direct oblimin rotation, ielded four
eigen#alues o#er >. *ith this four factor solution $$S of the nonredundant residuals
had absolute #alues W %.%B, suggesting the presence of another factor. *hen a
principal components analsis .ith direct oblimin rotation .as conducted .ith fi#e
>>D
factors, onl DS of the nonredundant residuals had absolute #alues W %.%B. 4s such,
a fi#e8factor model .as deemed to be most appropriate. 7he loadings of the items on
each of the fi#e factors are presented in 7able B. 7hese loadings demonstrate that
0actor > refers to promotion, 0actor $ to nature of .or!, 0actor ? to pa, 0actor C to
super#isors, and 0actor B to co8.or!ers.
able 2% 3actor AnalGsis of =ob Satisfaction Scale
&tem 0> 0$ 0? 0C 0B
7here is a good chance for promotion in
m Kob.
%.AC
7here is a fairl good chance for
promotion in m Kob.
%.AC
7here are good opportunities for
ad#ancement in m Kob.
%.A%
M .or! is dull. %.AD
M .or! is boring. %.A%
M .or! is interesting. %.J>
M pa is bad. %.A>
& am .ell8paid. %.J$
M pa is unfair. %.J>
M super#isors !no. ho. to super#ise. %.J>
M super#isors are bad. %.DA
M super#isors are annoing. %.DJ
M co8.or!ers are stupid. %.DA
M co8.or!ers are responsible. %.D?
M co8.or!ers are a .aste of time. %.DA
Eigen#alues C.?$ $.DJ >.JD >.GB %.AC
S of #ariance $J.DD >J.BG >$.CG >%.AA G.$D
)umulati#e S $J.DD CD.?$ BA.DA D%.DD DD.%C
)ronbachPs 4lpha (total scale) %.J$
&tems .ith loadings less than %.?% are not sho.n.
1.).) 2actor "nal!sis of the Primar! and Secondar! /ontrol Scale
7o ensure that the primar and secondar control items loaded on t.o
separate factors, a factor analsis .as conducted on the primar and secondar
>>J
control scale. 7he sample siLe .as adequate (1 N >A%), and the secondar control
items .ere normall distributed for both groups. 7he primar control items .ere
mildl negati#el s!e.ed for both the academics (pcC N 8C.C>, pcB N 8?.>D) and the
supermar!et .or!ers (pc> N 8?.B, pc$ N 8?.DD, pcC N 8C.$G, pcB N 8?.>DH refer to
7able D for items). Ho.e#er, as factor analsis is robust to #iolations of normalit,
the resulting solution .as still deemed to be .orth.hile (7abachnic! I 0idell,
>AAG). 6inearit among the #ariables as assessed through scatterplots .as
reasonable. 7he correlation matri/ .as factorable .ith all correlations e/ceeding
%.?%. 7he measures of sampling adequac e/ceeded %.B% for all #ariables) Bartlett@s
test of sphericit .as large and significant (>C$A.?C), and :aiser8Meer8(l!in
(:M() Measure of Sampling 4dequac e/ceeded %.G%.
4 principal components analsis .ith direct oblimin rotation ielded B
factors. 7he total #ariance e/plained b these fi#e factors is demonstrated in 7able
G.
>>A
able 0% otal (ariance EIDlained bG a 3ive%3actor Solution
&nitial Eigen#alues
0actor 7otal S of #ariance )umulati#e S
> B.>$B $G.ADB $G.AD>
$ $.JCG >C.AJ% C>.ABG
? >.G>B J.CAJ B%.CBC
C >.CDG D.DGG GC.>$%
B >.>$> B.A%> GA.$GA
7his fi#e8factor solution demonstrated that four of the fi#e primar control items
loaded on one factor, and that the rest of the secondar control items loaded on the
other four factors. Ho.e#er, as there .as no clear pattern in the other four factors, a
four8factor and three8factor solution .ere also requested. &n both of these analses
ho.e#er, man of the items loaded on more than one factor.
7o in#estigate the hpothesised t.o8factor solution, a principal components
analsis .ith direct oblimin rotation .as requested. More than t.o factors are
present ho.e#er, as GDS of the nonredundant residuals had absolute #alues W %.%B.
4s demonstrated in 7able D, all of the primar control items loaded on 0actor $.
Se#en of the >C secondar control items loaded on 0actor >, and the remaining se#en
secondar control items loaded onl on 0actor $ or on both factors. 4s such, in
subsequent analses, the scale .ill include all fi#e primar control items and onl the
se#en non8comple/ secondar control items. *ith onl these items, a factor analsis
re#eals that the primar control factor accounts for >A.JCS of the #ariance, and the
secondar control factor accounts for $J.?%S of the #ariance.
>$%
able <% 3actor AnalGsis of "rimarG and SecondarG Control Scale
1o. &tem 0> 0$
Dc$ When ' have a goal at work that is difficult to reach@ '
think about different waGs to achieve it)
%.D%
Dc* When ' want something at work to change@ ' think '
can make it haDDen)
%.?A
Dc/ When a work task reallG matters to me@ ' think about
it a lot)
%.B>
Dc1 When ' reallG want to reach a goal at work@ ' believe '
can achieve it)
%.D>
Dc2 When faced with a difficult work situation@ ' believe '
can overcome it)
%.B>
sc>Q & can see that something good .ill come of it. %.?$ %.GB
sc$ & remember ou canPt al.as get .hat ou .ant. %.?$ %.CB
sc? & !no. things .ill .or! out o!a in the end. %.CC %.GD
scC & remember & am better off than man other people. %.?G %.B>
scB & remember & ha#e alread accomplished a lot in life. %.B? %.?A
scG & remember the success of m famil or friends. %.BB %.?C
sc< ' think nice thoughts to take mG mind of it) %.DC
scJ & remind mself the situation .ill change if & am Kust
patient.
%.GB %.?J
sc- ' tell mGself it doesnBt matter) %.D$
sc$: ' think about mG success in other areas) %.DC
sc$$ ' donBt feel disaDDointed because ' knew it might
haDDen)
%.G>
sc$* ' can see it was not mG fault) %.C%
sc$/ ' ignore it bG thinking about other things) %.GA
sc$1 ' realise ' didnBt need to control it anGwaG) %.G>
Eigen#alues B.>? $.JB
S of #ariance >C.AJ $G.AJ
)umulati#e #ariance >C.AJ C>.AG
)ronbachPs 4lpha (for re#ised scale) %.J$ %.D%
pcN primar controlH scNsecondar controlH 4olded items are included in the scale)
Q4ll secondar control items preceded b '*hen something bad happens that &
cannot change-
>$>
1.).9 2actor "nal!sis of the Job "0tonom! Scale
7o ensure the items on the Kob autonom scale .ere measuring a single
construct, a factor analsis .as conducted. 7he assumption of normalit .as
#iolated .ith items >, $, C, and >% being mildl negati#el s!e.ed for academics.
&tems D, J, A, and >> .ere mildl positi#el s!e.ed for the supermar!et .or!ers. 4s
before, these #ariables .ere not transformed. 1ine uni#ariate outliers .ere recoded
to three standard de#iations from the mean. 4ll correlations e/ceeded %.?% and all of
the #ariable MS4 e/ceeded %.B%. BarlettPs test of sphericit .as significant
(>%DD.AD), and :aiser8Meer8(l!in (:M() measure of sampling adequac e/ceeded
%.G%.
4 principal components analsis .ith direct oblimin rotation demonstrated
that the Kob autonom items loaded on three factors. 7here .as no meaningful
pattern .ithin these factors ho.e#er, and all but three items loaded on more than one
factor. &n an attempt to find a pattern among the items, a t.o8factor principle
components analsis .ith direct oblimin rotation .as conducted. 7his analsis,
presented in 7able J, demonstrated that si/ items loaded onl on the first factor, one
item loaded onl on the second factor, and the remaining se#en loaded on both
factors. 0actor > contained items that .ere directl related to the nature of the .or!
(i.e., tas!s, order of .or!, .or!ing pace), .hereas the items that loaded on 0actor $
related to organisational structure (i.e., pa, e#aluation). 4lthough this factor
analsis demonstrates that t.o factors emerge, all items .ill be retained in this scale
as the o#erall measure of Kob autonom should be based on the nature of the .or!
and the organisational structure.
>$$
able .% 3actor AnalGsis of =ob AutonomG Scale
1o &tem 0> 0$
> &n m Kob & can choose among a #ariet of tas!s or
proKects to do.
%.DG %.??
$ &n m Kob & can choose the order in .hich & do m .or!. %.JC
? &n m Kob & can choose ho. quic!l & do m .or!. %.D>
C &n m Kob & can choose ho. & schedule m rest brea!s. %.D>
B &n m Kob & can choose the phsical conditions of m
.or!station.
%.BG %.CG
G &n m Kob & can choose .hen & interact .ith others. %.DC
D &n m Kob & can choose the amount & earn. %.GG
J &n m Kob & can choose the number of times & am
interrupted at .or!.
%.C$ %.BJ
A &n m Kob & can choose ho. m .or! is e#aluated. %.DG
>% &n m Kob & can choose the qualit of m .or!. %.BG
>> &n m Kob & can choose the policies and procedures in m
.or! unit.
%.BC %.BA
>$ &n m Kob & can choose among a #ariet of methods to
complete m .or!.
%.J$ %.?G
>? &n m Kob & can choose ho. much .or! & get done. %.GD %.C>
>C &n general, ho. much are ou able to influence .or! and
.or!8related matters.
%.GC %.B%
Eigen#alues %.BJ >.$D
S of #ariance C>.?D A.%C
)umulati#e #ariance C>.?D B%.C>
)ronbachPs 4lpha (re#ised scale) %.JG
>$?
$)0 !GDothesis esting
&n order to test the proposed model of Kob satisfaction, multi#ariate analses
of #ariance .ere conducted to in#estigate ho. the academics and the supermar!et
.or!ers differed in their le#els of Kob autonom, control strategies, and Kob
satisfaction. Multiple regression analses .ere also conducted to predict Kob
satisfaction from Kob autonom, control strategies, personalit, and life satisfaction.
&n order to test these hpotheses, $$ p8#alues must be computed, and as such,
famil.ise error rate must be considered. 0amil.ise error rate is the probabilit of
ma!ing at least one 7pe & error in a set of analses (:eppel, >AA>). &ncreasing the
number of statistical tests can potentiall increase the famil.ise error. 7he formula
for famil.ise error is 0*N (alpha le#el) / (number of comparisons). &n this stud,
the famil.ise error rate is (%.%B) / ($$) N >.>. (ne solution to reduce this
famil.ise error rate is adKust the alpha le#el using the Bonferroni test (:eppel,
>AA>). 7he desired alpha le#el (%.%B) is di#ided b the number of tests ($$), ielding
a recommended alpha le#el of %.%%$. 4lthough reducing the alpha le#el decreases
the probabilit of 7pe & errors, it also increases the probabilit of 7pe && errors
(:eppel, >AA>). 7he solution therefore is to stri!e a balance bet.een the t.o errors.
7hus, the alpha le#el .ill be reduced to %.%>.
1.9.1 !pothesis .ne1 "ss0mption Testin#
&n order to test the first part of hpothesis one, proposing that Kob autonom
and Kob satisfaction are positi#el related, the correlation coefficients for each
occupational group .ere e/amined. )onsistentl, Kob autonom .as positi#el
>$C
related to Kob satisfaction for both the academics (r N %.C>) and the supermar!et
.or!ers (r N %.$B).
&n order to test the second part of hpothesis one, proposing that the
academics .ould report higher Kob autonom than the supermar!et .or!ers, an
analsis of #ariance .as emploed. 7he assumption of uni#ariate homogeneit of
#ariance, assessed using 6e#ene@s test .as not met, 0 (>, >AD) N >$.DD, p N %.%%,
ho.e#er as this assumption is of little concern .hen the sample siLes are similar
(7abachnic! I 0idell, >AAD), the analsis proceeded .ith caution using an alpha
le#el of %.%>. 7he uni#ariate test of significance demonstrated that, consistent .ith
hpothesis one, the academics (M N B>.AC, SD N >C.G?) reported significantl higher
Kob autonom than the supermar!et .or!ers, (M N ?C.B%, SD N $%.$C),
0 (>, >AD) N CA.B>, p N %.%%)
1.9.2 !pothesis T%o1 .cc0pational Differences in the 3se of the /ontrol
Strate#ies
&n order to e/amine hpothesis t.o proposing that the academics .ill report
less secondar control and more primar control than the supermar!et .or!ers, a
multi#ariate analsis of #ariance .as performed. 7he assumptions of normalit,
linearit, multicollinearit, and homogeneit of #ariance8co#ariance .ere e/amined
for the #ariables.
4ll of the #ariables .ere normall distributed, and reasonabl linear
relationships .ere e#ident. 7.o uni#ariate outliers .ere recoded to three standard
>$B
de#iations from the mean and there .ere no multi#ariate outliers. 7here .as no
e#idence of multicollinearit, as the determinant of the .ithin8cell correlation
.as W %.%%%> (i.e., %.DAJ).
7he assumption of uni#ariate homogeneit of #ariance, as assessed b
6e#ene@s test, .as met for secondar control, 0 (>, >JJ) N $.JC, p W %.%B. Equalit of
error #ariance .as not found ho.e#er for primar control, 0 (>, >JJ) N >D.%D,
p R %.%B. 6e#ene@s test is sensiti#e to non8normalit ho.e#er, and this can lead to
o#erl conser#ati#e reKection (7abachnic! I 0idell, >AAD). 4s such, the analses
.ill proceed .ith caution using an alpha le#el of %.%>. 7he assumption of
multi#ariate homogeneit of #ariance8co#ariance, assessed through Bo/@s M test .as
also #iolated. Bo/@s M test is a notoriousl sensiti#e test of homogeneit of
#ariance8co#ariance, and it is recommended that if the test is #iolated, the
multi#ariate tests be e/amined b Pillai@s criterion rather than *il!@s lamba.
7he multi#ariate test of significance, using Pillai@s criterion, demonstrated
that occupational differences e/isted, 0 ($, >JD) N >%.%?, p N %.%%. 4s demonstrated
in 7able A, the supermar!et .or!ers reported significantl higher secondar control
than the academics, 0 (>, >JJ) N >B.B%, p N %.%%. 7he t.o groups did not report
significantl different le#els of primar control, 0 (>, >JJ) N ?.AA, p N %.%C. &t must
be noted ho.e#er that the difference in primar control .as significant at %.%B, but
not at the more stringent alpha le#el of %.%>. Hence, onl partial support .as
pro#ided for the second hpothesis.
>$G
able -% 7eans and Standard Deviations of Control 7easures for Academics
=ariable 4cademic Supermar!et
M SD M SD
Primar )ontrol D>.BG >>.AB GD.%G >J.G$
SecondarG Control /0)0/ $2)01 10)<1 $-)<<
4olded constructs demonstrate significant occuDational differences.
1./.2.1 S1mmar!
Multi#ariate analses of #ariance demonstrated that the academics report
higher Kob autonom, and lo.er secondar control than the supermar!et .or!ers.
7he t.o groups did not report significantl different le#els of primar control.
1.9.3 !pothesis Three1 E5aminin# ho% Job "0tonom! Celates to the
/ontrol Strate#ies
7o e/amine hpothesis three, proposing that Kob autonom .ill be positi#el
related to primar control and negati#el related to secondar control, the correlation
coefficients .ere e/amined. &t .as necessar to e/amine .hether Kob autonom
influences the control strategies using the measured le#el of Kob autonom because
there .as some #ariabilit in the le#el of Kob autonom reported .ithin occupational
groups. 4 median split .as conducted on Kob autonom and the emploees .ere
split into t.o groups. 7he maKorit of academics .ere in the high Kob autonom
group (GGS), ho.e#er ?CS .ere in the lo. Kob autonom group. Similarl, D%S of
>$D
the supermar!et .or!ers .ere in the lo. Kob autonom group, ho.e#er ?%S .ere in
the high Kob autonom group.
9ob autonom .as positi#el related to primar control (r N %.CG), but not
related to secondar control (r N 8 %.>J). 7hese results pro#ide partial support for
hpothesis three, suggesting that Kob autonom influences primar, but not secondar
control.
1.9.* !pothesis 2o0r1 E5aminin# ho% Job "0tonom! :nfl0ences the
"daptiveness of the /ontrol Strate#ies
7o e/amine hpothesis four, proposing that i) primar control .ill be more
positi#el related to Kob satisfaction than secondar control for the academics, and ii)
secondar control .ill be more positi#el related to Kob satisfaction than primar
control for the supermar!et .or!ers, a standard multiple regression analsis .as
conducted on each occupational group. 7he assumptions of normalit, linearit and
homoscedasticit of residuals .ere assessed through e/amination of the residual
scatterplots. 7hese assumptions .ere met, and there .as no e#idence of
multicollinearit.
4s demonstrated in 7able >%, 3 .as significantl different from Lero for both
the academics, 3 N %.CC, 0 ($, >%$) N >$.B?, p N %.%%, and the supermar!et .or!ers,
3 N %.?>, 0 ($, J$) N C.?D, p N %.%>. Primar control predicted Kob satisfaction for
both groups, accounting for $%S of the #ariance in Kob satisfaction for the academics
and almost >%S for the supermar!et .or!ers. Secondar control did not predict Kob
satisfaction for either group. Hence, consistent .ith hpothesis four, primar control
>$J
.as more positi#el related to Kob satisfaction than secondar control for the
academics. &nconsistentl ho.e#er, secondar control .as not related to Kob
satisfaction for the supermar!et .or!ers.
able $:% 7ultiDle #egression of "rimarG and SecondarG Control on =ob
Satisfaction for Academics and SuDermarket Workers
;roup =ariable 9S P) B sr
$
(unique)
4cad
P) %.CC %.DJ %.CC >A.G$QQ
S) %.%C 8%.%$ %.%%G %.%B
3 N%.CCQQ 3
$
N%.$% 4dK 3
$
N%.>J
Super
P) %.?> %.C? %.?> A.G>QQ
S) 8%.%$ %.%J 8%.%B 8%.%C
3 N%.?>Q 3
$
N%.>% 4dK 3
$
N%.%D
QQ
pR%.%>H 4cad O 4cademicsH Super O Supermar!et .or!ersH 9S O 9ob satisfactionH
P) O Primar controlH S) O Secondar control
0or academics, 3
$
composed of shared #ariance (>.AS) and unique #ariance (AJ.>S)
0or supermar!et .or!ers, 3
$
composed of shared #ariance (?.AS) and unique
#ariance (AG.>S).
1.9.) !pothesis 2ive1 Does Job "0tonom! $oderate the Celationship
Det%een the /ontrol Strate#ies and Job Satisfaction@
&n order to e/amine hpothesis fi#e, proposing that the relationship bet.een
the control strategies and Kob satisfaction is moderated b Kob autonom, t.o
hierarchical multiple regression analses .ere conducted. 9ob autonom is proposed
to be a moderator, .hich means that it affects the direction andMor the strength of the
relationship bet.een the control strategies and Kob satisfaction. Specificall, the
>$A
6o. 9ob 4utonom
High 9ob 4utonom
relationship bet.een primar control and Kob satisfaction is e/pected to be positi#e
.hen Kob autonom is high and negati#e .hen Kob autonom is lo.. 0urthermore,
the relationship bet.een secondar control and Kob satisfaction is e/pected to be
positi#e .hen Kob autonom is lo., and negati#e .hen Kob autonom is high. 7hese
e/pected relationships are demonstrated belo. in 0igure ?.
3igure /% EIDected 7oderated Effect of =ob AutonomG on a; "rimarG Control
and =ob Satisfaction and b; SecondarG Control and =ob Satisfaction
a)
Primar )ontrol
b)
Secondar )ontrol
4 moderation effect can be tested in a number of .as depending on .hether
the #ariables are continuous or discrete (Baron I :enn, >AJG). &n this hpothesis,
the moderator #ariable and the independent #ariable are both continuous. *hen both
High 9ob 4utonom
9S
6o. 9ob 4utonom
9S
>?%
#ariables are continuous, and .hen the effect of the independent #ariable on the
dependent #ariable #aries linearl .ith respect to the moderator, a hierarchical
multiple regression analsis is conducted to test the presumed relationship (Baron I
:enn, >AJG). 4s demonstrated in 0igure C, the dependent #ariable is regressed on
the independent #ariable, the moderator #ariable, and the product of the independent
#ariable and the moderator (Baron I :enn, >AJG). Moderator effects are
demonstrated if the interaction term is significant .hen the independent #ariable and
the moderator #ariables are controlled (Baron I :enn, >AJG).
>?>
Primar control
9ob
autonom
Primar control / 9ob
autonom
9ob
Satisf
actio
n
Secondar control
9ob
autonom
Secondar control /
9ob autonom
9ob
Satisf
actio
n
3igure 1% =ob autonomG 7oderates the #elationshiD between a; "rimarG
control and b; SecondarG Control@ and =ob Satisfaction)
(rder of =ariable Entr
a)
Step >
Step $
Step ?
b)
Step >
Step $
Step ?
&n order to test the moderating effect of Kob autonom on primar control and
secondar control, t.o hierarchical multiple regression analses .ere conducted on
the combined sample. B using the combined sample, there .as more range in the
le#els of Kob autonom. &n these analses the control strategies .ere entered first,
then Kob autonom, and then the interaction term. 0or primar control, 3 .as
significantl different from Lero after the first step (i.e., primar control), 3 N %.?D,
0 (>, >JJ) N ?%.?C, p N %.%%, and the second step (i.e., Kob autonom), 3 N %.C%,
0inc (>, >JD) N C.JA, p N %.%?. Ho.e#er, the addition of the interaction term .as not
significant, 3 N%.C%, 0inc (>,>JG)N %.??, p N %.BD.
>?$
0or secondar control, 3 .as not significantl different from Lero after the
first step, 3 N %.%>, 0 (>, >AD) N %.%C, p N %.JB. 4fter Kob autonom .as entered, the
#alue of 3 increased, 3 N %.??, 0 (>, >AG) N $C.%>, p N %.%%. 7here .as no further
increase ho.e#er .hen the interaction term .as entered in step three, 3 N %.?C,
0 (>, >AB) N >.BJ, p N %.$>. 7hese analses, displaed in 7able >>, demonstrate that
inconsistent .ith hpothesis fi#e, Kob autonom did not moderate the relationship
bet.een the control strategies and Kob satisfaction.
>??
able $$% 7oderating #ole of "rimarG and SecondarG Control on the
#elationshiD 4etween =ob AutonomG and =ob Satisfaction
Step &= D= B sr
$
(unique)
> Primar control 9S %.BD %.?D >?.A>QQ
$ Primar control %.CG %.?% G.AGQQ
9ob 4utonom %.$% %.>D $.>AQ
? Primar control %.BB %.?G ?.CGQQ
9ob autonom %.C> %.?C
Primar control / Kob
autonom
8%.%%? 8%.$>
3 N%.C% 3
$
N%.>G 4dK3
$
N%.>B
> Secondar control 9S %.%$ %.%>
$ Secondar control %.%$ %.%$
9ob 4utonom %.C% %.?? >%.JA
QQ
? Secondar control %.$G %.$>
9ob autonom %.G? %.B$ C.BCQ
Secondar control / Kob
autonom
8%.%%B 8%.$J
3 N%.?C 3
$
N%.>$ 4dK3
$
N%.>%
QQ
pR%.%>,
Q
pR%.%BH 9S O 9ob satisfaction
1.9.9 !pothesis Si51 Do the /ontrol Strate#ies $ediate the Celationship
Det%een Job "0tonom! and Job Satisfaction@
Hpothesis si/ proposes that the relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob
satisfaction is mediated b the control strategies. &n this hpothesis, the control
strategies are acting as mediators because the are e/plaining .h Kob autonom is
related to Kob satisfaction. 7hat is, emploees .ith high Kob autonom are e/pected
to rel on more primar control and less secondar control than emploees .ith lo.
Kob autonom. 4s primar control strategies are more positi#el related to Kob
>?C
satisfaction than secondar control strategies, emploees .ith higher Kob autonom
report higher Kob satisfaction.
&t must be noted that although secondar control strategies are less positi#el
related to Kob satisfaction than primar control, it is proposed that for .or!ers .ith
lo. Kob autonom, secondar control strategies are superior to primar control
strategies. &f these .or!ers use primar control, the are e/pected to e/perience
4ccording to Baron and :enn (>AJG), in order to establish mediation, three
standard regression analses must demonstrate that+ a) Kob autonom predicts
primar and secondar controlH b) primar and secondar control and Kob autonom
together predict Kob satisfactionH and c) Kob autonom predicts Kob satisfaction. 0or a
mediation effect to be significant, all three regression equations must be significant,
and the effect of the independent #ariable on the dependent #ariable must be less in
b) than in c) (Baron I :enn, >AJG). 7his mediation analsis is demonstrated in
0igure B.
3igure 2% 7ediating #ole of Control Strategies on the #elationshiD 4etween =ob
AutonomG and =ob Satisfaction
a b
c
PrimarMSecondar )ontrol
9ob autonom 9ob Satisfaction
>?B
7his method .ill not be used ho.e#er as there is an easier .a to test the
mediating role of the control strategies. 3ather than conducting three regression
analses, onl one hierarchical regression analsis is needed (M. Sto!es, personal
communication, 4ugust >G, $%%$). &n this analsis, primar and secondar control
strategies are entered first, follo.ed b Kob autonom. &t is e/pected that once
primar and secondar control strategies ha#e been entered, there .ould be no
relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction. 4s such, primar and
secondar control .ould e/plain the relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob
satisfaction.
7he assumptions of normalit, linearit and homoscedasticit of residuals
.ere met, and there .as no e#idence of multicollinearit. 4s demonstrated in 7able
>$, 3 .as significantl different from Lero after primar and secondar control .ere
entered, 3 N %.?D, 0 ($, >JD) N >B.$?, p N %.%%. Primar control accounted for >?S
of the #ariance in Kob satisfaction, and secondar control .as not significant. 3 did
not significantl increase after Kob autonom .as added to the equation, 3 N %.C%,
0inc (?, >JG) N >>.A$, p N %.%?. E#en if the less stringent alpha le#el of %.%B .as
used, Kob autonom onl accounts for $S of the unique #ariance in Kob satisfaction.
4s such, it appears that .hen primar and secondar control are entered first, there is
no relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction. 7his suggests that partial
support is pro#ided for hpothesis si/ as primar control, but not secondar control,
mediates the relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction.
>?G
able $* %!ierarchical 7ultiDle #egression esting the 7ediating #ole of the
Control Strategies
Step &= D= B sr
$
(unique)
> Primar )ontrol 9S %.BD %.?D >?.A>QQ
Secondar )ontrol 8%.%C 8%.%?
3 N%.?DQQ 3
$
N%.>C 4dK3
$
N%.>?
$ Primar )ontrol 9S %.CG %.?% G.AGQQ
Secondar )ontrol 8%.%$ 8%.%$
9ob 4utonom %.$% %.>D $.%>Q
3 N%.C%QQ 3
$
N%.>G 4dK3
$
N%.>B
QQpW%.%> QpW%.%BH 9S 8 9ob satisfaction
&t must be noted that although the results demonstrate that primar control is
a partial mediator of the relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction, the
use of multiple regression to estimate a mediational model is based on the
assumption that there is no measurement error in the mediator. 7his assumption is
particularl concerning as the mediator is li!el to be measured .ith error. 7he
presence of such error tends to produce 'an underestimation of the effects of the
mediator, and an o#erestimation of the effects of the independent #ariable on the
dependent #ariable- (Baron I :enn, >AJG, p. >>DD).
(ne statistical method that models the measurement error is structural
equation modeling. Structural equation modeling is based on the analsis of sample
#ariances and co#ariances rather than indi#idual cases. 7his approach is particularl
useful for latent #ariables, .hich are hpothetical constructs that cannot be directl
measured, such as Kob satisfaction.
>?D
4lthough structural equation modelling has some ad#antages o#er multiple
regression, it .ill not be used in this thesis for a number of reasons. 0irst, unli!e
hierarchical multiple regression, structural equation modelling is a confirmator
technique. 7he current stud, although grounded in theor, is e/plorator,
attempting to combine the propositions of the Kob demand8control model (:arase! I
7heorell, >AA%) .ith propositions of the life span theor of control (Hec!hausen I
SchulL, >AAB). 4s the theor is e/plorator, there are a #ariet of different models
that can be e/amined. &f numerous modifications of a model .ere tested, the
analsis .ould be e/plorator, and there .ould be an increased ris! of 7pe & errors
("llman, >AAG). 4s this thesis is attempting to de#elop and e/plore the proposed
model of Kob satisfaction and search for une/pected relationships, structural equation
modelling ma be problematic. (nce the model is more established ho.e#er,
structural equation modelling ma be required.
4 further problem .ith using structural equation modelling is that it requires
large sample siLes. 7he issue of an adequate sample siLe continues to be debated,
ho.e#er Boomsma (>AJ?) suggested that as a general rule, samples of $%% are
required to gi#e parameter estimates .ith an degree of confidence. 4s the
relationship bet.een the #ariables is e/pected to be different for academics and
supermar!et .or!ers, t.o models .ould need to be conducted, thus there .ould
need to be $%% in each occupational group.
4 sample siLe of $%% is problematic due to time constraints, but also because
of the particular .or!ers selected for this stud. 7he data collection process
underta!en in stud one demonstrated that .or!places, particularl those emploing
>?J
lo. autonom .or!ers, such as call centres, factories, or supermar!ets, .ere
reluctant to become in#ol#ed in an research. 7he emploers refused to participate
in the sur#es for a #ariet of reasons. Some mentioned that the maKorit of their
emploees .ere from 1on8English spea!ing bac!grounds and as such .ould be
unable to understand the sur#e. (thers admitted that .or! moti#ation .as #er
lo., and as such, the response rate .ould be poor. Still others .ere concerned that
the emploees .ould e/pect changes to be made to the .or!place on the basis of
their responses. 7hese emploers@ reactions indicate that is difficult to obtain a
sample siLe of C%%.
1././.1 S1mmar!
&n summar, it appears that primar control mediates the relationship bet.een
Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction. 7his finding .as based on multiple regression
analses ho.e#er, .hich assumes that there is no measurement error in the mediator.
4lthough this measurement error can be accounted for in structural equation
modeling, it is concluded that such a method is not appropriate .hilst the proposed
model of Kob satisfaction is in an e/plorator stage.
1.9., !pothesis Seven1 .cc0pational Differences in Job and 8ife
Satisfaction
Hpothesis se#en proposes that the academics .ill report higher Kob
satisfaction and higher life satisfaction than the supermar!et .or!ers. 4 uni#ariate
analsis of #ariance .as conducted on the global one8item measure of Kob
satisfaction. 7he assumptions of normalit, linearit, and homogeneit of #ariance
>?A
.ere e/amined. 9ob satisfaction .as normall distributed for the supermar!et
.or!ers, ho.e#er it .as negati#el s!e.ed for the academics (8B.G%). 7he
assumption of homogeneit of #ariance .as #iolated, 0 (>, >AD) N G.%G, p R %.%B, and
as such, the analsis .ill proceed .ith caution using an alpha le#el of %.%>.
&nconsistent .ith hpothesis se#en, there .ere no occupational differences in the
one8item measure of Kob satisfaction, 0 (>, >AD) N ?.GG, p N %.%C. 7he le#els of Kob
satisfaction reported b the t.o groups are pro#ided in 7able >?.
7o e/amine .hether the t.o groups differed on the facets of Kob satisfaction,
a multi#ariate analsis of #ariance .as conducted on the fi#e facets of Kob
satisfaction, namel nature of .or!, co8.or!ers, pa, super#isors, and opportunities
for promotion. 1ormalit .as assessed using s!e.Mstandard error R ?,
:olmogoro#8Smirnof #alues, and normal probabilit plots. 4lthough the nature of
.or! facet (8?.CA) and the co8.or!ers facet (8C.JD) .ere negati#el s!e.ed for the
academic group, the remainder of the #ariables .ere normall distributed for both
groups. 0i#e uni#ariate outliers .ere recoded to three standard de#iations from the
mean, and no multi#ariate outliers .ere identified. E/amination of bi#ariate
scatterplots, and correlations re#ealed reasonabl linear relationships. 7here .as no
e#idence of multicollinearit as the determinant of the .ithin8cell correlation
.as W%.%%%>. "ni#ariate homogeneit of #ariance, assessed b 6e#ene@s test,
demonstrated that equalit of error #ariance .as e#ident for the super#ision facet,
0 (>, >AD) N %.C%, p W %.%B. Equalit of error #ariance .as not found ho.e#er for
pa, 0 (>, >AD) N B.B?, p R %.%B, nature of .or!, 0 (>, >AD) N $D.>C, p R %.%B,
>C%
co8.or!ers, 0 (>, >AD) N B.J$, p R %.%B, and promotion, 0 (>, >AD) N C.$%, p R %.%B.
4s such, the uni#ariate tests .ill be e/amined .ith caution. 7he assumption of
multi#ariate homogeneit of #ariance8co#ariance, as assessed through Bo/@s M test,
.as also #iolated, 0 (>B, >CGDJ$) N C.A%, p R %.%%>.
7he multi#ariate tests .ere e/amined using Pillai@s criterion. 7he Kob facets
.ere affected b occupation, 0 (B, >A?) N ?B.>%, p N %.%%. 4s demonstrated in 7able
>?, academics reported significantl higher satisfaction .ith nature of .or!,
0 (>, >AD)N AB.BA, p N %.%%, and co8.or!ers, 0 (>, >AD) N ?$.B>, p N %.%%, than
supermar!et .or!ers. Ho.e#er, the supermar!et .or!ers reported higher
opportunit for promotion than the academics, 0 (>, >AD) N A.$>, p N %.%%.
able $/% 7eans and Standard Deviations of =ob Satisfaction Scale for
Academics and SuDermarket Workers
=ariable 4cademic Supermar!et
M SD M SD
,ature .2)-< $/)<1 20)-. *0)-2
Co%Workers .*)/: $2)<2 0<).2 *:):$
Pa B>.$% $D.BB BC.>D $?.BG
Super#isors G%.$A $C.CD GD.%? $C.CA
"romotion /.)/$ *<)1: 2$)$* /*)$.
(ne8item measure GG.%B $>.%A BA.D> $B.GA
4olded variables indicate significant occuDational differences
&t .as e/pected that le#els of Kob satisfaction .ould be related to le#els of life
satisfaction, and that the academics reporting higher Kob satisfaction than the
supermar!et .or!ers .ould also report higher life satisfaction. 7o e/amine this
hpothesis, a uni#ariate analsis of #ariance .as conducted to e/amine o#erall life
>C>
satisfaction, and a multi#ariate analsis of #ariance .as conducted to e/amine on
.hich domains the groups differed.
7o compare their o#erall life satisfaction, a uni#ariate analsis of #ariance
.as conducted. 6ife satisfaction .as normall distributed for the supermar!et
.or!ers ho.e#er it .as mildl negati#el s!e.ed for the academics (8?.AC). 7he
assumption of homogeneit of #ariance, as assessed through 6e#ene@s test of
equalit of error #ariance .as #iolated, 0 (>, >A%) N >B.$C, p R %.%B, and as such, the
analsis proceeded .ith caution using an alpha le#el of %.%>. )onsistent .ith
hpothesis se#en, the academics reported higher life satisfaction than the
supermar!et .or!ers, 0 (>, >A%) N G.?J, p N %.%>.
4 multi#ariate analsis of #ariance .as conducted on the se#en domains of
life satisfaction to e/amine .here these differences la. 7he assumptions of
normalit, linearit, multicollinearit and homogeneit of #ariance8co#ariance .ere
e/amined for the se#en domains. 7he emotional .ell8being domain .as mildl
negati#el s!e.ed for the academics, and the intimac domain .as mildl negati#el
s!e.ed for the supermar!et .or!ers. >$ uni#ariate outliers .ere recoded to three
standard de#iations from the mean. 0our multi#ariate outliers .ere e/amined and
recoded to the ne/t less e/treme score. 7he assumption of linearit, e/amined
through bi#ariate scatterplots, .as met. Equalit of error #ariance .as demonstrated
onl for satisfaction .ith health, 0 (>, >A%) N $.$J, p W %.%B, and as such, the analsis
.ill proceed .ith caution. 4s the assumption of multi#ariate homogeneit of
#ariance, e/amined through Bo/@s M test .as also #iolated, 0 ($J, >>%J$?) N $.BC,
p R %.%%>, Pillai@s criterion .as used to e/amine the multi#ariate test.
>C$
Pillai@s criterion .as significant, 0 (D, >JC) N >%?A.BG, p R %.%>. 4cademics
reported significantl higher producti#it satisfaction, 0 (>, >A%) N D.G?, p N %.%%G,
and safet satisfaction, 0 (>, >A%) N >$.G$, p N %.%%, than supermar!et .or!ers. 7he
means and standard de#iations for the satisfaction domains are pro#ided in 7able >C.
able $1% 7eans and Standard Deviations of &ife Satisfaction for Academics
(ccupation 4cademic Supermar!et
M SD M SD
Material Satisfaction J%.BG >?.>J DJ.BG >A.C?
Health Satisfaction DB.%? $%.%D GA.>G $?.JB
"roductivitG Satisfaction <0):: $/)-$ 0-):2 *$)0<
&ntimac Satisfaction J>.%J >J.CC DG.G? $C.$>
)ommunit satisfaction DB.D> >G.$$ D%.%D $%.>?
SafetG Satisfaction ./)2* $2)$/ <1)10 *:).2
Emotional Satisfaction DJ.JG >B.$D DG.G? $$.>%
O(E#A&& SA'S3AC'O, <.)** $:)-0 </)/: $2)-<
4olded variables indicates occuDational differences
1.9.; !pothesis Ei#ht1 Predictors of Job Satisfaction
&n order to e#aluate hpothesis eight, .hich proposes that primar control,
secondar control, Kob autonom, personalit and life satisfaction predict Kob
satisfaction, a multiple regression analsis .as conducted on both occupational
groups. 7he correlations among the #ariables are displaed in 7able C.
0or both groups, the assumptions of normalit, linearit and homoscedasticit
of residuals .ere met, and there .as no e#idence of multicollinearit. 3 .as
significantl different from Lero after all the #ariables had been added for both the
academics, 3 N %.BC, 0 (G,AJ) N G.GA, p N %.%%, and the supermar!et .or!ers,
>C?
3 N%.CG, 0 (G, D?) N ?.$B, p N %.%%. 0or the academics, the unique predictors of Kob
satisfaction .ere Kob autonom and primar control. 4s demonstrated in 7able >B,
primar control and Kob autonom accounted for CS and JS of the #ariance in Kob
satisfaction respecti#el. &t must be noted ho.e#er that Kob autonom .as not
significant at the more stringent alpha le#el of %.%>. 0or the supermar!et .or!ers,
there .as onl one unique predictor of Kob satisfaction, namel primar control.
Primar control accounted for JS of the #ariance in Kob satisfaction.
7hese results suggest that hpothesis eight is partiall supported as primar
control and Kob autonom predicted Kob satisfaction. Ho.e#er, secondar control,
personalit and life satisfaction .ere not unique predictors of Kob satisfaction.
0urthermore, e#en .hen all the #ariables .ere included in the equation, 3
$
.as small
(3
$
N %.$A, 3
$
N %.$>).
>CC
able $2% 7ultiDle #egression of =ob AutonomG@ Control Strategies@
"ersonalitG@ and &ife Satisfaction for Academics and SuDermarket Workers
;roup &= D= B sr
$

(unique)
4cad 9ob autonom 9S %.?C %.$C C.C>Q
Primar )ontrol %.BJ %.?? J.>$QQ
Secondar )ontrol %.%? %.%?
1euroticism 8$.?% 8%.>G
E/tro#ersion 8>.%$ 8%.%B
6ife Satisfaction %.>% %.%B
3 N%.BCQQ 3
$
N%.$A 4dK
$
N%.$B
Super 9ob autonom 9S %.%J %.%G
Primar )ontrol %.CG %.?G J.?BQQ
Secondar )ontrol %.>B %.>$
1euroticism 8?.G? 8%.$B
E/tro#ersion 8>.>C 8%.%G
6ife Satisfaction 8%.%C 8%.%?
3 N%.CGQQ 3
$
N%.$> 4dK
$
N%.>B
QQ pR%.%>, Q pR%.%BH 4cad O 4cademicsH Super8 Supermar!et .or!ersH 9S O 9ob
satisfaction
1./.;.1 S1mmar!
7he academics reported significantl higher life satisfaction than the
supermar!et .or!ers, but similar le#els of Kob satisfaction. 7he maKor predictors of
Kob satisfaction .ere Kob autonom and primar control strategies.
1.9.( /oncl0sion
7he maKor propositions of this stud .ere that Kob autonom influences the
use of the control strategies and the relationship bet.een the control strategies and
Kob satisfaction. 4s hpothesised, the academics reported higher Kob autonom,
>CB
higher life satisfaction and lo.er secondar control than the supermar!et .or!ers.
&nconsistent .ith the hpotheses, the t.o groups reported similar le#els of primar
control and Kob satisfaction. Ho.e#er, Kob autonom .as positi#el correlated .ith
primar control and not correlated .ith secondar control.
&n regard to the proposal that Kob autonom influences the relationship
bet.een the control strategies and Kob satisfaction, the findings .ere less supporti#e.
Primar control .as the most adapti#e strateg for both groups, and secondar
control .as not related to Kob satisfaction for either group. 7he implications of these
findings .ill no. be discussed.
>CG
$)< Discussion
7his stud tested a ne. e/planation for the relationship bet.een Kob
autonom and Kob satisfaction, namel that Kob autonom influences the use and
adapti#eness of primar and secondar control strategies. &n regard to the use, the
findings demonstrated that the supermar!et .or!ers reported more secondar control
than the academics, but that onl primar control .as related to Kob autonom. &n
regard to the adapti#eness, primar control .as the most adapti#e strateg for
academics and supermar!et .or!ers. 7hese findings are discussed in terms of the
life span theor of control (Hec!hausen I SchulL, >AAB) and the discrimination
model (7hompson et al., >AAJ). Before these propositions are e/plained in detail, the
basic assumptions of the stud .ill be e/amined.
1.,.1 "ss0mption Testin#
7he basic assumptions of the stud .ere that Kob autonom .as positi#el
related to Kob satisfaction, and that the stud used t.o occupational groups that
differed in their le#el of Kob autonom. )onsistentl, Kob autonom .as positi#el
related to Kob satisfaction for the academics and the supermar!et .or!ers
(r N %.C>, r N %.$B, respecti#el). 7hese correlations are slightl lo.er than those
reported in other studies using ;anster@s (>AJA, cited in D.er I ;anster, >AA>)
scale. 0or e/ample, Munro, 3od.ell and Harding (>AAJ) demonstrated that the
correlation bet.een Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction .as r N %.GA, .hilst 0o/ et al.,
(>AA?) demonstrated that r N %.CG. &t must be noted ho.e#er that these studies relied
on the original #ersion of the scale, .hich included items on predictabilit.
>CD
)onsistent .ith the second part of hpothesis one, the academics@ le#els of
Kob autonom (M N B$SSM) .ere significantl higher than the supermar!et .or!ers
(M N ?$SSM). 0or the purpose of this stud, this difference in Kob autonom should
be sufficient to e/amine the differences in primar and secondar control. &t is
e/pected that the relationship bet.een Kob autonom and the control strategies is
linear, and that .ith increasing Kob autonom, the use of primar control .ill
increase, and the use of secondar control .ill decrease. 4s such, e#en if the
difference bet.een the group is not e/tremel large, the differences in the use of the
control strategies should still e/ist, ho.e#er the ma be less e/treme.
&n order to understand the meaning of these le#els of Kob autonom, it is
useful to compare them .ith other studies. 4lthough normati#e data on ;anster@s
(>AJA, cited in D.er I ;anster, >AA>) scale are not a#ailable, a fe. studies ha#e
relied on this scale. 7he ha#e sho.n that nurses scored CGSSM (;anster et al.,
$%%>), and BDSSM (Munro et al., >AAJ). 0urthermore, manufacturing emploees
scored BDSSM (D.er I ;anster, >AA>). &t is difficult to ma!e comparisons .ith
past studies ho.e#er, as these studies ha#e generall altered the scale in some .a
(e.g., ;anster et al., $%%>H Munro et al., >AAJ). &ndeed the current stud made an
important change to the scale, as the items on predictabilit .ere e/cluded.
1.,.2 Does Job "0tonom! :nfl0ence the 3se of the /ontrol Strate#ies@
Partial support .as pro#ided for the second hpothesis as there .as a
significant occupational difference in secondar control (M N ?GSSM academicsH
>CJ
M N CGSSM supermar!et .or!ers), but not primar control (M N D>SSM
academicsH M N GDSSM supermar!et .or!ers). Partial support .as also pro#ided
for hpothesis three as primar control .as positi#el related to Kob autonom
(r N %.CG), ho.e#er secondar control .as not correlated (r N 8%.>J). 7hese findings
are some.hat inconsistent, .ith the former suggesting that Kob autonom influences
secondar control but not primar control, and the latter suggesting that Kob
autonom influences primar but not secondar control. More emphasis is placed on
hpothesis three as it is based on the measured le#el of Kob autonom rather than the
assumed le#el. 7hus, these findings demonstrate that as Kob autonom increases,
primar control increases.
7hese findings appear to be inconsistent .ith 4bouserie@s (>AAG) stud on
academics@ coping strategies. &n this stud, academics .ere gi#en a list of strategies
and required to indicate .hich ones the use to handle stress. 7he follo.ing coping
strategies emerged as the most commonH acceptance of the problem (BJS), tal!ing
.ith others (BD.DS), and tring to come to terms .ith each problem (BB.JS).
4lthough the most common strateg, 'acceptance of the problem- appears to
be a secondar control strateg, it is different to secondar control. Secondar
control is often referred to as acceptance ho.e#er it is not acceptance that the
problem e/istsH it is acceptance that the problem cannot be o#ercome. 4cceptance of
the problem ma be interpreted as recognising that the problem e/ists, .hich is not
secondar control. 7hus, although 4bouserie@s (>AAG) results suggest that academics
mostl use secondar control, this ma not be the case.
>CA
(ne stud partiall supports the findings from the current stud. 1araanan,
Marian and Spector (>AAA) studied the coping strategies reported b academics, sales
emploees, and clerical .or!ers. 7he used an open8ended questionnaire .here
participants .ere as!ed ho. the handled a stressful e#ent at .or!. 7he academics
tended to handle their problems at .or! b ta!ing direct action ($CS of sample), and
tal!ing to the chair of department ($GS). 7he clerical .or!ers and the sales
emploees, on the other hand, reported that the tal!ed .ith their co8.or!ers ($$S,
$AS, respecti#el), or friends ($CS, $AS, respecti#el).
4lthough 1araanan et al., (>AAA) did not measure Kob autonom, their
findings demonstrate that the emploees e/pected to ha#e higher Kob autonom
(i.e., academics) tended to rel on primar control8tpe strategies. 7he emploees
e/pected to ha#e lo.er Kob autonom (i.e., sales emploees, clerical .or!ers) tended
to rel on secondar control8tpe strategies. 7hese findings .ere partiall consistent
.ith the current stud.
7he finding that Kob autonom is positi#el related to primar control
pro#ides some support for the proposed model of Kob satisfaction presented in 0igure
$. 7his model, based on the Kob demand8control model (:arase! I 7heorell, >AA%)
and the life span theor of control (Hec!hausen I SchulL, >AAB), proposes that
emploees .ith high Kob autonom are more li!el to successfull change the
en#ironment using primar control. 7hus, as Kob autonom increases, primar
control increases.
Ho.e#er, the findings in the present stud must be e/amined cautiousl as a
limitation has been identified. 7he primar and secondar control scale required
>B%
respondents to indicate their agreement .ith each tpe of strateg, from > (do not
agree at all) to >% (agree completel). &t is no. recognised that the onl information
this scale pro#ides is .hether the respondents ha#e e#er used the strategies, and not
ho. often the are using the strategies. 7he current findings onl demonstrate that
as Kob autonom increases, emploees@ agreement .ith the primar control strategies
increases, not the frequenc.
1.,.3 Does Job "0tonom! :nfl0ence the Celationship Det%een the /ontrol
Strate#ies and Job Satisfaction@
&n addition to testing .hether Kob autonom influences the use of the control
strategies, the current stud also tested .hether Kob autonom influenced the
relationship bet.een the control strategies and Kob satisfaction. )onsistentl,
primar control (r N %.CC) .as more positi#el related to Kob satisfaction than
secondar control (r N %.%C) for the academics. Ho.e#er, secondar control
(r N %.>C) .as not more positi#el related to Kob satisfaction than primar control
(r N %.?J) for the supermar!et .or!ers. 0urther analses demonstrated that Kob
autonom did not moderate the relationship bet.een the control strategies and Kob
satisfaction. 4s such, it appears that primar control is more adapti#e than secondar
control for all emploees, .hether the ha#e lo. or high Kob autonom.
7hese findings do not support the discrimination model (7hompson et al.,
>AAJ) .hich proposes that primar control is the most adapti#e strateg in
controllable situations, and that secondar control is the most adapti#e strateg in
uncontrollable situations. 3ather, these findings support the primacMbac!8up model
>B>
(7hompson et al., >AAJ), .hich proposes that primar control strategies are more
adapti#e than secondar control strategies for people in lo.8control or high8control
situations.
4lthough these results appear to support the primacMbac!8up model, closer
e/amination of the Primar and Secondar )ontrol Scale (Heeps et al., $%%%)
re#eals se#eral limitations. 7he most notable is that some of the primar control
items e/amined .hether the emploees belie#ed that the could change their
situation, rather than e/amining ho. the could change their situation. 0or e/ample,
the items '& thin! & can ma!e it happen-, '& belie#e & can achie#e it- and '& belie#e &
can o#ercome it- measure .hether a person belie#es that the can change a situation.
7hese general and non8specific thoughts .ere assessed rather than specific percei#ed
beha#iours (i.e., .or! harder) because it .as assumed that there could be an
unlimited number of specific beha#iours.
Ho.e#er, it is no. questioned .hether belie#ing that one can change a
situation is a measure of primar control. 4 person ma report that the can change
a situation for a #ariet of reasons, not Kust if the use primar control strategies
.hen the face difficulties. 0or e/ample, a person ma report that the can change
their en#ironment because the ha#e high optimism. 4lternati#el, the ma be
using the secondar control strateg 'illusor optimism- .here the tell themsel#es
that 'e#erthing .ill .or! out o!a in the end.- 7hese e/amples ser#e to illustrate
that people .ho belie#e that the can change their en#ironment ma not necessaril
use primar control.
>B$
7o o#ercome these limitations, the measure of primar control ma need to
be more specific. 3ather than assessing .hether people generall belie#e the can
change their en#ironment, the primar control scale needs to assess ho. people
change their en#ironment using primar control strategies. 7hus the scale needs to
e/amine percei#ed strategies (e.g., e/erting more effort, .or!ing harder) rather than
beliefs. 7his .ould ma!e the scale consistent .ith the secondar control scale,
.hich assesses specific strategies.
&n summar, although the findings suggest that the relationship bet.een the
control strategies and Kob satisfaction is not influenced b Kob autonom, se#eral
problems ha#e been identified in the primar and secondar control scale. 7he
primar and secondar control scale needs to be re#ised so that the primar control
items refer to percei#ed strategies rather than beliefs, and the rating scale needs to
assess frequenc.
1.,.* Do the /ontrol Strate#ies $ediate the Celationship Det%een Job
"0tonom! and Job Satisfaction@
Hpothesis si/ tested an alternati#e e/planation to :arase! and 7heorell@s
(>AA%) proposal for the relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction. 7his
e/planation, de#eloped in chapter >, proposes that emploees .ith high Kob
autonom rel on more primar control strategies .hich are positi#el related to Kob
satisfaction, .hereas emploees .ith lo. Kob autonom rel on more secondar
control strategies .hich are less positi#el related to Kob satisfaction. &t must be
noted ho.e#er that although secondar control strategies are less positi#el related to
>B?
Kob satisfaction, it is proposed that for .or!ers .ith lo. Kob autonom, secondar
control strategies are superior to primar control strategies. &f these .or!ers use
primar control, the are e/pected to e/perience primar control failure.
7he results demonstrated that primar control, but not secondar control,
mediated the relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction. 7his pro#ides
empirical e#idence supporting one mechanism b .hich Kob autonom ma
influence Kob satisfaction. 7he importance of these findings must not be
o#eremphasised ho.e#er, as problems ha#e been identified .ith the primar and
secondar control scale. 4s such, the mediating role of primar and secondar
control needs to be re8e/amined using a re#ised scale.
1.,.*.1 S1mmar!
7he maKor aim of this stud .as to test an e/planation for the relationship
bet.een Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction. 7he e/planation proposes that Kob
autonom influences the use and adapti#eness of the control strategies. 7he results
from the current stud ha#e offered some support for Kob autonom influencing the
use of primar control strategies, but less support for Kob autonom influencing the
adapti#eness of the control strategies. Ho.e#er, as there are some methodological
problems .ith the scale, the proposition requires further e/amination.
1.,.) E5aminin# .cc0pational Differences in Job Satisfaction
7he differences in Kob autonom and primar and secondar control .ere
e/pected to influence Kob satisfaction, .here the academics .ere e/pected to report
>BC
higher Kob satisfaction than the supermar!et .or!ers. 7his proposal .as not
supported ho.e#er, as the academics reported similar le#els of Kob satisfaction
(M N GGSSM) as the supermar!et .or!ers (M N BASSM). &n order to understand
these le#els of Kob satisfaction, past studies .ill be e/amined.
1.,.".1 Past St1dies on Job Satisfaction
4s fe. studies ha#e e/amined academics@ or supermar!et .or!ers@ le#els of
Kob satisfaction, and as there does not appear to be an consensus as to .hat is the
normati#e le#el of Kob satisfaction, a re#ie. .as conducted. 4 range of studies
(1N?G), .hich e/amined the le#els of Kob satisfaction reported b different
occupational groups, .ere selected from pscholog databases. 7hese studies,
displaed in 4ppendi/ ;, e/amine se#eral occupational groups including nurses,
teachers, managers, manufacturing emploees, and social .or!ers. 4lthough these
studies relied on se#eral different scales, including global and facet scales, the .ere
reasonabl consistent. 7he a#erage le#el of Kob satisfaction .as GG.DBSSM, and the
scores ranged from CC.DBSSM (6aschinger, 0inegan I Shamain, $%%>) to JDSSM
(0isher, $%%%). 7his a#erage is similar to the academics and supermar!et .or!ers
le#els of Kob satisfaction.
4 fe. studies ha#e specificall e/amined academics@ and supermar!et
.or!ers@ le#els of Kob satisfaction. 0or academics, researchers ha#e reported the
follo.ing le#els of Kob satisfactionH BDSSM (6eung et al., $%%%), GBSSM (Hill,
>AJG), GGSSM (6ahe I =ihtelic, $%%%), DCS ()arson, 6anier I )arson, $%%>),
J$S ((lsen, >AA?) and J?SSM (1iemann I Do#idio, >AAJ).
>BB
4lthough these scores #ar .idel, it must be recognised that these studies
ha#e relied on different scales of Kob satisfaction. Some relied on facets scales of Kob
satisfaction (Hill, >AJGH 6ahe I =ihtelic, $%%%) .hilst others relied on global scales
on Kob satisfaction ()arson, 6anier I )arson, $%%>H 6eung et al., $%%%H 1iemann I
Do#idio, >AAJH (lsen, >AA?). Ho.e#er, the facet #ersus global distinction does not
necessaril e/plain the differing le#els of Kob satisfaction, as facet and global scales
of Kob satisfaction ha#e been sho.n to be moderatel correlated (*anous et al.,
>AAD). 3ather .ithin the facet and global scales, there is e/tensi#e #ariabilit that
ma account for the inconsistent le#els of Kob satisfaction.
7here are differences among the facet scales of Kob satisfaction. 0or e/ample,
Hill@s (>AJG) facet scale of Kob satisfaction measures satisfaction .ith se#eral
dimensions including economic, teaching administrati#e, collegial, recognition8
support, and con#enience. &n contrast, 6ahe and =ihtelic ($%%%) focussed on the
.or! itself, pa, recognition, co8.or!ers, and super#ision. 7he difference bet.een
Hill@s (>AJG) facets and 6ahe and =ihtelic ($%%%) facets ma be important. Hill@s
(>AJG) facets .ere designed to be specific to academia, ho.e#er it appears that the
are focussing on the areas that academics traditionall cite as a source of stress, such
as recognition, finances (6eung et al., $%%%), and administration (4bouserie, >AAG).
4s such, the academics in Hill@s (>AJG) stud ma ha#e a reported a lo.er le#el of
Kob satisfaction than those in 6ahe and =ihtelic ($%%%) stud because the scale .as
focussed on the more negati#e aspects of the Kob.
7here are also differences among the global scales of Kob satisfaction. 0or
e/ample, 1iemann and Do#idio (>AAJ) relied on a ?8item measure of Kob
>BG
satisfaction, .hich included the follo.ing itemsH '& am satisfied .ith m Kob-, '& find
fulfillment in m .or!- and '& feel free to do the .or! that is important to me.- 7he
le#el of Kob satisfaction reported b the academics in this stud ma ha#e been
higher because of the inclusion of the third item, .hich ma be confounded .ith Kob
autonom.
4 more #alid global measure of Kob satisfaction .as used in (lsen@s (>AA?)
stud. Measuring Kob satisfaction through one8item (i.e., '4ll things considered, ho.
satisfied are ou .ith our position-), the found academics reported a high le#el of
Kob satisfaction (M N J$SSM). &t must be noted ho.e#er that this le#el of Kob
satisfaction .as reported b academics in their first ear of appointment.
&nterestingl, the re8tested these academics at the end of their third ear, and found
that their le#el of Kob satisfaction had declined to D>.GGSSM. 7his lo.er le#el is
more consistent .ith other studies.
&n summar, it is e/tremel difficult to produce an a#erage le#el of Kob
satisfaction for academics. (nl a fe. studies ha#e e/amined academics Kob
satisfaction and these ha#e tended to rel on different scales. 7he le#el of Kob
satisfaction found in the current stud fits .ithin the range found b past studies. &t
must be noted ho.e#er that this range is reasonabl large.
&n regard to supermar!et .or!ers, the onl studies that can be compared .ith
the current findings are those conducted on retail .or!ers. 7hese studies ha#e
generall reported a higher le#el of Kob satisfaction than that found for the
supermar!et .or!ers. 0or e/ample, Doran, Stone, Brief and ;eorge@s (>AA>) stud
demonstrated that retail .or!ers gi#en the Minnesota Satisfaction 5uestionnaire
>BD
(*eiss et al., >AGD) reported a le#el of Kob satisfaction that .as D?SSM.
0urthermore, 6eung@s (>AAD) stud on retail .or!ers reported similar findings using
Hac!man and (ldham@s (>ADB) scale (D%S SM).
4lthough these studies report higher le#els of Kob satisfaction, it must be
noted that the .or!ers in these studies .ere obtained from a department store (Doran
et al., >AA>) and a casual apparel store (6eung, >AAD), and as such, ma ha#e more
Kob autonom that the supermar!et .or!ers. 7he supermar!et register operators are
required to .or! on the cash register for the maKorit of their shift .hereas retail
assistants can often choose among different tas! to complete. 7hus, it is difficult to
compare these studies .ith the current findings.
1.,.".2 E6plainin$ the 9evels of Job Satisfaction Ceported b! the #cademics
and the S1permarBet ?orBers
7he finding that such t.o distinct occupational groups report similar le#els of
Kob satisfaction is surprising. Ho.e#er, there ma be differences bet.een the groups
that can account for this. 0irst of all, the nature of the .or! is #er different for these
t.o groups. 7he supermar!et .or!ers engage in repetiti#e .or!, and as such, the
ma face fe. no#el difficulties. 7he academics, on the other hand, are e/pected to
be in#ol#ed in se#eral complicated acti#ities and face man #aried difficulties. 4s
such, although the current stud .as proposing that supermar!et .or!ers .ould ha#e
lo.er Kob satisfaction because the ha#e less autonom, the ma also ha#e fe.er
difficulties to o#ercome.
>BJ
4nother difference bet.een the t.o occupational groups that ma e/plain
their similar le#els of Kob satisfaction concerns their different in#estments and
e/pectations. *hereas the supermar!et .or!ers ha#e in#ested little time into
training, the academics ha#e in#ested at least se#en ears studing at uni#ersit. 7he
number of ears in#ested in training or education ma be particularl important, as it
has been suggested that education is positi#el correlated .ith e/pectations ()lar! I
(s.ald, >AAG).
0or e/ample, )lar!@s (>AAG) stud of British emploees demonstrated that the
percentage of emploees .ho reported that the .ere #er satisfied .ith their Kob
.as greatest for the group .ith the lo.est education (M N DJSSM). 7he ne/t
highest reported a le#el .hich .as DCSSM, and the highest educated group reported
a le#el of Kob satisfaction that .as D?SSM. 4lthough the differences bet.een these
groups are small, it is surprising that the group .ith the lo.est le#el of education
.ould report a le#el of Kob satisfaction that equalled those .ith a higher education,
let alone surpassed it. 4s such, the academics ma ha#e higher Kob e/pectations than
the supermar!et .or!ers.
&n summar, inconsistent .ith the hpotheses, the academics and teachers
reported similar le#els of Kob satisfaction. 7his finding ma be partl attributed to
the supermar!et .or!ers e/periencing fe.er difficulties than the academics, or the
academics ha#ing higher Kob e/pectations than the supermar!et .or!ers.
>BA
1.,.9 E5aminin# .cc0pational Differences in 8ife Satisfaction
)onsistent .ith hpothesis se#en, the academics reported higher o#erall life
satisfaction (MNDJ.$$) than the supermar!et .or!ers (MND?.?%). 7he academics@
le#els of life satisfaction .ere e/pected to be higher because Kob satisfaction .as
e/pected to be positi#el related to life satisfaction. 4lthough the academics did not
report higher Kob satisfaction than the supermar!et .or!ers, the did report higher
life satisfaction.
&n regard to the normati#e le#els of life satisfaction, )ummins@ (>AAB, $%%%b)
homeostatic theor of life satisfaction proposes that the mean life satisfaction across
population samples lies .ithin the D%8J%SSM range. 7his is because people ha#e a
'set8point range- for their life satisfaction. 7his set8point range is determined b
personalit #ariables, namel neuroticism and e/tro#ersion. 7ogether, these t.o
#ariables pro#ide an affecti#e balance, .here the mid8point for the set8point range is,
on a#erage, DBSSM. 7his affecti#e balance influences the second8order buffers (i.e.,
optimism, self8esteem and control) so that, on a#erage, their set8point is also
DBSSM. 7hese second8order buffers can ho.e#er be influenced b the e/ternal
.orld. Hence, the mid8point for the set8point range can range bet.een D%8J%SSM.
)onsistent .ith this prediction, both the academics@ (M N DJ.$$SSM) and the
supermar!et .or!ers@ le#els of life satisfaction (M N D?.?%SSM) la .ithin this
range.
7he academics@ le#el of life satisfaction .as at the higher end of the
normati#e range. 4ccording to the homeostatic theor of life satisfaction, the ceiling
for population sample means is appro/imatel J%SSM ()ummins, $%%%b). 7his
>G%
#alue represents the theoretical ma/imum for sample means grouped as data .here
the distribution of set8ranges is normal, and each person has achie#ed the upper #alue
of their set8range. 4s such, the academics@ le#el of life satisfaction, in relati#e terms,
is e/tremel high.
7he supermar!et groups@ le#el of life satisfaction .as at the lo.er end of the
normati#e range. )ummins ($%%%b) proposes that .hen life satisfaction falls
to.ards the D%SSM mar!, homeostatic de#ices operate to pre#ent it from falling
further. *hen the sample mean approaches D%SSM ho.e#er, the homeostatic
machiner is defeated for a significant proportion of the sample. 4s this happens,
the distribution collapses and the standard de#iations increase. )onsistent .ith this
prediction, the standard de#iation of life satisfaction for the supermar!et .or!ers
group (SD N >B.AD) .as greater than for the academic group (SD N >%.AG). Hence, a
greater proportion of the supermar!et .or!ers ma be e/periencing homeostatic
defeat. &n summar, the academics reported higher life satisfaction than the
supermar!et .or!ers, ho.e#er both means la .ithin the normati#e range.
1.,., Predictin# Job Satisfaction from Job "0tonom!+ /ontrol Strate#ies+
Personalit!+ and 8ife Satisfaction
Partial support .as pro#ided for hpothesis eight, as Kob autonom and
primar control predicted Kob satisfaction for the academics, and primar control
predicted Kob satisfaction for the supermar!et .or!ers. &nconsistent .ith the
proposed model of Kob satisfaction ho.e#er, secondar control did not predict Kob
satisfaction for either group, and Kob autonom did not predict Kob satisfaction for the
>G>
supermar!et .or!ers. 7he finding that secondar control did not predict Kob
satisfaction clearl needs to be re8e/amined as there are se#eral methodological
problems .ith the secondar control scale. 7he finding that Kob autonom did not
predict Kob satisfaction for the supermar!et .or!ers requires further e/amination.
7he finding that Kob autonom did not predict Kob satisfaction for the
supermar!et .or!ers ma reflect problems .ith the Kob autonom scale. 7he Kob
autonom scale .as a multidimensional scale. 7he scale .as thought to be superior
to other scales as it prompted emploees to consider se#eral aspects of their .or!
en#ironment (;anster I 0usilier, >AJA). Ho.e#er, the scale ma also be
problematic, as although it ensures that respondents thin! of the same facets, some
facets ma not be appropriate for some emploees.
4n alternati#e is to use a global scale of Kob autonom. 0or e/ample, the 9ob
Descripti#e Sur#e (Hac!man I (ldham, >ADB) measures Kob autonom through
assessing .hether the emploee has the opportunit for independence and freedom in
their Kob. "sing this scale, the respondents can Kust consider the areas that are
important to them. 7he can include facets that are not specified in the facet scale,
and e/clude facets that are not rele#ant to their .or!place. 4s such, the supermar!et
.or!ers, although reporting lo. Kob autonom on the multidimensional scale, ma
ha#e higher le#els of global Kob autonom. 4s such, future studies .ill need to
assess Kob autonom using a global measure.
>G$
1.,.; /oncl0sion
7his stud has contributed to the de#elopment of the proposed model of Kob
satisfaction (refer to 0igure $). 7his model, adapted from :arase!@s (>ADA) Kob
demand8control model, proposes that Kob autonom relates to Kob satisfaction through
influencing the .a emploees manage their .or! difficulties. 7he findings
demonstrated that .or!ers .ith higher Kob autonom do manage their .or!
difficulties differentl from .or!ers .ith lo.er Kob autonom. Specificall, as Kob
autonom increases, primar control increases.
&n addition to e/amining ho. Kob autonom influences the use of control
strategies, this stud also proposed that Kob autonom influences the adapti#eness of
the control strategies. Primar control strategies .ere, as predicted, the most
adapti#e strategies for the academics, ho.e#er secondar control strategies .ere not
the most adapti#e strategies for the supermar!et .or!ers. 7hese findings supported
the primacMbac!8up model, suggesting that all emploees, .hether the ha#e lo. or
high Kob autonom, should rel on primar control strategies .hen the face a
difficult at .or!. Ho.e#er, as problems ha#e no. been identified .ith the primar
and secondar control scale and Kob autonom scale, further research needs to
re8e/amine these hpotheses.
>G?
2 Chapter 3 - Study Two
>GC
*)$ Abstract
7his stud aims to re8test the proposal that Kob autonom influences the amount of
control strategies that emploees use, the relationship bet.een the control strategies
and Kob satisfaction. 7his stud attempted to o#ercome the maKor limitations
identified in stud one, concerning the primar and secondar control scale and the
Kob autonom scale. 0urthermore, this stud e/amined the influence of t.o ne.
#ariables, namel need for Kob autonom and social support at .or!. 7.o
occupational groups that .ere e/pected to differ in their le#els of Kob autonom
(i.e., secondar school teachers and academics) .ere compared. &t .as e/pected that
the academics .ould report higher Kob autonom, higher primar control, and lo.er
secondar control than the teachers. 0urthermore, it .as e/pected that primar
control .ould be more adapti#e for the academics, .hereas secondar control .ould
be more adapti#e for the teachers. 7hese hpotheses .ere not supported ho.e#er, as
both groups reported equall high le#els of primar and secondar control, and
primar and secondar control .ere not related to Kob satisfaction. 7hese
inconsistent results prompted a re#ie. of the underling assumptions of the stud.
Some methodological limitations .ere identified in the hpotheses e/amining Kob
autonom and the control strategies. Despite this, support for the remaining
hpotheses highlighted the importance of social support at .or! in predicting Kob
satisfaction.
>GB
*)* "roDosal for StudG wo
7his stud re8e/amines the proposal that Kob autonom influences the use and
the adapti#eness of primar and secondar control strategies. &t attempts to
o#ercome the limitations identified in stud one. 7his stud uses+ a) a re#ised
#ersion of the Primar and Secondar )ontrol ScaleH b) a ne. measure of Kob
autonomH and c) different occupational groups for comparison. 0urthermore, this
stud incorporates recent research suggesting that the need for Kob autonom
mediates the relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction, and e/amines
ho. social support at .or! influences Kob satisfaction. 7hese changes .ill no. be
discussed.
2.2.1 a- The Primar! and Secondar! /ontrol Scale
7he Primar and Secondar )ontrol Scale, de#eloped b Heeps et al., ($%%%)
.as implemented in stud one because it .as one of the best scales that concurred
.ith 3othbaum et al@s., (>AJ$) and Hec!hausen and SchulL@s (>AAB) definition of
control. Ho.e#er, the scale .as e/plorator, and stud one highlighted some
problems .ith the scale. 4s such, a re#ie. .as conducted on the scale in
collaboration .ith 3ose4nne MisaKon. 7his re#ie., .hich .as based on factor
analses of the scale, highlighted se#eral problems .ith the scale. 7hese problems
in#ol#ed+ i) the stem of the itemH ii) the content of the itemH and iii) the rating scale.
0rom this re#ie., a third and fourth edition of the Primar and Secondar )ontrol
Scale .as de#eloped.
>GG
0actor analses conducted on the first and second edition of the Primar
)ontrol and Secondar )ontrol Scale .ere re#ie.ed (e.g., )ahill, >AAJH )ousins,
$%%>H Maher I )ummins, $%%>, MisaKon, $%%$H MisaKon I )ummins, in pressH
Spo!es, >AAJ). 7hese analses .ere based on a #ariet of samples, including elderl
people, people .ith arthritis, people .ith multiple sclerosis, and academics. Each
researcher tended to ma!e minor changes to the scale, .here the ma ha#e e/cluded
some items, or changed the .ording of others, to ma!e the scale more suitable to
their sample. 7hese researchers then conducted e/plorator factor analses on the
scale, and found that the items initiall loaded on ?, C or B factors. 4s the .ere
often unable to e/plain these factors, the then requested t.o factors. 7he resulting
analses are displaed in 7able >G. &n this table, items that .ere e/cluded from that
particular #ersion of the scale are represented b 14. &tems that did not load on an
factors, or alternati#el loaded on both factors are represented b a dotted line. &tems
that loaded on the primar control factor are bolded, .hilst items that loaded on the
secondar control factor are not bolded. 7his table demonstrates that the primar
control items generall factored .ell, ho.e#er the secondar control items often
loaded on both factors. 7he primar control scale .ill be discussed first.
>GD
able $0% 3actor AnalGsis of "rimarG and SecondarG Control Scale
Stud > $ ? C B G D
Primar! 0ontrol :tems
1e. .as to achie#e goal :)20 :).: :)0: :)2/ :)20 :)<: :)<-
Persistence :)<2 :)</ :)01 :)0* :).1 :)<$ :).$
3emo#e obstacles :)<$ :)<: :)00 :)20 :)<1 :)2$ ,A
&n#est time :)0: :)0$ :)<* :)00 :).$ :)2$ :)<*
6earn s!ills :)2- :)<1 :)<0 :)02 :)1- ,A :)0<
4s! for help or ad#ice :)/< :)20 %.?G %.G> %.GJ ,A ,A
Effort to ma!e it happen :)/$ :)2/ %%%% %.BC :).* :)/- :)02
Secondar! 0ontrol :tems
Positi#e 3e8interpretation %.CG :)/* %.G% %.BD %.CC 8888 %.C$
*isdom %.CD %.BJ %.CA :)2$ %.C> 8888 %.CD
&llusor optimism %.BC 8888 %.B$ %.GD %.?D 8888 8888
Do.n.ard social
comparison
%.GB %.B% %.GJ %.C? %.DD 8888 %.CG
Past success %.D> %.B$ %.D> %.?> %.J> 8888 8888
=icarious %.DG %.G% %.C> :)-. %.J$ 8888 8888
Positi#e approach %.G? 14 8888 :)02 %.BC 8888 8888
;oal disengagement 8888 14 14 14 :).* %.D$ %.DG
Present success %.BD %.D? %.G$ %.D$ %.BJ %.DC 8888
Predicti#e negati#e 8888 %.GG :)/< 8888 :)<1 %.G> %.BC
4ttribution %.C? %.DG %.C> :)1/ :)<1 %.C% 8888
Beha#ioural a#oidance %.?% 8888 8888 8888 %.CA %.GA %.DG
4cti#e a#oidance 8888 14 14 8888 :)0< %.DC %.DG
Sour grapes %.?A 14 14 14 14 %.G> %.BC
Support 8888 :)/* 8888 :)2< %.DD 8888 8888
;i#e up 14 %.BA %:)1- 8%.BJ 14 8888 8888
Studies > N Maher ($%%>)H $ N MisaKon ($%%%)H ? N Spo!es (>AAJ)H C N )ahill (>AAJ)H
B N MisaKon ($%%>)H G N Stud oneH D N )ousins ($%%>)
4olded factor loadings refer to the DrimarG control factor)
>GJ
2.2.1.1 Primar! 0ontrol Scale
2.2.1.2 i- Stem of Primar! 0ontrol :tems
7he factor analses in 7able >G demonstrate that the primar control items
generall factor .ell. Ho.e#er, one reason .h the primar control items ma ha#e
loaded on a different factor to the secondar control items is that the primar and
secondar control items .ere presented separatel in the scale. 7he primar control
items began .ith '.hen & find a goal that is difficult to reach-, '.hen & reall .ant
something- and '.hen something gets in the .a of a goal-, .hereas the secondar
control items all began .ith '.hen something bad happens that & cannot change.-
7he reason the t.o strategies ha#e different stems is that it .as originall
assumed that primar control strategies .ere onl used .hen a person faced a
difficult that the could change, and that secondar control strategies .ere onl
used .hen the difficult could not be changed. 7his assumption ma be incorrect
ho.e#er, as it is possible for people to use secondar control .hen the face a
situation that the can change. 0or e/ample, an emploee ma be upset that a co8
.or!er is al.as late. 7he ma !no. that if the use primar control and tal! to
their super#isor about the problem, the co8.or!er .ill be reprimanded, and as such
begin to arri#e on time. Ho.e#er, the ma choose not to use primar control as
the ma then lose their friendship .ith the co8.or!er. 3ather, the ma implement
secondar control, and tell themsel#es that the problem 'doesn@t matter.-
Similarl, it is possible that people use primar control .hen the face
situations that the cannot change. 0or e/ample, an emploee ma disli!e their .or!
>GA
times, et be a.are that the .or! times cannot be changed. E#en so, the ma
attempt to change their .or!ing times through using primar control, and discussing
solutions .ith their super#isor. 7he super#isor .ould presumabl reKect their
proposal, and the primar control strateg .ould ha#e failed. Despite !no.ing the
possibilit of primar control failure ho.e#er, the emploee ma ha#e decided to
ta!e a ris!.
4s it is possible for primar and secondar control to be used in controllable
and uncontrollable situations, the scale .as changed so that the stems of the items are
the same. 7he re#ised scale includes the primar and secondar control items
together, .ith the follo.ing introductor sentenceH 'Here are .as people deal .ith
difficult situations in their li#es. Ho. often ha#e ou had these thoughts .hen
facing a difficult o#er the past .ee!,- E/amples of these thoughts are 'it .ill .or!
out o!a in the end- and '& !ne. it .ould happen.- 7he other control items .hich
in#ol#ed actions rather than thoughts had an alternati#e introductor paragraphH
'Ho. often ha#e ou done these things .hen facing a difficult o#er the past .ee!,-
(i.e., '& !ept tring-, '& told someone about it-, '& .or!ed to o#ercome it-).
2.2.1.3 ii- Primar! control :tem 0ontent
4s demonstrated in 7able >G, all studies found that the items assessing ne.
.as to achie#e goals, persistence, remo#e obstacles, learn s!ills and in#est time,
loaded on the primar control factor. 7he items measuring effort to ma!e it happen,
and as! others for help or ad#ice occasionall loaded on the secondar control factor.
7hese t.o items .ere deleted as the .ere criticised for being similar to secondar
>D%
control strategies. Specificall, the item referring to effort to ma!e it happen,
generall .orded as '& thin! & can ma!e it happen- does not actuall refer to the
person putting in effort, and rather is similar to the secondar control strateg of
illusor optimism (i.e., '& !no. it .ill .or! out o!a in the end-). 7he other item
referring to as!ing for help or ad#ice .as also deleted as it difficult to separate it
from secondar control. &ndeed as!ing the boss or someone .ho has some po.er
o#er the problem for help or ad#ice ma be a means of changing the en#ironment.
Ho.e#er, discussions .ith people .ho ha#e less po.er o#er the situation, such as
friends, ma onl ser#e to ma!e the person accept the problem.
4lthough the remainder of the primar control items loaded on the primar
control factor, there .ere still conceptual problems .ith the items. 0or e/ample, the
item referring to learning s!ills .as deleted from the scale, as it is onl rele#ant if the
person is attempting to achie#e something, and cannot be applied to the ne. stem,
namel difficult situations. 0urthermore, the item assessing in#esting time .as
omitted, as it .as not necessaril indicati#e of primar control. 4 person ma spend
lots of time on a problem, et not attempt to change the en#ironment.
7he remainder of the items .ere criticised as the e/amined .hether the
emploees belie#ed that the could change their situation, rather than e/amining ho.
the change their situation. 0or e/ample, the items '& thin! & can ma!e it happen-, '&
belie#e & can achie#e it- and '& belie#e & can o#ercome it- measure .hether a person
belie#es that the can change a situation. 4s discussed in chapter $, it is questioned
.hether belie#ing that one can change a situation is a measure of primar control. 4
person ma report that the can change a situation for a #ariet of reasons, not Kust if
>D>
the use primar control strategies .hen the face difficulties. 0or e/ample, a
person ma report that the can change their en#ironment because the ha#e high
optimism. 4lternati#el, the ma be using the secondar control strateg illusor
optimism, .here the tell themsel#es that 'e#erthing .ill .or! out o!a in the
end.- 4s such, the re#ised primar control scale, displaed in 7able >D, is changed
to e/amine percei#ed strategies (e.g., e/erting more effort, .or!ing harder) rather
than beliefs.
able $<% Original and #evised "rimarG Control 'tems
Primar )ontrol Strateg $
nd
Edition (Heeps et al.,
$%%%)
C
th
Edition (Maher et al.,
$%%>)
1e. .as to achie#e goal & thin! about different
.as to achie#e it
& loo!ed for different
.as to o#ercome it
Effort to ma!e it happen & thin! & can ma!e it
happen
& .or!ed to o#ercome it
&n#est time & thin! about it a lot 14
Persistence & belie#e & can achie#e it & !ept tring
3emo#e obstacles & belie#e & can o#ercome
it
& .or!ed out ho. to
remo#e obstacles
2.2.1.* iii- Catin$ Scale
7he primar control items .ere originall rated on a >%8point scale ranging
from > (do not agree at all) to >% (agree completel). 7his rating scale indicates
.hether an indi#idual agrees that the ha#e used a strateg, not ho. much the ha#e
used a strateg. 7.o people ma report that the agree completel that the ha#e
used a strateg, ho.e#er one ma use it >% times a da, .hilst the other ma use it
once a .ee!. 4s the scale did not differentiate bet.een these people, the primar
control rating scale .as changed to assess frequenc.
>D$
&n order to reduce inaccuracies, the scale .as changed from measuring the
control strategies that people generall use .hen the face a difficult to e/amining
the strategies people ha#e used o#er the past .ee!. 4s such, the rating scale ranged
from % (ne#er) to >% (e#er time).
2.2.1." Secondar! 0ontrol
2.2.1./ i- Stem of Secondar! 0ontrol :tems
4s pre#iousl discussed, it .as thought that the primar control items ma
ha#e loaded on a different factor to the secondar control items because the stems of
the items .ere different. &n order to o#ercome this, the secondar control items .ere
placed .ith the primar control items. 7he stem of the item .as changed from
'.hen something bad happens that & cannot change- to 'ho. often ha#e ou done
these things .hen facing a difficult o#er the past .ee!.-
2.2.1., ii- :tem 0ontent
4s demonstrated in 7able >G, a fe. secondar control items loaded on both
the primar control factor and the secondar control factor. 7here did not appear to
be a consistent pattern in these studies ho.e#er, .ith some studies finding that an
item loaded on a secondar control factor, .hilst others found that it loaded on a
primar control factor. &t .as originall e/pected that the secondar control items
.ould form one factor, ho.e#er it is no. proposed that each item measures a
different strateg and that these strategies are independent. (ne person ma use one
secondar control strateg in all situations, and so not use an of the others. 7his
>D?
proposal has implications for the scoring of the secondar control scale, and also for
factor analses of the scale.
&n regard to scoring, the proposal that respondents@ scores on secondar
control items ma not be consistent suggests that the secondar control items cannot
be aggregated. Ho.e#er, secondar control can still be measured b using the
highest scoring item. 7his scoring procedure .ill be e/plained in detail later.
&n regard to factor analses, the proposal that respondents@ scores on
secondar control items are not consistent ma e/plain .h the secondar control
items loaded on more than one factor. 3espondents ma report different scores on
all the secondar control items, and thus the .ould not be e/pected to cluster
together. 4s such, rather than eliminating an items .hich loaded on a primar
control factor, the items .ere e/amined in terms of their theoretical usefulness.
Man of the items .ere similar to others, such as past success and present
success, and positi#e approach and beha#ioral a#oidance. Present success ('& thin!
about m success in other areas-) encompasses past success ('& remember & ha#e
accomplished a lot in life-). 0urthermore, positi#e approach ('& do something nice to
ta!e m mind off things-) and beha#ioral a#oidance ('& do some phsical e/ercise or
tr to rela/-) could be combined to measure acti#e a#oidance ('& do something to
ta!e m mind off things-).
7.o items that had been deleted from the first edition of the scale, namel
denial and support, .ere reinstated. Denial, measured b the item '& ignored it- .as
deleted from pre#ious #ersions of the scale as it .as thought to be similar to the item
for goal disengagement (i.e., '&t doesn@t matter-). Ho.e#er, telling oneself that a
>DC
problem is not important is clearl different from dening that the problem e/ists.
&ntuiti#el, goal disengagement ma be more adapti#e than denial.
Support, measured b the item 'told someone about it- .as also added to the
scale. &t .as originall deleted from the first edition of the scale as it .as a
beha#ioural strateg. &t .as assumed that all secondar control strategies had to be
cogniti#e strategies. 7his is not the case ho.e#er, and Hec!hausen and SchulL
(>AAB) recommend that the distinction bet.een primar and secondar control
should not be based on beha#ioural #ersus cogniti#e, rather .hether it in#ol#es
changing the en#ironment #ersus changing the self. Support allo.s the person to
change themsel#es and become more li!el to accept a situation.
4fter this theoretical analsis, >$ secondar control strategies remained (refer
to 7able >J). 7hese strategies .ere grouped according to their purpose. 4ll of the
strategies are designed to ma!e the person feel better about their situation, ho.e#er
the ma do this b reducing negati#e feelings (i.e., self8protecti#e) or b increasing
positi#e feelings (i.e., self8affirmati#e). 4s demonstrated in 7able >A, people ma
reduce negati#e feelings b telling themsel#es that a difficult situation is not their
fault, that the !ne. it .ould happen, or that it doesn@t matter. People ma increase
positi#e feelings ho.e#er b thin!ing that the are better off than man other people,
and thin!ing about areas of their life in .hich the ha#e been successful.
>DB
able $.% Original and #evised SecondarG Control 'tems
Secondar control
strateg
Second Edition C
th
Edition
Positi#e re8
interpretation
& can see that something good .ill
come if it
& loo!ed for something
else that .as positi#e in
the situation
*isdom & remember ou can@t al.as get
.hat ou .ant
& can@t al.as get .hat &
.ant
&llusor8optimism & !no. thing .ill .or! out (: in
the end
&t .ill .or! out o!a in
the end
Do.n.ard social
(mparison
& remember & am better off than
man other people
& am better off than man
other people
Past success & remember & ha#e alread
accomplished a lot in life
14
=icarious & remember the success of m
famil and friends
& thought of the success
of m famil or friends
Positi#e approach & thin! nice thoughts to ta!e m
mind off it
14
;oal
disengagement
& tell mself it doesn@t matter &t doesn@t matter
Predicti#e8
negati#e
& don@t feel disappointed because &
!ne. it might happen
& !ne. it .ould happen
4ttribution & can see it is not m fault &t .as not m fault
4cti#e a#oidance & ignore it b thin!ing about other
things
& did something different,
li!e going for a .al!
Sour grapes & realise & didn@t need to control it
an.a
14
Present success & thin! about m success in other
areas
& thought about m
success in other areas.
Denial 14 & ignored it
Support 14 7old someone about it
able $-% 3unctions of the SecondarG Control Strategies
"se Definition of use Secondar )ontrol Strateg
Self8
protecti#e
3educes the
negati#e impact of
the situation
&llusor optimism, goal disengagement,
predicti#e negati#e, attribution, denial,
.isdom
Self8
affirmation
&ncreases positi#e
feelings about self
Do.n.ard social comparison, #icarious,
present success, support, positi#e re8
interpretation, acti#e a#oidance
>DG
2.2.1.; iii- Catin$ Scale
4s .ith the primar control items, the secondar control items .ere changed
to measure frequenc. Each strateg .as rated on an >>8point scale ranging from
% (ne#er) to >% (e#er time).
2.2.1.) S1mmar!
0ollo.ing a re#ie. of the factor analses conducted on the primar and
secondar control scale, and an in#estigation of the item stem, the item content, and
the rating scale, a re#ised scale .as de#eloped. 7his scale, presented in 4ppendi/ H
.ill be implemented in the second stud. (ne further point that requires discussion
ho.e#er, is the scoring of the control scale.
2.2.1.10 Scorin$ the primar! and secondar! control scale
Pre#ious #ersions of the Primar and Secondar )ontrol Scale (Heeps et al.,
$%%%) a#eraged across the strategies to obtain an o#erall score for primar control
score and an o#erall score for secondar control. 7he problem .ith this method
ho.e#er, is that a person ma report that the use one secondar control strateg
e#er time (>%) and report ne#er (%) for the remaining strategies. )alculating the
a#erage le#el of secondar control in this situation .ould result in a lo. score. 4s
the used a secondar control strateg e#er time the faced a difficult in the
pre#ious .ee!, a lo. score is not representati#e of their secondar control use.
(ne solution to this problem is to ta!e the highest score for primar control
and the highest score for secondar control. "sing this method, a person .ho reports
>DD
>% for one secondar control strateg and % for the rest .ould recei#e a score of >%
for secondar control. 4nother person ma report different scores for all secondar
control strategies, including a B, D, J, >%, $, ?, C. 7his person .ould also recei#e a
score of >%, as it is the highest score. 7he fact that the second person has higher
scores on other secondar control items does not mean that the person uses more
secondar control strategies, onl that the use a greater #ariet of secondar control
strategies.
2.2.2 b- Job "0tonom! Scale
7he ne/t limitation that .as identified in stud one concerns the
measurement of Kob autonom. 7he autonom scale implemented in stud one .as
a multidimensional scale. 7he scale e/amined specific facets of the .or!, such as
#ariet of .or!, pace of .or!, scheduling of rest brea!s, and interaction .ith others.
7his multidimensional scale .as ad#antageous as it prompted the emploees to
consider all aspects of their .or!. 7his is important as emploees ma fail to
consider some facets of their .or!. 7he ma ha#e accepted for e/ample that the
cannot change their pa, policies and amount of interruptions, and thus no longer
e/pect to be able to ma!e choices in these areas. 7he multidimensional scale ensures
that all .or!ers thin! about the same Kob facets.
Ho.e#er, it is no. recognised that the multidimensional scale is also
problematic. 4lthough the scale prompts emploees to consider all aspects of their
.or!, some of the facets ma not be appropriate for them, or important to them.
*ith a global scale, the respondent can include facets that are not specified in the
>DJ
facet scale, and e/clude facets that are not rele#ant to their .or!place. 4s such, their
response is onl based on facets that the thin! are important. 7he ma e/clude
some facets because the ha#e lo.ered their e/pectations, ho.e#er if the ha#e
accepted them, then the are not e/pected to influence their le#els of Kob satisfaction.
2.2.3 c- .cc0pational =ro0ps
7his stud .ill compare t.o occupational groups that ha#e different le#els of
Kob autonom, lo. and high. 4s in stud one, uni#ersit academic staff ha#e been
selected for the high Kob autonom group. 4cademics traditionall ha#e fle/ibilit in
their .or! and freedom to pursue their o.n research interests (*inefield, $%%%).
7he can often choose among a #ariet of tas!s, including research, teaching, and
administration (0isher, >AAC). *hether this theoretical e/pectation e/isted in
practice .as tested in stud one. 7he results demonstrated that the academics
reported a le#el of Kob autonom .hich .as B?SSM. &t could not be ascertained
.hether this score .as high ho.e#er, as there .as fe. comparati#e studies for
;anster@s (>AJA, cited in D.er I ;anster, >AA>) multidimensional scale of Kob
autonom. Stud t.o .ill o#ercome this problem b reling on a scale, .hich has
been used more e/tensi#el.
Secondar school teachers ha#e been selected for the lo. Kob autonom
group. 7eachers ha#e been selected rather than supermar!et .or!ers because this
stud is attempting to minimise the differences bet.een the groups. &n stud one, it
.as demonstrated that although the supermar!et operators reported higher Kob
autonom, and higher secondar control than the academics, the t.o groups reported
>DA
similar le#els of Kob satisfaction. Ho.e#er, there .ere differences bet.een the t.o
occupational groups that ma ha#e accounted for the similar le#els of Kob
satisfaction. 7he supermar!et .or!ers .ould ha#e e/perienced fe.er difficulties at
.or! than the academics, and ma ha#e had lo.er Kob e/pectations than the
academics.
Stud t.o attempts to e/amine t.o groups .hich ha#e similar e/periences at
.or!, but .hich ha#e differing le#els of Kob autonom, namel secondar school
teachers and academics. 4lthough both occupational groups deli#er education to
students and ha#e similar roles, it is e/pected that teachers .ill report lo.er Kob
autonom.
4lthough fe. studies ha#e e/amined 4ustralian teachers@ le#els of Kob
autonom, a recent report proposes that although the ;o#ernment attempted to
empo.er schools and teachers through pro#iding schools .ith more responsibilit,
teachers are e/periencing reduced autonom (Senate Emploment, Education and
7raining 3eferences )ommittee, >AAJ). 7eachers are reporting that the .ant to
ha#e more in#ol#ement in decision8ma!ing. (ne stud .hich inter#ie.ed ABG
4ustralian teachers about the changes the felt .ere necessar to reduce stress
(7eacher Stress in =ictoria, >AA%) found that the most common change (J%S) .as to
increase staff collaboration and communications. 7he also mentioned increasing
consultations before maKor decisions are made.
7he tpe of decisions that the teachers .ant to be consulted on concern
curriculum selection, de#elopment and implementation (Senate Emploment,
Education and 7raining 3eferences )ommittee, >AAJ). &t is particularl important
>J%
that the teachers are in#ol#ed in curriculum selection so that the can ha#e control
o#er the means of producing the results b .hich the .ill then be Kudged ()ole,
>AJA).
&n summar, this stud .ill test the maKor hpotheses b comparing
academics and teachers. 4lthough little research has e/amined these t.o groups, it
is e/pected that the academics .ill report higher Kob autonom than the teachers.
2.2.* d- Need for Job "0tonom!
&n stud one, it .as assumed that high Kob autonom .as beneficial for all
emploees. 7his assumption .as based on :arase! and 7heorell@s (>AA%, p. >$)
proposal that 'if Kobs .ere redesigned .ith high Kob decision latitude2demands
.ould be seen as challenges and .ould be associated .ith increased learning and
moti#ation, .ith more effecti#e performance and less ris! of illness.- Ho.e#er, it
must be noted that other researchers ha#e suggested that people ma differ in the
e/tent to .hich the li!e to e/ercise control o#er their en#ironment (Burger I
)ooper, >ADAH Par!es, >AJA). 7his difference in need for autonom ma influence
the relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction, .here Kob autonom
ma ha#e greater influence on Kob satisfaction .hen need for Kob autonom is high.
(nl a fe. studies ha#e e/amined the moderating role of need for Kob
autonom on the relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob related outcomes (e.g.,
de 9onge, 6ande.eerd I Breu!elen, >AAC, cited in de 3iK!, 6e Blanc, Schaufeli, I
de 9onge, >AAJH 1icolle, >AAC). 7hese studies ha#e tended to produce inconsistent
findings. 0or e/ample, de 3iK! et al., (>AAJ) cite de 9onge et al@s., (>AAC) stud as
>J>
pro#iding e#idence that the need for autonom moderated the relationship bet.een
Kob autonom and emotional e/haustion and health complaints. *hen de 3iK! et al.,
(>AAJ) replicated the stud ho.e#er, the failed to find support for the moderating
role.
(ne other stud, conducted b 1icolle (>AAC) pro#ides some support for the
moderating role of need for autonom. 7his stud demonstrated that for nurses .ith
a lo. need for autonom, Kob autonom .as positi#el related to absenteeism,
ho.e#er for nurses .ith a high need for autonom, Kob autonom .as not related to
absenteeism. 7hese results must be interpreted .ith caution ho.e#er, as onl ? of
the ?G analses .ere significant.
(ne further stud has been reported to pro#ide e#idence for the moderating
role of need for autonom. De 3iK! et al., (>AAJ) cited ;aLiel@s (>AJA) stud on
school administrators as being supporti#e of the hpothesis. 4ccording to De 3iK! et
al., (>AAJ) this stud demonstrated that for administrators .ho had a lo. need for
autonom, Kob autonom .as not related to Kob satisfaction, .hereas for
administrators .ho had a high need for autonom, there .as a positi#e relationship
bet.een Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction. E/amination of the stud demonstrates
that this is not the case ho.e#er. ;aLiel@s (>AJA) stud did not e/amine the
relationship bet.een autonom and Kob satisfaction for .or!ers .ith differing le#els
of Kob autonom. 3ather, the stud e/amined the maKor predictors of a percei#ed
deficienc in autonom.
&n summar, it has been suggested that emploees ma differ in their need for
autonom and that the relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction ma
>J$
differ depending on this need. 4s onl a fe. studies ha#e e/amined this proposed
moderating effect, and as the studies tend to be inconsistent, clearl further research
is needed.
2.2.) e- "ddition of Social S0pport
4s mentioned in chapter >, the Kob demand8control model .as e/tended to
include social support (9ohnson I Hall, >AJJH >AACH 9ohnson, Hall I 7heorell, >AJAH
:arase! I 7heorell, >AA%). Social support at .or! refers to 'o#erall le#els of
helpful social interaction a#ailable in the Kob from both co8.or!ers and super#isors-
(:arase! I 7heorell, >AA%, p.GA). 7.o maKor tpes of social support ha#e been
identified, namel emotional support and instrumental support. 4ccording to
:arase! and 7heorell (>AA%, p. D%), emotional support refers to the 'degree of social
and emotional integration and trust bet.een co8.or!ers, super#isors and others-,
.hereas instrumental support refers to 'e/tra resources or assistance .ith .or! tas!s
gi#en b co8.or!ers or super#isors.- 7he Kob demand8control8support model
proposes that social support at .or! predicts Kob satisfaction.
Stud one did not e/amine social support at .or! as it focussed on
understanding ho. Kob autonom influences the control strategies, and on personalit
and life satisfaction. Ho.e#er, after e/amining research on the relationship bet.een
social support and Kob satisfaction further, social support appears to be an e/tremel
important predictor, and as such, stud t.o .ill e/amine social support at .or! in
more detail.
>J?
Social support at .or! has been sho.n to directl and indirectl increase Kob
satisfaction. &n regard to the direct effects, se#eral researchers ha#e demonstrated
that social support at .or! is positi#el related to Kob satisfaction (r N %.B$H Dollard
et al., r N %.GG, Munro et al., >AAJ), and negati#el related to Kob dissatisfaction
(r N 8%.$A, r N 8%.$JH 6a3occo, House I 0rench, >AJ%). 7hese studies suggest that
.or!ers .ho report higher social support tend to be more satisfied .ith their Kobs.
(ne possible e/planation for the positi#e relationship bet.een social support
and Kob satisfaction is that social support reduces the negati#e effects of .or!
demands. 7his e/planation, !no.n as the buffering hpothesis, proposes that social
support at .or! buffers the potentiall negati#e effects of high demands on Kob
satisfaction. (nl a fe. studies ha#e e/amined the buffering hpothesis for Kob
satisfaction.
4 re#ie. of these studies, conducted b =an Der Doef and Maes (>AAA)
demonstrated that onl t.o (i.e., :arase!, 7riantis I )haudr, >AJ$H 6andsbergis,
Schnall, DietL, 0riedman I Pic!ering, >AA$) of the si/ studies ()ha, >AA?H de 9onge
I 6ande.eerd, >AA?, cited in =an der Doef I Maes, >AAAH Melamed, :ushnir I
Meir, >AA>H Par!es I #on 3abenau, >AA?) that e/amined the buffering hpothesis
.ere supporti#e. 7heir re#ie. found no maKor differences among the studies to
account for the inconsistent findings e/cept that both supporti#e studies used male
samples and the others used mi/ed or female samples.
(ne difference among the studies that ma e/plain the findings is the
operationalisation of social support at .or!. 0or e/ample, :arase! et al., (>AJ$)
measured tolerance of super#isor, attenti#eness of super#isor, instrumental support of
>JC
super#isor, demands of super#isor, number of co8.or!ers, instrumental co8.or!er
support, and emotional co8.or!er support. 4lternati#el, )ha (>AA?) relied on the
&nterpersonal Support E#aluation 6ist ()ohen, :amarac!, Mermelstein I Hoberman,
>AJB) .hich measures appraisal support, belonging support, tangible support and
esteem support. 4 similar and briefer scale .as emploed b 6andsbergis et al.,
(>AA$), .ho relied on :arase! and 7heorell@s (>AA%) scale. 7his scale measures
emotional and instrumental support from co8.or!ers and super#isors. 7here is
certainl no agreed upon .a of measuring social support at .or! ("nden, >AAG),
and as such, it is unclear if the operationalisation of social support influenced the
results. *hat is clear is that the buffering role of social support requires more
in#estigation.
&n summar, although it is intuiti#el e/pected that social support at .or!
.ould reduce the negati#e effects of Kob demands or Kob stressors, the results are far
from consistent. 4s there are such fe. studies ho.e#er, more research is required.
>JB
*)/ 7odel of =ob Satisfaction
4 re#ised model of Kob satisfaction, displaed in 0igure G, .ill be tested.
7his model is similar to that presented in 0igure $, as the maKor proposal of the
model is that primar and secondar control mediate the relationship bet.een Kob
autonom and Kob satisfaction. Ho.e#er, this model includes ne. sections on social
support and need for Kob autonom. &n 0igure G, these changes are represented b
bolded #ariables and arro.s. 7hese ne. proposals .ill be discussed.
&t is no. proposed that the relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob
satisfaction is moderated b need for Kob autonom. &t should not be assumed that all
emploees desire high autonom. &ndeed, some .or!ers ma ha#e lo. Kob
autonom et still report high Kob satisfaction because the do not desire freedom
and independence in their Kob. 1eed for Kob autonom and Kob autonom predict the
interaction term (i.e., need for Kob autonom / Kob autonom), .hich in turn predicts
Kob satisfaction.
&t is also proposed that social support at .or! influences Kob satisfaction
directl and indirectl. &t is e/pected to be positi#el correlated .ith Kob satisfaction,
and to also moderate the effect of .or! difficulties on Kob satisfaction. &n 0igure G,
this is represented b the interaction term. Difficulties at .or! and social support at
.or! together predict the interaction term (i.e., difficulties / social support), .hich in
turn predicts Kob satisfaction.
>JG
3igure 0 %#evised 7odel of =ob Satisfaction for StudG *
Difficultie
s at .or!
Social
Support
at .or!
9ob 4utonom
/ 1eed for Kob
autonom
Difficulties
/ Social
Support
1eed for Kob
autonom
9ob 4utonom
Primar )ontrol
=ob Satisfaction
Personalit 6ife Satisfaction
Secondar )ontrol
9ob 4utonom /
Secondar )ontrol
9ob 4utonom /
Primar )ontrol
>JD
*)1 Aims and !GDotheses
7his stud .ill compare le#els of Kob autonom, control strategies, and Kob
satisfaction reported b uni#ersit academic staff and secondar school teachers. &t
.ill also test the e/tent to .hich Kob autonom mediates the relationship bet.een
primar and secondar control strategies using the re#ised measures of Kob autonom
and control strategies. 7he hpotheses are as follo.s+
>) 9ob autonom .ill be positi#el related to Kob satisfaction, and the academics .ill
report higher Kob autonom than the teachers.
7his hpothesis tests the basic assumptions of the stud. &t needs to be
demonstrated that Kob autonom is related to Kob satisfaction, and that comparisons
made bet.een the t.o occupational groups are #alid.
$) 7he academics .ill report more primar control, and less secondar control than
the teachers.
4s the academics ha#e higher Kob autonom, the are e/pected to be more
li!el to successfull implement primar control strategies than the teachers. 4s
secondar control is used to compensate for, and a#oid future primar control failure,
it is e/pected that the teachers .ill report more secondar control than the academics
?) 9ob autonom .ill be positi#el related to primar control, and negati#el related
to secondar control.
>JJ
4s in hpothesis t.o, this hpothesis is e/amining .hether Kob autonom
influences the use of primar and secondar control. Ho.e#er, unli!e hpothesis
t.o, it is based on the measured le#el of autonom rather than the e/pected
occupational le#el
C) Primar control .ill be more positi#el related to Kob satisfaction than secondar
control for the academics, and secondar control .ill be more positi#el related to
Kob satisfaction than primar control for the teachers.
7his stud proposes that Kob satisfaction results from a match bet.een Kob
autonom and control strategies. Based on the discrimination model, it is proposed
that primar control is most adapti#e for emploees .ho can control their .or!
en#ironment (i.e., high Kob autonom), and that secondar control is most adapti#e
for emploees .ho ha#e little control o#er their en#ironment (i.e., lo. Kob
autonom). 4lthough primar control is generall more adapti#e than secondar
control, the teachers ha#e a high probabilit of e/periencing primar control failure
.hen implementing primar control strategies, and thus it is e/pected that, for them,
secondar control strategies .ill be more adapti#e.
B) 7he relationship bet.een the control strategies and Kob satisfaction is moderated
b percei#ed Kob autonom.
7his hpothesis, li!e hpothesis four, is testing .hether Kob autonom
influences the relationship bet.een the control strategies and Kob satisfaction. "nli!e
>JA
hpothesis four ho.e#er, it is based on the measured le#el of Kob autonom rather
than the assumed le#el of autonom based on the occupation.
G) 7he relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction is mediated b
primar and secondar control strategies.
7his hpothesis is testing an e/planation for the relationship bet.een Kob
autonom and Kob satisfaction. 7his e/planation proposes that people .ho ha#e high
Kob autonom ha#e high Kob satisfaction because of their use of the control strategies.
7hese .or!ers use more primar control and less secondar control, and are thus
able to o#ercome their difficulties.
D) 7he academics .ill report higher Kob satisfaction and higher life satisfaction than
the teachers.
7he academics are e/pected to report higher Kob satisfaction than the teachers
as the ha#e higher Kob autonom, and use more primar control and less secondar
control. 7his le#el of Kob satisfaction is e/pected to influence their le#el of life
satisfaction.
J) 7he influence of .or! difficulties on Kob satisfaction is moderated b le#els of
social support at .or!.
7his hpothesis is based on the Kob demand8control8support model (:arase!,
>ADA) .hich proposes that social support can reduce the effect of demands at .or!.
>A%
A) 7he relationship bet.een percei#ed Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction is
moderated b need for autonom.
People ma differ in their need for autonom, and this .ill influence the
relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction.
>%) 9ob autonom, control strategies, life satisfaction, personalit, difficulties at
.or!, and social support at .or!, predict Kob satisfaction.
7hese are all of the #ariables included in 0igure G. 7hese are the maKor
predictors of Kob satisfaction.
>A>
*)2 7ethod
2.).1 Participants
7he sample consisted of >%J uni#ersit academic staff, and AD secondar
school teachers. 7he academics .ere obtained from one uni#ersit, .hereas the
secondar school teachers .ere obtained from $% ;o#ernment schools. 0or the
academics, the response rate .as $>S. 7he response rate of the teachers could not
be calculated as the questionnaires .ere collected from the staff room onl if the
teachers .ere interested in completing the sur#e. 7he demographic characteristics
of the sample are displaed in 7able $%. 7he bolded #alues demonstrate .here the
largest proportion of the sample lies, .hich tends to be fairl consistent across the
groups.
>A$
able *:% DemograDhics of the Academics and eachers
=ariable S 4cademic S 7eachers
;ender Male CA CD
3emale 2$ 2/
4ge >J8$B % $.>
$G8?B J.? >B.B
?G8CB ?$.C ?D.>
10%22 11)1 /-)*
BGU >C.J G.$
Eears in (ccupation %8B >? >>.?
G8>% $D.J >>.?
>>8>B $$.$ >?.C
>G8$% D.C >J.G
*:M *-)0 12)1
Hours .or!ed per .ee! $>8?% G.B C.>
?>8C% D.C >$.C
1$%2: 1<)* 12)1
B>8G% ?$.C $D.J
G>U G.B >%.?
2.).2 $aterials
Both the academics and the teachers recei#ed a plain language statement
(refer to 4ppendi/ &) and an anonmous questionnaire. 7he questionnaire consisted
of se#eral scales, .hich measured Kob autonom, need for Kob autonom, primar
and secondar control, .or! difficulties, Kob satisfaction, life satisfaction, personalit
and social support at .or!.
2.".2.1 Job #1tonom!
4s discussed in the rationale for stud t.o, a global measure of Kob autonom
.as administered. 7his scale de#eloped b Hac!man and (ldham (>ADB) is part of a
larger scale, the 9ob Diagnostic Sur#e. 7his scale is the most commonl used
instrument for measuring Kob autonom (Spector, >AJG). &t consists of three items
>A?
that assess o#erall percei#ed Kob autonom, such as 'in m Kob, & can decide on m
o.n ho. to go about doing m .or!- (refer to 4ppendi/ 9).
4lthough the pschometric properties of the scale ha#e been questioned in the
past (0ried, >AA>H 0ried and 0erris, >AA>), a maKor re#ie. .hich e/amined >B ears
of empirical research on the pschometric properties of the scale pro#ided some
support. 7aber and 7alor (>AA%) demonstrated that the a#erage test8retest
correlations for the scale .ere moderate (r N %.G?), internal consistenc .as
moderate (%.GA), and there .as good discriminant #alidit.
4lthough these pschometric statistics are not e/ceptional, the use of the
scale has been supported in a recent re#ie. conducted b BoonLaier, 0lic!er and
3ust ($%%>). 0urthermore, it must be noted that as mentioned b Breaugh (>AJA), a
better alternati#e is not a#ailable. Breaugh (>AJA, Breaugh, >AAJ) actuall
de#eloped a ne. measure of Kob autonom, ho.e#er this scale .as deemed not to be
appropriate for this stud as li!e ;anster@s (>AJA, cited in D.er I ;anster, >AA>)
scale, it is multidimensional. 4s such, this stud used the autonom items of the 9ob
Diagnostic Sur#e (Hac!man I (ldham, >ADB). &n this stud, )ronbach@s 4lpha
.as %.J?.
2.".2.2 Need for Job #1tonom!
4s there are onl a fe. studies that ha#e e/amined need for Kob autonom,
the measures of need for Kob autonom .ere re#ie.ed. 0irst, 0ung8:am (>AAJ)
tested preference for Kob autonom using Ed.ards (>ABA) Personal Preference
Schedule. 7his scale consists of $J sets of paired statements representing different
>AC
personalit traits and a score is gi#en to the respondent .ho chooses the statement
representing the personalit trait of need for autonom. 7he maKor problem .ith this
scale is that it refers to general autonom, and not specificall to autonom at .or!.
4nother need for Kob autonom scale is 4lgera@s (>AJ>, cited in 6ande.eerd
I Boumans, >AAC) scale. 7his scale as!s the respondents to rate the attracti#eness of
#arious .or! situations. 4lthough this scale ma ha#e been adequate, to date it has
onl been published in Dutch, and as such .as not #iable.
4n e/plorator scale .as de#eloped b de 3iK! et al., (>AAJ). 7his scale
consists of four items .hich e/amine ho. important it is for the person to set the
pace of their tas!s, ha#e control o#er .hat the do at .or! and the .a that the do
it, doing their o.n planning at .or!, and gi#ing orders instead of recei#ing them.
7his scale .as selected for the current stud e#en though pschometric statistics
ha#e not been produced, as the items ha#e face #alidit. 7hese items .ere rated on a
>%8point scale, ranging from > (not at all important) to >% (could not be more
importantH refer to 4ppendi/ :).
4s this scale is e/plorator, a factor analsis .as conducted on the scale to
ensure that the items .ere measuring need for Kob autonom. 7he assumptions .ere
met, .here Bartlett@s test of sphericit .as large and significant, and :aiser8Meer8
(l!in (:M() measure of sampling adequac e/ceeded %.G. 4 principal components
analsis .ith direct oblimin rotation ielded one factor. E/amination of the
eigen#alues ho.e#er demonstrated that the second factor had an eigen#alue of %.AAA,
and as such a t.o8factor solution .as tested. 7his analsis, displaed in 7able $>,
demonstrates that item four (i.e., 'Ho. important is it for ou to gi#e orders instead
>AB
of recei#ing them-) loaded on the second factor. &tem four is different to the other
three items as it ma also measure need for authorit. 4s a result, item four .as
deleted from the scale. *hen all four items .ere included in the scale, )ronbach@s
alpha .as lo. (%.BG), ho.e#er .hen item four .as deleted, )ronbach@s alpha .as
adequate (%.DD).
able *$% 3actor AnalGsis of the ,eed for =ob AutonomG Scale
1o. &tem 0> 0$
> !ow imDortant is it for Gou to set the Dace of Gour
tasks at work)
%.J?
$ !ow imDortant is it for Gou to have control over
what Gou do at work and the waG that Gou do it)
%.JD
? !ow imDortant is it for Gou to do Gour own
Dlanning at work)
%.J%
C Ho. important is it for ou to gi#e orders to .or!
instead of recei#ing them.
%.AA
Eigen#alues $.%AJ %.AAA
S of #ariance B$.CB $C.AJ
)umulati#e #ariance B$.CB DD.C?
)ronbachPs 4lpha (for re#ised scale) %.DD
6oadings less than %.C% are e/cludedH 4olded items are included in the scale
2.".2.3 Primar! control and Secondar! 0ontrol
4s discussed in the rationale, the Primar and Secondar )ontrol Scale
de#eloped b Heeps et al., ($%%%) .as re#ised for this stud (Maher et al., $%%>).
7he scale no. includes four primar control items and >$ secondar control items
(refer to 4ppendi/ H). 7hese items are rated on a >>8point scale ranging from %
(ne#er) to >% (e#er time). 4lthough the control strategies .ere aggregated in stud
one, it no. appears that this scoring method is fla.ed. 7he items cannot be
aggregated as people ma use one strateg all the time, and ne#er use the others.
>AG
"sing the a#erage, the .ould recei#e a score that is not representati#e of the
frequenc of secondar control strategies (i.e., e#er time). 4s such, an alternati#e
solution used here is to record the highest frequenc for primar control strategies
and the highest frequenc for secondar control strategies.
2.".2.* ?orB Diffic1lties
*or! difficulties .ere measured in the Primar and Secondar )ontrol Scale
(Maher et al., $%%>H refer to 4ppendi/ H). Prior to assessing ho. the emploees deal
.ith their .or! difficulties, the scale assesses the frequenc of .or! difficulties.
Specificall, the item is 'ho. often do ou ha#e difficult doing something at .or!.-
7he rating scale ranges from > (ne#er) to >% (all the time).
2.".2." Job Satisfaction
7.o scales of Kob satisfaction .ere administeredH a facet scale and a global
scale. 7he facet scale .as changed from the 9ob Descripti#e &nde/ (9D&) in stud
one to the Minnesota Satisfaction 5uestionnaire (MS5H *eiss et al., >AGDH refer to
4ppendi/ 6). 7he MS5 .as used because unli!e the 9D&, .hich onl e/amines fi#e
facets of the Kob, the MS5 e/amines $% facets. &t .as thought that a greater
understanding of the groups could be obtained b using the MS5. 0urthermore, the
items in the MS5 can be aggregated to measure intrinsic and e/trinsic Kob
satisfaction) &ntrinsic Kob satisfaction refers to ho. people feel about the nature of
the tas!s, .hereas e/trinsic Kob satisfaction refers to ho. people feel about aspects of
the .or! situation that are e/ternal to the .or! itself (Spector, >AAD). 7his scale has
>AD
adequate reliabilit .here )ronbach@s alpha ranges from %.J$ to %.JJ and
discriminant #alidit has been demonstrated (Hirschfeld, $%%%).
7he facet measure is onl useful to gain insight into the teachers@ and
academics@ le#el of Kob satisfaction. &t cannot be used as the dependent #ariable
ho.e#er as a facet scale cannot be aggregated (&ronson et al., >AJA). &t ma e/clude
areas that are important to the respondent, or include areas that are unimportant to the
respondent. 4s such, a one8item measure of Kob satisfaction .as used as the
dependent #ariable. 4lthough internal consistenc cannot be established .ith a
single8item measure, the single item measure of Kob satisfaction has been sho.n to
correlate .ith other measures of Kob satisfaction, .here r N %.G? (*anous et al.,
>AAD).
2.".2./ 9ife Satisfaction
4s in stud one, the subKecti#e dimension of the )omprehensi#e 5ualit of
6ife Scale ()om85(6) de#eloped b )ummins (>AAD) .as used to assess
satisfaction .ith se#en domains of life, including material .ell8being, health,
producti#it, intimac, safet, communit and emotional .ell8being (refer to
4ppendi/ E). 4n >>8point scale .as utilised, ranging from % (completel
dissatisfied) to >% (completel satisfied)
2.".2., Personalit!
7he e/tro#ersion and neuroticism subscales of the 1E( 0i#e 0actor
&n#entor, de#eloped b )osta and Mc)rae (>AA$) .ere used to measure personalit.
7his scale, discussed in stud one, contains >$ items to measure e/tro#ersion and >$
>AJ
items to measure neuroticism (refer to 4ppendi/ 0). )on#ergent and discriminant
#alidit of both of these personalit factors has been established ()osta I Mc)rae,
>AA$, 6eong I Dollinger, >AA>H 7insle, >AAC).
2.".2.; Social S1pport at ?orB
Social support at .or! .as measured b :arase! and 7heorell@s (>AA%) scale
.hich has t.o componentsH super#isor support and co8.or!er support (refer to
4ppendi/ M). Each component is measured b C items, and rated on a scale from
> (not true at all) to >% (could not be more true). 7.o items measure emotional
support, and t.o measure instrumental support. Emotional support measures the
degree of social cohesion in the .or! group, .hilst instrumental support measures
the amount of assistance gi#en .ith .or! tas!s. 4lthough the scale measures
emotional and instrumental support, the four items are summed to pro#ide an o#erall
support score.
7he items in the scale .ere changed slightl to ensure that the referred to
the emploee. Some of them .ere quite ambiguous, such as 'm super#isor sho.s
concern- and 'm super#isor pas attention.- 4s these items could be interpreted in
regard to .or! tas!s or other emploees, the .ere changed to 'm super#isor sho.s
concern for me- and 'm super#isor pas attention to me.-
Past studies using the original scale ha#e demonstrated that the scale has
adequate reliabilit .ith )ronbach@s alpha ranging from %.GA to %.JA (:arase! et al.,
>AAJ), and %.J> to %.JD (Pelfrene, =leric!, Ma!, De Smets, :ornitLer I De Bac!er,
>AA
$%%>). 0urthermore, factor analses ha#e demonstrated that the super#isor support
items load on a different factor to the co8.or!er support items (Pelfrene et al., $%%>).
2.).3 Proced0re
Ethics appro#al .as obtained from Dea!in "ni#ersit, and the Department of
Education, Emploment and 7raining (DEE7). )onsent .as obtained from the
Heads of School to recruit the academics, and from the Principals for the teachers.
7he recruiting procedure differed depending on the group. 0i#e hundred academics
.ithin one "ni#ersit .ere sent a questionnaire pac!age. &f the chose to participate
in the stud, the completed the questionnaire and returned it using a repl paid
en#elope. 0or the teachers, each Principal that agreed to assist .ith the stud .as
sent >%8>B questionnaires. 7he then discussed the questionnaires in their staff
meetings, and left them in the staff room for the teachers to collect. (n occasion, the
Principals chose to distribute the questionnaires to a selection of staff members.
7hese questionnaires .ere sent bac! to Dea!in "ni#ersit using a repl8paid
en#elope. 4t the conclusion of the stud, the participating Heads of School and the
Principals recei#ed a summar of the results.
$%%
*)0 #esults
2.9.1 Data Screenin# and /hecBin# of "ss0mptions
7he data set for each occupational group .as initiall e/amined for missing
#alues, acquiescence, outliers, normalit and linearit. 6ess than BS of the #alues
for academics and teachers .ere missing for an one item. 4s there .as no pattern
to these missing #alues, the .ere, as in stud one, replaced .ith the group mean.
"ni#ariate outliers .ere identified in the primar and secondar control scale (B), the
Kob autonom scale (>), the facet Kob satisfaction scale ($), and the life satisfaction
scale (>J). 7hese #alues .ere recoded to lie .ithin three standard de#iations of the
mean.
1ormalit .as assessed using the s!e.Mstandard errorR?,
:olmogoro#8Smirnof #alues, frequenc histograms, and normal probabilit plots.
0or the academics, Kob autonom (8B.DG), and co8.or!er support (8?.$C) .ere mildl
negati#el s!e.ed. 0or the teachers, Kob satisfaction (8?.DA), super#isor support
(8?.CC), and co8.or!er support (8B.>G) .ere mildl negati#el s!e.ed. 4s in stud
one, these #ariables .ere not transformed as transformations are not recommended
for data that are mildl and naturall s!e.ed (7abachnic! I 0idell, >AAG). 3ather,
these .ere e/amined using the more conser#ati#e alpha le#el of %.%>. 6inearit .as
assessed through bi#ariate scatterplots, and these appeared to demonstrate reasonable
linear relationships.
$%>
2.9.2 Descriptive Statistics and :nter1/orrelations
7able $$ contains the means and standard de#iations for the maKor #ariables
in the stud for each occupational group. *hilst the teachers reported lo.er Kob
autonom than the academics, the reported similar le#els of Kob satisfaction, and
primar and secondar control. 7able $? displas the correlations among all of the
maKor #ariables for the academics and the teachers. 7his table demonstrates that
although Kob autonom is correlated .ith Kob satisfaction, primar and secondar
control strategies are not.
able **% 7eans and Standard Deviations of 7aKor (ariables for Academics
and eachers
=ariable 4cademics 7eachers
M SD M SD
9ob Satisfaction8(ne item GC.%A $>.D$ GJ.DA $%.$?
&ntrinsic 9ob Satisfaction D$.DG >?.$C DD.%D >C.J%
E/trinsic 9ob Satisfaction CC.CG $%.CB BG.>B $%.JA
9ob 4utonom DC.A? >G.J> GG.?$ >D.DA
Primar )ontrol J>.BJ >C.C$ J%.GC >B.J$
Secondar )ontrol J?.?? >?.?D J$.A? >>.A%
6ife Satisfaction DC.$% >>.?C DB.G> >C.CJ
1euroticism ?B.%D >G.G% ??.?? >G.%C
E/tro#ersion G>.G$ >?.%G G?.A$ >B.GA
Super#isor Support CC.BD $A.CC GC.?> $G.BG
)o8.or!er Support D>.>> >J.A% DD.CA >B.BD
Difficulties at .or! CA.BA $C.%J CG.%B $?.%>
4ll scores ha#e been con#erted to a percentage of scale ma/imum (SSM) .hich
ranges from %8>%%. 7he formula is (mean score for the original domain8>) / >%%M
(number of scale points O>).
$%$
able */% 'nter%Correlations for the Academics and eachers
9S 94 P) S) 6S 1 E SS )S
9S :)2$
LL
:)$1 :)$1 :)10
LL
%:)*-
LL
:)*/
L
:)01
LL
:)/-
LL
94 %.?D
QQ
:):0 :):0 :)/.
LL
%:)$1 :)$< :)/-
LL
:)/1
LL
P) 8%.%D %.>$ :)20
LL
:)$2 %:)$- :):$ :):$ %:)$1
S) 8%.%G %.%% %.C%
QQ
:)*<
LL
%:):. :)$-
L
%:):2 %:):0
6S %.?J
QQ
%.$%
Q
%.%A %.%? %:)/-
LL
:)2*
LL
:)/0
LL
:)*0
LL
1 8%.?J
QQ
8%.?J
QQ
8%.%D %.%? 8%.CJ
QQ
%:)/*
LL
%:)$2 :):/
E %.$$
Q
%.>G %.$%
Q
%.>? %.$G
QQ
8%.CC
QQ
:)$0 :)$.
SS %.CG
QQ
%.$G
QQ
8%.>B 8%.%A %.>AQ 8%.%G %.%J :)22
LL
)S %.C$
QQ
%.>B %.%D %.%B %.$?
QQ
8%.?>
QQ
%.?J
QQ
%.?A
QQ
Di 8%.?>
QQ
8%.$%
Q
8%.%D %.%? 8%.??
QQ
%.$B
QQ
8%.%A 8%.>? 8%.$G
QQ
Q pR%.%B , QQ pW%.%>H Correlations for teachers are bolded.
9S N 9ob satisfactionH 94 N 9ob autonomH P) N Primar controlH S) N Secondar
controlH 6S N 6ife satisfactionH 1 N 1euroticismH E N E/tro#ersionH SS N Super#isor
supportH )S N )o8.or!er supportH Di N Difficulties at .or!
2.9.3 Preliminar! E5amination of the Primar! /ontrol and Secondar!
/ontrol Scale
4s the primar and secondar control scale is e/plorator, it .ill be
e/amined here before the hpotheses are tested. 7he descripti#e statistics displaed
in 7able $$ and $? indicate that primar and secondar control did not beha#e as
e/pected. Both the academics and the teachers reported high le#els of primar
control (M N J$SSM, M N J>SSM), and secondar control (M N J?SSM,
M N J?SSM). 0urthermore, the control strategies did not correlate .ith Kob
satisfaction. (ne interesting finding ho.e#er is that primar control .as positi#el
correlated .ith secondar control for both groups (r N %.C%, r N %.BG).
(#erall ho.e#er, these statistics are inconsistent .ith stud one, .here the
supermar!et .or!ers (M N CGSSM) reported significantl higher le#els of secondar
$%?
control than the academics (M N ?GSSM). 0urthermore, primar control .as
moderatel correlated .ith Kob satisfaction (r N %.?>, r N %.CC).
4 maKor difference bet.een these t.o studies is the edition of the Primar
and Secondar )ontrol Scale. 7he scale .as changed for stud t.o, .here a ne.
scoring procedure .as implemented. &n the first stud, the items .ere simpl
aggregated for each control strateg, ho.e#er in the current stud, the highest
frequenc for primar and secondar control .as recorded. 7his method does not
appear to ha#e been successful ho.e#er in differentiating the respondents. 7he
frequenc distribution, displaed in 7able $C, demonstrates that DGS of the subKects
reported a le#el of primar control bet.een DDSSM and >%%SSM, and that JCS of
the subKects reported a le#el of secondar control bet.een DDSSM and >%%SSM.
7his range is concerning, suggesting that there ma ha#e been a ceiling effect.
able *1% 3reNuencG of "rimarG and SecondarG Control
=alue Primar )ontrol 0requenc
S
Secondar )ontrol 0requenc S
??.?? $.% %.B
CC.CC $.C >.B
BB.BG C.C ?.C
GG.GD >B.> A.?
DD.DJ $B.C ??.D
JJ.JA ?$.$ ?$.D
>%%.%% >J.B >A.%
&n order to e/amine ho. much the scoring procedure in this stud influenced
the resulting le#els of primar and secondar control, the Primar and Secondar
)ontrol Scale .as also e/amined as in stud one, .here the a#erage .as calculated.
Before the items .ere aggregated, a factor analsis .as conducted on the scale.
$%C
7he assumptions .ere met, .here Bartlett@s test of sphericit .as large and
significant, and :aiser8Meer8(l!in (:M() measure of sampling adequac
e/ceeded %.G%. 4 principal components analsis .ith direct oblimin rotation ielded
four factors. 7hese four factors accounted for BDS of the #ariance. (nl A of the >G
items loaded on onl one factor. 7.o of the primar control items loaded on the first
factor, ho.e#er a secondar control item also loaded on this factor. 7he remaining
secondar control items (i.e., G) .ere equall distributed among the second, third and
fourth factor. 7here .as no pattern to these items, and the four8factor solution could
not be interpreted. 7he analsis .as repeated requesting three factors to determine if
a three8factor solution could be useful. 7his analsis .as no clearer ho.e#er, .ith
the primar control and secondar control items loading on all three factors. 7he
secondar control items that loaded on different factors did not appear to be
measuring different functions of secondar control.
&n response to these analses, a t.o8factor solution .as requested. 7his
analsis pro#ided a much clearer solution, .ith the four primar control items
loading on the first factor, and si/ of the >$ secondar control items loading on the
second factor. &t must be noted ho.e#er, that this t.o8factor solution onl accounted
for C%S of the #ariance. 4nother factor analsis .as conducted .ith onl the bolded
items in 7able $B. 7his analsis demonstrated that the t.o factors accounted for
CAS of the #ariance.
$%B
able *2% 3actor AnalGsis of the #evised "rimarG and SecondarG Control Scale
1o. &tem 0> 0$
Dc$ ' looked for different waGs to overcome it) %.GD
Dc* ' keDt trGing) %.DD
Dc/ ' worked to overcome it) %.J$
Dc1 ' worked out how to remove obstacles) %.BA
sc> &t .ill .or! out o!a in the end. %.C> %.B?
sc* ' knew it would haDDen) %.D>
sc/ & can@t al.as get .hat & .ant. %.GJ
sc1 't doesnBt matter) %.GC
scB & am better off than man other people. %.C% %.C%
sc0 't was not mG fault) %.BA
scD & told someone about it. %.G>
scJ & thought of the success of m famil or friends.
scA & thought about m success in other areas. %.BJ
sc$: ' did something different@ like going for a walk) %.C>
sc$$ ' ignored it) %.BC
sc>$ & loo!ed for something else that .as positi#e in the
situation.
%.D>
Eigen#alues C.C> $.>>
S of #ariance $G.AJ >?.>A
)umulati#e #ariance $D.BA C%.DJ
)ronbachPs 4lpha (for re#ised scale) %.J$
6oadings less than %.C% are e/cludedH 4olded items are included in the scale
*hen the control items .ere aggregated rather than separated into the highest
score, both groups still reported similar le#els of the control strategies. 0or primar
control, the academics reported a mean of DA.%A, .hilst the teachers reported J%.>J.
0or secondar control, the academics reported CG.$>, and the teachers reported
CG.BG. 0urthermore, the control strategies .ere not strongl related to Kob
satisfaction. Primar control .as not related at all to Kob satisfaction, .hilst
secondar control .as slightl negati#el related to Kob satisfaction (r N 8%.$C).
7hese descripti#e statistics suggest that e#en if the scales .ere aggregated, the results
.ould still not be significant.
$%G
4s the scoring procedure does not appear to ha#e drasticall altered the
results, the hpotheses .ill be tested using the intended scoring procedure
(i.e., highest number). 7his scoring method, although problematic because of its
small range, is theoreticall superior to the aggregated measure. Ho.e#er,
preliminar analses using this scoring method clearl demonstrate that primar and
secondar control strategies are not beha#ing as e/pected, and as such, man of the
hpotheses .ill not be supported. &n order to reduce the repetiti#eness of these
findings, the hpotheses e/amining primar and secondar control .ill be e/amined
collecti#el. Specificall, this refers to hpotheses $, ?, C, B, and G.
$%D
*)< !GDothesis esting
&n order to test the proposed model of Kob satisfaction, multi#ariate analses
of #ariance .ere conducted to compare the le#els of control strategies, Kob
autonom, Kob satisfaction and life satisfaction reported b the academics and the
teachers. Multiple regression analses .ere also conducted to e/amine the maKor
predictors of Kob satisfaction, and the moderating role of need for autonom and
social support at .or!. 4s in stud one, the alpha le#el .as reduced to %.%> in order
to reduce the ris! of 7pe & errors.
2.,.1 !pothesis .ne: 8evels of Job "0tonom! and Job Satisfaction
&n order to test the first part of hpothesis one, proposing that Kob autonom is
positi#el related to Kob satisfaction, the correlation coefficients for each
occupational group .ere e/amined. )onsistentl, Kob autonom .as positi#el
related to Kob satisfaction for both the academics (r N %.?D) and the teachers
(r N %.B>).
&n order to test the second part of hpothesis one, proposing that the
academics .ould report higher Kob autonom than the teachers, an analsis of
#ariance .as emploed. 7he assumption of uni#ariate homogeneit of #ariance,
using 6e#ene@s test, .as met, 0 (>, $%?)N $.BJ, p W %.%B. 7he uni#ariate test of
significance demonstrated that, as hpothesised, the academics (M N DB.>?,
SD N >G.>$) reported significantl higher Kob autonom than the teachers,
(M N GG.?C, SD N >D.DC), 0 (>, $%?) N >?.J$, p N %.%%.
$%J
2.,.2 !potheses T%o and Three: E5aminin# ho% Job "0tonom! :nfl0ences
the "mo0nt of Primar! and Secondar! /ontrol Strate#ies
Hpotheses t.o and three e/amine ho. Kob autonom influences the amount
of control strategies that emploees use. &n order to test hpothesis t.o, that the
academics .ould report more primar control and less secondar control than the
teachers, a multi#ariate analsis of #ariance .as emploed. 7he #ariables .ere
normall distributed, and reasonabl linear relationships .ere e#ident. 7here .as no
e#idence of multicollinearit as the determinant of the .ithin8cell correlation
W %.%%%> (i.e., %.DDC). "ni#ariate homogeneit of #ariance, as assessed through
6e#ene@s test .as met for primar control, 0 (>, $%?) N %.B%, p W %.%B, and secondar
control, 0 (>, $%?) N >.GJ, p W %.%B. 7he assumption of multi#ariate homogeneit of
#ariance .as also met using Bo/@s M test.
7he multi#ariate test using Pillai@s criterion .as not significant,
0 ($, $%$) N %.%A, p N %.A>. &nconsistent .ith hpothesis t.o, the academics
(M N J>.BJ, SD N >C.C$) reported similar le#el of primar control as the teachers
(M N J%.GC, SD N >B.J>), 0 (>, $%?) N %.$%, p N %.GG. 0urthermore, the academics
(M N J?.??, SD N >?.?D) reported similar le#els of secondar control as the teachers
(M N J$.A?, SD N >>.A%), 0 (>, $%?) N %.%B, p N %.J$.
&n order to test hpothesis three that Kob autonom is positi#el related to
primar control and negati#el related to secondar control, Kob autonom .as
correlated .ith primar and secondar control. 7his analsis demonstrated that,
inconsistent .ith hpothesis three, primar control (r N %.%A) and secondar control
(r N %.%?) .ere not significantl related to Kob autonom.
$%A
2.,.3 !potheses 2o0r and 2ive: E5aminin# ho% Job "0tonom! :nfl0ences
the Celationship Det%een the /ontrol Strate#ies and Job Satisfaction
Hpothesis four and fi#e test the proposal that Kob autonom influences the
relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction. &n order to test hpothesis
four, proposing that primar control .ill be more positi#el related to Kob satisfaction
than secondar control for the academics, and secondar control .ill be more
positi#el related to Kob satisfaction than primar control for the teachers, t.o
standard multiple regression analses .ere conducted.
7he assumptions of normalit, linearit, and homoscedasticit of residuals, as
assessed through e/amination of the residual scatterplots, .ere met for both groups.
4s demonstrated in 7able $G, 3 .as not significantl different from Lero for the
academics, 3 N %.%J, 0 ($, >%B) N %.?$, p N %.D?, or for the teachers, 3 N %.>G,
0 ($, AC) N >.>G, p N %.?$. &nconsistent .ith hpothesis four, primar and secondar
control .ere not related to Kob satisfaction for either group.
$>%
able *0% 7ultiDle #egression of "rimarG and SecondarG Control on =ob
Satisfaction for Academics and eachers
;roup &= 9S P) B sr
$
(unique)
4cad
P) 8%.%D 8%.%J 8%.%B %.$$
S) 8%.%G %.C% 8%.%D 8%.%C %.>C
3 N%.%J 3
$
N%.%%G 4dK3
$
N8%.%>?
7each
P) %.>C %.>$ %.%A %.BB
S) %.>C %.BG %.>B %.%A %.B%
3 N%.>G 3
$
N%.%$ 4dK3
$
N8%.%%?
4cad O 4cademicsH 7each O 7eachersH P) 8 Primar controlH S) O Secondar
controlH 9S O 9ob satisfaction
0or the academics, 3 is composed of %.?GS unique #ariance and AA.GCS shared
#ariance. 0or the teachers, 3 is composed of >.%BS unique #ariance and AJ.ABS
shared #ariance.
Hpothesis fi#e, similar to hpothesis four, e/amines ho. Kob autonom
influences the adapti#eness of the control strategies, ho.e#er it is based on the
measured le#el of Kob autonom rather than the presumed le#el. Hpothesis fi#e
proposes that the relationship bet.een the control strategies and Kob satisfaction is
moderated b Kob autonom. 4s discussed in stud one, Kob autonom is a
moderator rather than a mediator as it specifies .hen certain effects .ill hold. 7hat
is, .hen Kob autonom is high, primar control .ill be more strongl correlated .ith
Kob satisfaction, and .hen Kob autonom is lo., secondar control .ill be more
strongl correlated .ith Kob satisfaction.
&n order to test the moderating effect of Kob autonom on primar control and
secondar control, t.o hierarchical multiple regression analses .ere conducted. &n
$>>
these analses the control strateg .as entered first, then Kob autonom, and then the
interaction term. 7he assumptions of normalit, linearit, and homoscedasticit of
residuals, as assessed through e/amination of the residual scatterplots .ere met.
4s demonstrated in 7able $D, for primar control, 3 .as not significantl different
from Lero after the first step (i.e., primar control), 3 N %.%?, 0 (>, $%?)N %.>B,
p N %.D%. 7he addition of Kob autonom did result in an increase in 3, .here
3 N %.?A, 0inc (>, $%$) N ?G.$A, p N %.%%. Ho.e#er, the addition of the interaction
term .as not significant, 3 N %.?A, 0inc (>, $%>) N %.>$, p N %.D?.
0or secondar control, 3 .as not significantl different from Lero after the
first step, 3 N %.%$, 0 (>, $%?)N %.%A, p N %.DD. 4fter Kob autonom .as entered, the
#alue of 3 increased, 3 N %.?A, 0 (>, $%$) N ?G.?B, p N %.%%, ho.e#er the addition of
the interaction term in step three .as not significant, 3 N %.?A, 0 (>, $%>) N %.$>,
p N %.GB. 7hus, hpothesis fi#e .as not supported.
$>$
able *<% !ierarchical 7ultiDle #egression testing the 7oderating role of the
Control Strategies on the #elationshiD 4etween =ob AutonomG and =ob
Satisfaction
Step &= D= B sr
$

(
u
ni
q
u
e)
> Primar control 9S %.%C %.%?
$ Primar control 8%.%> 8%.%%A
9ob 4utonom %.CJ %.?A >B.$>QQ
? Primar control %.>$ %.%J
9ob autonom %.G$ %.B>
Primar control / Kob
autonom
8%.%%> 8%.>G
3 N%.?A 3
$
N%.>B 4dK3
$
N%.>C
Step &= D=

sr
$
(unique)
> Secondar control 9S %.%? %.%$
$ Secondar control %.%> %.%%A
9ob 4utonom %.CD %.?A >B.$>QQ
? Secondar control %.$? %.>C
9ob autonom %.D$ %.BA
Secondar control / Kob
autonom
8%.%%$ 8%.$C
3 N%.?A 3
$
N%.>B 4dK3
$
N%.>C
QpR%.%B, QQ pR%.%>H 9S O 9ob satisfaction
$>?
2.,.* !pothesis Si5: E5aminin# the Proposed E5planation for the
Celationship Det%een Job "0tonom! and Job Satisfaction
&n order to test hpothesis si/, .hich proposes that the relationship bet.een
Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction is mediated b the control strategies, a hierarchical
multiple regression analsis .as conducted.
7he assumptions of normalit, linearit and homoscedasticit of residuals
.ere met, and there .as no e#idence of multicollinearit. 4s demonstrated in 7able
$J, 3 .as not significantl different from Lero after primar and secondar control
.ere entered, 3 N %.%?, 0 ($, $%$) N %.%J, p N %.A$. 3 did significantl increase after
Kob autonom .as added to the equation, 3 N %.?A, 0inc (?, $%>)N ?G.>G, p N %.%%.
(nl Kob autonom predicted Kob satisfaction accounting for >BS of the #ariance in
Kob satisfaction. 4s such, .hen primar and secondar control .ere controlled for,
Kob autonom still predicted Kob satisfaction. &nconsistent .ith hpothesis si/,
primar and secondar control did not mediate the relationship bet.een Kob
autonom and Kob satisfaction.
able *.% !ierarchical 7ultiDle #egression esting the 7ediating #ole of the
Control Strategies
Step &= D= B sr
$
(unique)
> Primar control 9S %.%? %.%$
Secondar control %.%$ %.%>
3 N%.%? 3
$
N%.%%> 4dK3
$
N8%.%%A
$ Primar control 9S 8%.%? 8%.%$
Secondar control %.%? %.%$
9ob autonom %.CJ %.?A >B.$>QQ
$>C
3 N%.?AQQ 3
$
N%.>B 4dK3
$
N%.>C
QQpW%.%>H 9S O 9ob satisfaction
2.,.) !pothesis Seven: .cc0pational Differences in Job Satisfaction and
8ife Satisfaction
&n order to test hpothesis se#en, that academics .ould report higher Kob
satisfaction than the teachers, an analsis of #ariance .as conducted on the one8item
measure of Kob satisfaction. Eears .or!ing in occupation and age .ere entered as
co#ariates in this analsis as the academics tended to be older, and had .or!ed less
ears than the teachers (i.e., refer to 7able $%). 6ife satisfaction .as normall
distributed, and reasonabl linear relationships .ere e#ident. "ni#ariate
homogeneit of #ariance, as assessed through 6e#ene@s test .as met,
0 (>, $%?)N %.??, p W %.%B. 7he uni#ariate test demonstrated that the academics
(M N GC.%A, SD N $>.D$) reported similar le#els of Kob satisfaction as the teachers
(M N GJ.DA, SD N $%.$?), 0 (>, $%>) N ?.?A, p N %.%D.
4lthough the one8item measure of Kob satisfaction is the dependent #ariable
in this stud, the facet measure of Kob satisfaction .as also e/plored to gain a greater
understanding of the t.o occupational groups. 4 multi#ariate analsis of #ariance
.as conducted on the intrinsic and e/trinsic facets of Kob satisfaction. 7he #ariables
.ere normall distributed, and reasonabl linear relationships .ere e#ident. 7here
.as no e#idence of multicollinearit as the determinant of the .ithin8cell correlation
W %.%%%> (i.e., %.B$G). "ni#ariate homogeneit of #ariance, as assessed through
6e#ene@s test .as met for intrinsic Kob satisfaction, 0 (>, $%?) N >.G?, p W %.%B, and
$>B
e/trinsic Kob satisfaction, 0 (>, $%?)N %.%?, p W %.%B. 7he assumption of multi#ariate
homogeneit of #ariance .as also met using Bo/@s M test.
7he multi#ariate test, using Pillai@s criterion .as significant,
0 (>, >AA) N B.AG, p N %.%%. E/amination of the uni#ariate tests demonstrated that the
teachers (M N BG.>B, SD N $%.JA) reported higher e/trinsic Kob satisfaction than the
academics (M N CC.CG, SD N $%.CB), 0 (>, $%?)N >G.?B, p N %.%%. 7he teachers
(M N DD.%D, SD N >C.J%) also reported higher intrinsic Kob satisfaction than the
academics (M N D$.DG, SD N >?.$C), 0 (>, $%?)N C.JC, p N %.%?, ho.e#er this finding
.as not significant as the more stringent alpha le#el of %.%>. 7he means and
standard de#iation for the intrinsic and e/trinsic items for academics and teachers are
pro#ided in 7able $A.
$>G
able *-% 7eans and Standard Deviations of the 'ntrinsic and EItrinsic =ob
Satisfaction 'tems for Academics and eachers
&tem 4cademics 7eachers
M SD M SD
Being able to !eep bus all the time D>.D% $B.?B J>.$> >A.G%
7he chance to .or! alone on the Kob J%.CB >G.CA D?.JJ $$.B>
7he chance to do different things from time
to time
DD.DD $>.GA DJ.$C $>.DB
7he change to be somebod in the
communit
GB.DC $C.JD GA.GC $>.>$
he waG mG boss handles his6her work 1<)/* /:)0* 0<)/2 *2).2
he comDetence of mG suDervisor in
making decisions
2$)-2 /:)0: <:)$: *1)*/
Being able to do things that don@t go against
m conscience
GJ.D$ $B.%> DJ.A$ $>.A%
7he .a m Kob pro#ides for stead
emploment
DD.CD $B.$> JD.B> $>.?B
7he chance to do things for other people DD.DD >J.>% JD.%B >C.JB
7he chance to tell people .hat to do BA.>G $$.B$ GD.>$ $%.?C
7he chance to do something that ma!es use
of m abilities
DD.%B $%.%B J%.%G $%.>B
he waG comDanG Dolicies are Dut into
Dractice
/:)/1 *1)*. 1.)0. *1)-$
7G DaG and the amount of work that ' do 1-)2- *0)10 12):* *.)<-
he chance for advancement on the Kob 1/)1$ *.)01 2/)$2 *-)..
7he freedom to use m o.n Kudgement DC.>J $%.C$ D$.G$ $$.$$
7he chance to tr m o.n methods of doing
the Kob
D?.$B $%.B% DG.B> $>.B>
he Draise ' get for doing a
good Kob
11)$1 /:)-0 2*)2< *.)/$
7he feeling of accomplishment & get from
the Kob
GA.JG $$.D? D$.%B $>.DG
4olded items measure eItrinsic Kob satisfaction. 1on8bolded items measure
intrinsic Kob satisfaction.
&n order to test the second part of hpothesis se#en, that the academics .ould
report higher life satisfaction than the teachers, a uni#ariate analsis of #ariance .as
emploed. 6ife satisfaction .as normall distributed using the s!e.nessMstandard
$>D
error R ? criterion. 7he assumption of uni#ariate homogeneit of #ariance, as
assessed b 6e#ene@s test, .as not met, 0 (>, $%?) N %.AG, p R %.%B, and as such, this
analsis proceeded .ith caution using an alpha le#el of %.%B.
7he uni#ariate test of significance demonstrated that, inconsistent .ith
hpothesis se#en, there .ere no occupational differences in le#els of life satisfaction,
0 (>, $%?) N %.B>, p N %.>>. 4s demonstrated in 7able ?%, the teachers a#erage le#el
of life satisfaction .as DC.$> (SD N >>.?C) and the academics a#erage le#el .as
DB.G> (SD N >C.CJ). 7he means and standard de#iations for the se#en domains of
life satisfaction are also presented to demonstrate that the t.o groups appear to be
more satisfied .ith safet, intimac and material .ell8being, and less satisfied .ith
health and communit.
able /:% 7eans and Standard Deviations of the Domains of &ife Satisfaction
for Academics and eachers
Domain 4cademics 7eachers
M SD M SD
Material Satisfaction DG.JD >D.A> DG.%J >G.A$
Health Satisfaction GJ.D? $>.?D GD.?B $?.$$
Producti#it Satisfaction DB.%? >C.BJ D?.%? >J.JC
&ntimac Satisfaction DG.DD >A.AJ DJ.AD $%.??
Safet Satisfaction J>.J% >G.JD JC.BG >G.GD
)ommunit Satisfaction D%.$C >J.D$ D$.AJ $%.BD
Emotional Satisfaction D$.A> >J.DA DG.BA >A.G$
(#erall life satisfaction DC.?B >>.>G DB.GC >C.CB
$>J
2.,.9 !pothesis Ei#ht: E5aminin# ho% Social S0pport at ?orB $oderates
the Celationship bet%een Diffic0lties at ?orB and Job Satisfaction
Hpothesis eight proposes that social support at .or! moderates the effect of
.or! difficulties on Kob satisfaction. Social support at .or! is proposed to be a
moderator, that is, a #ariable that affects the direction andMor strength of the
relationship bet.een an independent #ariable (i.e., .or! difficulties) and a dependent
#ariable (i.e., Kob satisfaction). &t is a moderator rather than a mediator because it
affects the relationship bet.een .or! difficulties and Kob satisfaction, ho.e#er it
does not e/plain .h .or! difficulties and Kob satisfaction are related.
&n order to test this moderation effect, a hierarchical multiple regression is
required. &n the first step the independent #ariable is entered (i.e., .or! difficulties).
&n the second step the moderator #ariable (i.e., social support) is entered. 0inall, in
the third step the interaction term is entered (i.e., independent #ariable multiplied b
the moderator #ariable). Moderator effects are e#ident if the interaction term
predicts the dependent #ariable after the independent #ariable and the moderator
#ariables ha#e been entered in steps one and t.o.
7.o hierarchical multiple regression analses .ere conducted for super#isor
support, and co8.or!er support. 0or both analses, the assumptions of normalit,
linearit, and homoscedasticit of residuals .ere met, and there .as no e#idence of
multicollinearit.
7he moderating role of super#isor support on the relationship bet.een .or!
difficulties and Kob satisfaction .as tested first. 3 .as significantl different from
Lero at the end of the first step (i.e., .or! difficulties), 3 N %.$G, 0 (>, $%?) N >C.AC,
$>A
p N %.%%. 7he addition of super#isor support resulted in a significant increment in 3
$
,
.here 3 N %.BD, 0inc (>, $%?) N DJ.JG, p N %.%%. Super#isor support accounted for
$GS of the #ariance in Kob satisfaction. 4s demonstrated in 7able ?>, the addition of
the interaction term (difficulties / super#isor support) did result in a significant
increment in 3
$
, .here 3 N%.BA, 0inc (>, $%>) N C.$A, p N %.%C. &t must be noted that
this finding .as not significant using the more stringent alpha le#el of %.%>.
able /$% !ierarchical 7ultiDle #egression AnalGsis EIamining if SuDervisor
SuDDort 7oderates the #elationshiD between Work Difficulties and =ob
Satisfaction
Step &= D= B sr
$
(unique)
> 0req. of Diff 9S 8%.$? 8%.$G G.JGQQ
3 N%.$GQQ 3
$
N%.%D 4dK 3
$
N%.%G
$ 0req. of Diff 9S 8%.>JQQ 8%.$% ?.JC
Super#isor %.?DQQ %.B$ $G.>>
3 N%.BDQQ 3
$
N%.?? 4dK 3
$
N%.?$
? 0req. of Diff 9S 8%.?G 8%.C% C.%CQQ
Super#isor %.>G %.$$
Diff / Sup %.%C %.?G >.?AQ
3 N%.BAQ 3
$
N%.?C 4dK 3
$
N%.??
pR%.%B , QQ pW%.%>H 9S O 9ob satisfaction
4lthough not significant at %.%>, the interaction bet.een difficulties and
super#isor support .ill be e/amined further for t.o reasons. 0irst, onl a fe.
studies ha#e e/amined the moderating role of social support at .or!, and as such, the
pattern of the interaction requires in#estigation. Second, it is difficult to achie#e
statistical significance in moderation analses as the po.er is lo. (Bob!o, $%%>).
$$%
B ha#ing the independent #ariable, the moderator and the interaction term
(independent #ariable / moderator), there is an increased chance of multicollinearit
(Bob!o, $%%>). 4s the correlation bet.een predictors increases, the standard
de#iation of the regression .eights increases, and it becomes less li!el that the null
hpothesis .ill be reKected. &n order to reach significance therefore, the analsis
needs to ha#e large effects of large sample siLes (Bob!o, $%%>). 7hus, as the
analsis .as significant at %.%B, it .ill be e/amined further.
*or! difficulties .ere regressed on Kob satisfaction separatel for those .ith
lo. super#isor support, and those .ith high super#isor support. 4s proposed b
)ohen and )ohen (>AJ?), the lo. and high distinction .as defined as scores that fell
one standard de#iation belo. or abo#e the mean for super#isor support. 4s
demonstrated in 0igure D, the regression lines .ere consistent .ith the hpothesis,
.here the slope of the regression line of .or! difficulties on Kob satisfaction .as
steeper for high super#isor support than for lo. super#isor support.
$$>
3igure < % #elationshiD 4etween Work Difficulties and =ob Satisfaction for
EmDloGees with &ow6!igh SuDervisor SuDDort
$$$
&n order to test the moderating role of co8.or!er support, another hierarchical
multiple regression .as conducted. 3 .as significantl different from Lero at the
end of the first step (i.e., .or! difficulties), 3 N %.$G, 0 (>, $%$)N >C.A>, p N %.%%.
7he addition of co8.or!er support resulted in a significant increment in 3
$
, .here
3 N %.CG, 0inc (>, $%$)N ?G.DJ, p N %.%%. 4s demonstrated in 7able ?$, co8.or!er
support accounted for DS of the #ariance in Kob satisfaction. 7he interaction term
(difficulties / co8.or!er support) did not result in a significant increment in 3
$
,
3 N %.CG, 0inc (>, $%$) N %.%G, p N %.J>. 4s such, co8.or!er support does not appear
to moderate the effect of .or! difficulties on Kob satisfaction.
able /*% !ierarchical #egression AnalGses eIamining whether Co%worker
SuDDort 7oderates the #elationshiD between Work Difficulties and =ob
Satisfaction)
Step &= D= B sr
$
(unique)
> 0req. of Diff 9S 8%.$? 8%.$G G.JGQQ
3 N%.$GQQ 3
$
N%.%D 4dK 3
$
N%.%G
$ 0req. of Diff 9S 8%.>J 8%.$% C.%%QQ
)o8.or!er %.CG %.?J >C.?GQQ
3 N%.CGQQ 3
$
N%.$> 4dK 3
$
N%.$%
? 0req. of Diff 9S 8%.>? 8%.>C %.>$
)o8.or!er %.B% %.C$ $.$BQ
Diff / )o8.or!er 8%.%%J 8%.%D %.%$?
3 N%.CG 3
$
N%.$> 4dK 3
$
N%.$%
pR%.%B , QQ pW%.%>H 9S O 9ob satisfaction
$$?
2.,., !pothesis Nine: The $oderatin# Cole of Need for "0tonom! on the
Celationship Det%een Job "0tonom! and Job Satisfaction
&n order to test hpothesis nine that need for autonom moderates the
relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction, a hierarchical multiple
regression analsis .as conducted. &n this case, need for autonom is a moderator
#ariable, as it specifies .hen the relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob
satisfaction .ill be strong or .ea!.
7he assumptions of normalit, linearit, and homoscedasticit of residuals
.ere met, and there .as no e#idence of multicollinearit. &n the first step, Kob
autonom .as entered, follo.ed b need for autonom in the second step. 0inall,
the interaction term (i.e., autonom / need for autonom) .as entered. 3 .as
significantl different from Lero at the end of the first step, 3 N %.?A,
0 (>, $%?)N ?G.G>, p N %.%%. 7he addition of need for Kob autonom did not result in
a significant increment in 3
$
, .here 3 N %.?A, 0inc (>, $%?) N %.%$, p N %.JA. 7he
addition of the interaction term did not result in a significant increment in 3
$
, .here
3 N %.?A, 0inc (>, $%>) N %.$?, p N %.G?. 4s demonstrated in 7able ??, need for Kob
autonom does not moderate the relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob
satisfaction.
$$C
able //% !ierarchical #egression AnalGses eIamining whether ,eed for =ob
AutonomG 7oderates the #elationshiD between =ob AutonomG and =ob
Satisfaction)
Step &= D= B sr
$
(unique)
> 9ob autonom 9S %.CD %.?A >B.$AQQ
3 N%.?AQQ 3
$
N%.>B 4dK 3
$
N%.>B
$ 9ob 4utonom 9S %.CJ %.?A >C.B>QQ
1eed for Kob autonom 8%.>A 8%.%>
3 N%.?A 3
$
N%.>B 4dK 3
$
N%.>B
? 9ob 4utonom 9S %.DJ %.GC
1eed for autonom $.?B %.>$
9ob 4utonom / 1eed
for autonom
8%.%? 8%.?>
3 N%.?A 3
$
N%.>B 4dK 3
$
N%.>C
QQ pR%.%>H 9S O 9ob satisfaction
2.,.; !pothesis Ten: $aEor Predictors of Job Satisfaction
&n order to test hpothesis ten, .hich e/amines se#eral maKor predictors of
Kob satisfaction, t.o standard multiple regression analses .ere conducted for the
academics and the teachers. 7he follo.ing predictors .ere included+ primar and
secondar controlH Kob autonomH personalit (neuroticism and e/tro#ersion)H life
satisfactionH social support at .or! (super#isors and co8.or!ers)H and difficulties at
.or!. 0or both analses, the assumptions of normalit, linearit, and
homoscedasticit of residuals .ere met, and there .as no e#idence of
multicollinearit.
$$B
3 .as significantl different from Lero for both the academics, 3 N %.GB,
0 (A, AJ) N D.A$, p N %.%%, and the teachers, 3 N %.DB, 0 (A, JD) N >$.CA, p N %.%%.
7he maKor predictors of Kob satisfaction .ere the same for both occupational groups,
namel Kob autonom and super#isor support at .or!. 4s demonstrated in 7able ?C,
Kob autonom accounted for appro/imatel $S and BS of the #ariance in Kob
satisfaction for the academics and the teachers respecti#el. 7he finding for the
academics must be e/amined cautiousl ho.e#er, as it .as not significant at the
more stringent alpha le#el of %.%>. Super#isor support at .or! accounted for BS and
>?S of the #ariance in Kob satisfaction for the academics and teachers respecti#el.
$$G
able /1% Standard multiDle #egression "redicting =ob Satisfaction for
EmDloGees with &ow AutonomG and EmDloGees with !igh AutonomG
;roup =ariable B sr
$
(unique)
4cad
Primar )ontrol 8%.>? 8%.%A
Secondar )ontrol 8%.%> 8%.%>
9ob 4utonom %.$? %.>D $.$JQ
6ife Satisfaction %.$A %.>B
1euroticism 8%.>A 8%.>B
E/tro#ersion %.%$ %.%>
)o8.or!er Support %.$% %.>J
Super#isor Support %.$> %.$J B.G>QQ
Difficulties at *or! 8%.>% 8%.>G
3 N%.GBQQ 3
$
N%.C$ 4dK3
$
N%.?D
7each
Primar )ontrol %.%? %.%$
Secondar )ontrol %.>A %.>>
9ob 4utonom %.$J %.$B C.D%QQ
6ife Satisfaction %.>B %.>>
1euroticism 8%.>C 8%.>>
E/tro#ersion 8%.%> 8%.%%J
)o8*or!er Support %.%C %.%?
Super#isor Support %.?G %.CD >?.BCQQ
Difficulties at *or! 8%.>> 8%.>$
3 N%.DBQQ 3
$
N%.BG 4dK3
$
N%.B$
pR%.%B , QQ pW%.%>H 4cad O 4cademicsH 7each8 7eachers
0or academics, 3 is composed of >C.CGS unique #ariance and JB.BCS shared
#ariance. 0or teachers, 3 is composed of $>.ADS unique #ariance and DJ.%?S
shared #ariance
4s super#isor support appeared to account for the largest proportion of the
#ariance in Kob satisfaction for both occupational groups, a further regression
analsis .as conducted to e/amine the #alue of 3 .ith onl super#isor support. 3
.as significantl different from Lero for the academics, 3 N %.CG, 0 (>, >%G) N $D.J>,
$$D
p N %.%%, and the teachers, 3 N %.GC, 0 (>, AB) N GD.$A, p N %.%%. Super#isor support
at .or! accounted for $>S and C>S of the #ariance in Kob satisfaction for the
academics and the teachers respecti#el.
2.,.( /oncl0sion
7his stud tested .hether Kob autonom influenced the use and adapti#eness
of primar and secondar control strategies. &nconsistent .ith the hpotheses, the
teachers and academics reported similar le#els of primar and secondar control.
0urthermore, primar and secondar control strategies .ere not correlated .ith Kob
satisfaction. 4lthough the control strategies did not mediate the relationship bet.een
Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction, the findings highlighted the importance of
super#isor support in predicting Kob satisfaction. 7hese findings .ill no. be
discussed.
$$J
*). Discussion
7his stud .as designed to e/tend the Kob demand8control model (:arase! I
7heorell, >AA%), testing an e/planation for the positi#e relationship bet.een Kob
autonom and Kob satisfaction. 7his e/planation proposed that Kob autonom
influences the use and adapti#eness of the control strategies. Emploees .ho
reported higher Kob autonom .ere e/pected to successfull implement primar
control. 7he hpotheses .ere generall not supported ho.e#er, and as such, a
thorough re#ie. of the assumptions and the hpotheses is required.
2.;.1 "ss0mption1 The "cademics Cepresent a i#h Job "0tonom! =ro0p
and the Teachers Cepresent a 8o% Job "0tonom! =ro0p
7he maKor assumption underling this stud is that the academics .ere
e/pected to report higher Kob autonom than the teachers as the ha#e more freedom
and choice in man aspects of their .or!. )onsistent .ith this e/pectation, the
academics (M N DBSSM) reported significantl higher Kob autonom than the
teachers (M N GGSSM). 4lthough this difference .as significant, it must be
demonstrated that the difference is meaningful. (ne .a to determine if the
difference is meaningful is to calculate the standard error of measurement (SEMH
*r.ich, 1ienaber, 7ierne I *olins!, >AAA). &n the past, researchers ha#e used
the SEM to determine clinicall meaningful standards. &t is estimated b multipling
the standard de#iation of the scale b the square root of one minus the reliabilit
coefficient, or
$$A
4lthough there is no consensus about ho. man SEMs an indi#iduals score
must change for it to be considered significant, *r.ich et al., (>AAA) suggest that a
$.DD SEM criterion is the safest. &n their stud ho.e#er, the demonstrated that a
one SEM criterion reflected a minimal clinicall important difference. &n the current
stud, the SEM is estimated to be D.>J. 7hus, on a#erage there appears to be one
SEM difference bet.een the le#els of Kob autonom reported b academics and
teachers. 7his ma not necessaril be meaningful as *r.ich et al (>AAA) stress that
their results should not be generalised to other populations or tests.
4nother .a to e/amine if the difference is meaningful is to compare the
current le#els of Kob autonom .ith that reported b other occupational groups
(Hac!man I (ldham, >AJ%). 4s demonstrated in 7able ?B, the means range from
BJSSM to D?SSM. )ompared to these occupational groups, the academics are in
the higher range and the teachers are in the lo.er range. Ho.e#er, it must be noted
that these data are relati#el old. More recent studies ha#e administered Hac!man
and (ldham@s (>ADB) scale to different occupational groups, ho.e#er the do not
separate the occupational groups (e.g., 3enn I =andenberg, >AABH 7iegs et al.,
>AA$).
r66 SE% = >
$?%
able /2% ,ormative Data for !ackman and OldhamBs 8$-.:; AutonomG Scale
(ccupation 1ormati#e Data (SSM)
Professional D?.??
Management D?.??
)lerical BJ.??
Sales G?.??
Ser#ice GG.GG
Processing BJ.??
Machine 7rades GB.%%
Bench *or!s G%.%%
Structural *or!s GG.GG
4lthough past studies do not shed much light on .hether the differences in
le#els of Kob autonom reported b the academics and teachers are meaningful, it is
clear that the academics are reporting significantl higher Kob autonom than the
teachers. 7hese t.o groups ma not represent the e/tremes of Kob autonom,
ho.e#er the difference should be great enough to demonstrate the e/pected
differences in the control strategies. &t is assumed that the use of the control
strategies #aries linearl .ith Kob autonom o#er this range of #alues. 4s such, e#en
if the academics and teachers do not represent e/tremes of Kob autonom, the
e/pected findings should be e#ident, albeit .ea!er.
&n summar, it appears that the academics report higher Kob autonom than
the teachers. &t is difficult to ascertain .hether this difference is meaningful,
ho.e#er it is concluded that the difference should be great enough to demonstrate the
e/pected effects.
$?>
2.;.2 !pothesis Testin#
7he maKor hpotheses tested in the stud .ere that Kob autonom influences
the use of primar and secondar control strategies, and also the relationship bet.een
the control strategies and Kob satisfaction (i.e., adapti#eness). 7hese hpotheses .ere
not supported, and as such possible e/planations for the findings .ill be considered,
and the methodolog .ill be re8e/amined.
2.;.3 Job "0tonom! :nfl0ences the "mo0nt of the /ontrol Strate#ies
&t .as hpothesised that Kob autonom .ould influence the amount of
primar and secondar control strategies. 4cademics, .ho ha#e higher Kob
autonom than the teachers, .ere e/pected to report using more primar control and
less secondar control. 0urthermore, it .as e/pected that Kob autonom .ould be
positi#el correlated .ith primar control and negati#el correlated .ith secondar
control. &nconsistent .ith these hpotheses ho.e#er, the t.o occupational groups
reported similar le#els of control strategies, and Kob autonom .as not related to the
control strategies.
7hese findings do not support the model of Kob satisfaction presented in
0igure G. Specificall, the findings do not support the arro. from Kob autonom to
primar and secondar control. 7his proposal .as based on an e/tension of the life
span theor of control (Hec!hausen I SchulL, >AAB), .hich essentiall proposes that
if a person can control a situation, the .ill attempt to change it. &f the cannot
control the situation ho.e#er, it is more li!el that their attempts to change it .ould
fail, and thus the .ill see! to accept the situation. &t is most surprising therefore
$?$
that the academics reported high secondar control, and that the teachers reported
high primar control. E/planations for these une/pected findings .ill be discussed.
2.;.3.1 ?h! did the #cademics Ceport i$h Secondar! 0ontrol@
7he academics reported equall high le#els of primar and secondar control
as the teachers. 7his means that .hen the face a difficult at .or!, the use both
primar and secondar control strategies. &t is interesting that the rel on secondar
control ho.e#er, because theoreticall, the should ha#e less need for it than the
teachers. 4s the ha#e reasonabl high control o#er their en#ironment, the are
e/pected to successfull implement primar control most of the time and rarel rel
on secondar control strategies. 4s this is clearl not the case, the use of secondar
control ma need to be re8e/amined.
&n addition to using secondar control to compensate for primar control
failure, secondar control ma be used as a means of temporaril a#oiding primar
control. &f emploees .ere faced .ith a large number of difficulties at .or!, the
ma initiall use secondar control. 0or e/ample, .or!ers ma tell themsel#es that
it .ill .or! out o!a in the end, or that it doesn@t matter. 7his ma be necessar for
.or!ers, such as academics, .ho face man difficulties, and must dela dealing .ith
some of them. (nce the can deal .ith them ho.e#er, it is e/pected that the do so
using primar control. 7hus, secondar control ma be used prior to primar
control.
7he e/planation that secondar control can be used prior to primar control
ma e/plain .h the academics reported high le#els of secondar control. Ho.e#er,
$??
this e/planation does not account for the lac! of occupational differences in
secondar control. E#en if both groups use secondar control prior to dealing .ith
their difficulties, the teachers .ould be e/pected to rel on more secondar control
than the academics. 4fter initiall delaing dealing .ith a problem using secondar
control, it is e/pected that the academics .ould then use primar control, but that the
teachers .ould continue using secondar control.
2.;.3.2 ?h! did the teachers report hi$h primar! control@
4lthough the teachers .ere e/pected to rel mostl on secondar control,
the reported equall high le#els of primar and secondar control. (ne e/planation
for this finding is that the teachers ma ha#e a#oided repeated primar control
failure. &f the implemented primar control and failed, the .ere e/pected to rel
mostl on secondar control. 7hrough reling on secondar control, and accepting
their situation rather than tring to change it ho.e#er, the can then maintain their
perceptions of primar control. 7hus, the teachers@ le#els of primar control ma be
e/plained, in part, b their reliance on secondar control strategies.
2.;.3.3 S1mmar!
Both the academics and the teachers reported similar le#els of primar and
secondar control. 7he academics reported higher secondar control than e/pected,
and the teachers reported higher primar control than e/pected. 7he academics@
le#el of secondar control ma be e/plained b the proposal that secondar control
ma also be used prior to primar control. 7he teachers@ le#els of primar control
$?C
ma be e/plained b the proposal that the can a#oid primar control failure through
reling on secondar control strategies.
2.;.* Job "0tonom! :nfl0ences the Celationship Det%een the /ontrol
Strate#ies and Job Satisfaction
&t .as hpothesised that Kob autonom influences the adapti#eness of the
control strategies, such that primar control .ould be more positi#el related to Kob
satisfaction than secondar control for the academics, and that secondar control
.ould be more positi#el related to Kob satisfaction than primar control for the
teachers. 0urthermore, it .as hpothesised that the relationship bet.een the control
strategies and Kob satisfaction .ould be moderated b Kob autonom. &nconsistent
.ith both of these hpotheses ho.e#er, primar and secondar control strategies
.ere not related to Kob satisfaction. 7his suggests that .or!ers can use primar or
secondar control strategies to deal .ith their difficulties.
7hese findings are inconsistent .ith the primacMbac!8up model and the
discrimination model (7hompson et al., >AAJ). 7he discrimination model proposes
that primar control is the most adapti#e strateg in controllable situations, and that
secondar control is the most adapti#e strateg in uncontrollable situations. 7he
primacMbac!8up model proposes that primar control is the most adapti#e strateg in
lo.8control and high8control situations. 7he current results demonstrated that
primar and secondar control strategies .ere not related to Kob satisfaction.
Ho.e#er, a maKor limitation has no. been identified in the stud that ma render
these findings in#alid.
$?B
2.;.) 8imitations in the !potheses E5aminin# Job "0tonom! and /ontrol
Strate#ies
7here .as a methodological problem in this stud that ma ha#e limited the
findings e/amining ho. Kob autonom influences the use and the adapti#eness of the
control strategies. 7his problem concerns the specificit of the hpotheses. 7he
hpotheses tested .hether Kob autonom influenced the relationship bet.een the
control strategies and Kob satisfaction at a general le#el, ho.e#er the
primacMbac!8up model and the discrimination model actuall onl refer to one
situation. 7hese models propose that the controllabilit of a situation influences the
control strategies used to handle that situation. 7hus, the hpotheses need to be
measured at a situational le#el, rather than at an occupational le#el.
7his lac! of consistenc bet.een the definition of the discrimination model
and the testing of the discrimination model is not limited to this stud. 4ll of the
studies that 7hompson et al., (>AAJ) claimed to test the discrimination model actuall
fail to test it as specified in the definition.
7o test the discrimination model, researchers need to correlate a measure of
percei#ed control o#er one situation .ith the control strategies used in that situation.
Past researchers ha#e relied on specific measures of the controllabilit of the
situation, and the control strategies, ho.e#er the aggregated them rather than
e/amining them separatel.
0or e/ample, 7homson et al., (>AAG, >AAC) de#eloped a list of specific facets
rele#ant to li#ing .ith H&=, such as progression of H&= infection, famil
relationships, and qualit of medical care. 0or each of these facets, respondents rated
$?G
ho. much control the had o#er them, and the e/tent to .hich the used primar and
secondar control to handle them. &f the correlated each facet .ith the control
strategies used to handle that facet, the .ould be testing the discrimination model.
Ho.e#er, the aggregated the items to obtain an o#erall measure of percei#ed
control, an o#erall measure of primar control and an o#erall measure of secondar
control.
4nother stud measured specific controllabilit and control strategies, et
failed to use this information to test the discrimination model. 7hompson et al.,
(>AAJ) e/amined control o#er phsical appearance, measuring ho. much control
people had o#er the attracti#eness of their hair, bod strength and agilit, .eight and
bod shape, s!in and o#erall phsical appearance. 7he also measured the primar
and secondar control strategies in relation to age8related changes o#er phsical
appearance. 4lthough the measured these specific #ariables ho.e#er, the added
the percei#ed control scale to the primar control items to measure primar control.
7hus, the failed to e/amine .hether the controllabilit of a situation influenced the
control strategies used in that situation.
&t thus appears as though the current stud and pre#ious studies ha#e failed to
adequatel test the discrimination model. &n order to do so, future studies need to
e/amine the controllabilit of the situation and the control strategies at a situational
le#el. &t should then be tested .hether the amount of autonom an emploee has
o#er a situation predicts the use and the adapti#eness of the control strategies in that
situation. 4s such, it is not necessar to e/amine the control strategies that
$?D
emploees .ith highMlo. Kob autonom are using, rather to e/amine .hich control
strategies all .or!ers use in lo.8control and high8control situations.
2.;.".1 S1mmar!
9ob autonom did not influence the use or adapti#eness of the control
strategies. 7hese findings .ere inconsistent .ith the proposed model of Kob
satisfaction, .hich attempted to e/plain the relationship bet.een Kob autonom and
Kob satisfaction. Ho.e#er, a maKor limitation .as identified in the stud, .here it
appears as though the stud has failed to test the discrimination model.
2.;.9 .ther Predictors of Job Satisfaction
7he remainder of the hpotheses .ill no. be e/amined. 7hese hpotheses
e/amine occupational differences in Kob and life satisfaction, the buffering role of
social support at .or!, and the moderating role of need for autonom. 4dditionall,
the maKor predictors of Kob satisfaction that are included in the proposed model of Kob
satisfaction are e/amined.
2.;., .cc0pational Differences in Job Satisfaction and 8ife Satisfaction
&nconsistentl, the academics did not report higher Kob satisfaction or life
satisfaction than the teachers. 7he finding that there .as no difference in life
satisfaction is not surprising gi#en that there .ere no occupational differences in Kob
satisfaction. 0urthermore, the le#els of life satisfaction reported b both groups .ere
.ithin the normati#e range according to the homeostatic theor of life satisfaction
()ummins, >AAB, $%%%b). &t is surprising ho.e#er that the academics (M N GC.%A)
$?J
and the teachers (M N GJ.DA) reported similar le#els of Kob satisfaction. 7he le#els
of Kob satisfaction reported b both groups .ill firstl be compared .ith past studies.
2.;.,.1 0omparisons &ith Past St1dies
Past research has reported #aring le#els of Kob satisfaction for academics.
3esearchers ha#e reported the follo.ing le#els of Kob satisfactionH BDSSM (6eung et
al., $%%%), GBSSM (Hill, >AJG), GGSSM (6ahe I =ihtelic, $%%%), DCSSM ()arson
et al., $%%>), J$SSM ((lsen, >AA?) and J?SSM (1iemann I Do#idio, >AAJ).
0urthermore, stud one reported a le#el of GGSSM. 7he scales used in some of these
studies .ere criticised in stud one, ho.e#er a normati#e le#el of Kob satisfaction
.as not established. 4ll that can be concluded is that the academics in this stud, as
.ith those in stud one, report a le#el of Kob satisfaction that is .ithin the range
found b other researchers.
&n regards to teachers, researchers ha#e reported se#eral different le#els of
Kob satisfaction. 0or e/ample, :lec!er and 6oadman (>AAA) found a similar le#el of
Kob satisfaction (M N GJSSM) as the present stud, ho.e#er others ha#e reported a
higher le#el of Kob satisfaction of J%SSM (Ma I Macmillan, >AAAH Schonfeld,
$%%%). 4ll of these studies are fla.ed ho.e#er as the relied on poor measures of
Kob satisfaction.
0or e/ample, Ma and MacMillan (>AAA) included the follo.ing items to
measure Kob satisfactionH '& find m professional role satisfing-@ O& loo! for.ard to
each da-, '& am committed to ma!ing our school one of the best in the pro#ince-
and '&f & could start o#er, & .ould become a teacher again.- 7he item '& loo!
$?A
for.ard to each da- ma actuall be dependent on personalit and qualit of life, as
.ell as Kob satisfaction. 0urthermore, the item '&f & could start o#er, & .ould become
a teacher again-, is li!el to be dependent on the teachers@ age and ho. much the
ha#e in#ested into becoming a teacher. 4 teacher .ho has spent $% ears teaching
ma agree .ith this item because the are satisfied .ith their Kob, or because the
.ant to Kustif .h the are still in the profession. "ntil pschometric data are
obtained for this scale, the results are questionable.
(ther researchers ha#e relied on facet scales of Kob satisfaction. 0or e/ample,
:lec!er and 6oadman (>AAA) measured satisfaction .ith salar, professional
ad#ancement, professional challenge, autonom, .or! conditions, interactions .ith
colleagues, and interactions .ith students. 0acet scales are criticised ho.e#er for
e/cluding facets that are important to the indi#idual, or including facets that are not
important. 0urthermore, it is e/pected that the teachers@ le#el of Kob satisfaction
.ould be lo.er in this scale, as it is dependent on their le#el of Kob autonom. 7his
is problematic because although Kob autonom is e/pected to be related to Kob
satisfaction, Kob autonom ma not be a domain of Kob satisfaction.
&n general, it appears that the academics@ le#el of Kob satisfaction is
reasonabl consistent .ith past studies. 7he teachers@ le#el of Kob satisfaction tends
to be slightl lo.er than pre#ious studies, ho.e#er these studies ha#e relied on
inadequate measures of Kob satisfaction.
4s fe. studies ha#e e/amined academics@ and teachers@ le#els of Kob
satisfaction, the findings can also be compared to the re#ie. conducted in stud one,
.hich demonstrated an a#erage le#el of Kob satisfaction of GGSSM. 7his a#erage
$C%
le#el is consistent .ith both the academics and the teachers. Possible e/planation for
the similar le#els of Kob satisfaction .ill be presented.
2.;.,.2 E6plainin$ the Similar 9evels of Job Satisfaction
7here are a number of e/planations for the academics@ and teachers@ similar
le#els of Kob satisfaction. 0irst, the recruitment process .as different for the teachers
and the academics. 7he academics .ere sent their questionnaire through internal
mail, .hereas the teachers .ere, in some cases, gi#en their questionnaire b the
Principal of the school. 7his ma be problematic for the teachers, as the Principal, in
order to obtain positi#e results, ma ha#e gi#en the questionnaires to happier
.or!ers. 4lternati#el, e#en if social desirabilit .as not important, the Principals
ma ha#e gi#en the questionnaires to teachers that .ere more li!el to agree, or .ere
more organised. 7hus, it must be questioned .hether the teachers included in the
sample are representati#e of the a#erage teacher.
&t is possible ho.e#er that the teachers@ a#erage le#el of Kob autonom is
representati#e of the a#erage teacher. 4lthough teachers report a lo.er le#el of Kob
autonom than the academics, there are certainl man other determinants of Kob
satisfaction. (ne maKor factor that .as highlighted in this research .as social
support at .or!. E/amination of the descripti#e statistics demonstrates that the
teachers report higher satisfaction .ith their super#isor support, and that super#isor
support .as strongl correlated .ith Kob satisfaction.
$C>
2.;.; The :nfl0ence of Social S0pport at ?orB on the Celationship Det%een
?orB Diffic0lties and Job Satisfaction
Super#isor support, but not co8.or!er support moderated the relationship
bet.een .or! difficulties and Kob satisfaction. 7he relationship bet.een .or!
difficulties and Kob satisfaction .as .ea!er .hen super#isor support .as high. &t
must be noted ho.e#er that this hpothesis .as onl significant at an alpha le#el of
%.%B, and not %.%>, suggesting that the effect ma not be large. Ho.e#er, e#en if the
effect is not large, the findings suggest that super#isors should ensure that the
pro#ide emotional and instrumental support to their emploees. 7o do this, the
super#isor needs to sho. concern for their emploees, and pro#ide tangible
assistance (:arase! I 7heorell, >AA%).
7he finding that super#isor support plas a greater role than co8.or!er
support has been reported b pre#ious researchers (e.g., Beehr, >AJBH 0enlason I
Beehr, >AACH 3ussell, 4ltmaier I =an =elLen, >AJD). )o8.or!ers ha#e less
influence at .or!, and as such ma ha#e less influence o#er difficulties at .or!
(0enlason I Beehr, >AAC).
)onsistent .ith the current findings, a fe. studies ha#e demonstrated that
social support at .or! has positi#e moderating effects on Kob satisfaction (i.e.,
:arase! et al., >AJ$H 6andsbergis et al., >AA$). Ho.e#er, there are studies that ha#e
failed to demonstrate the moderating role of social support ()ha, >AA?H de 9onge I
6ande.eerd, >AA?, cited in =an Der Doef I Maes, >AAAH Melamed at al., >AA>H
Par!es I =on 3abenau, >AA?).
$C$
(ne difference bet.een these supporti#e and non8supporti#e studies is in the
measure of social support. 7.o of the supporti#e studies (i.e., current stud and
6andsbergis et al., >AA$) relied on :arase! and 7heorell@s (>AA%) scale, .hereas the
non8supporti#e studies relied on se#eral different scales. Ho.e#er, there are too fe.
studies to dra. conclusions about the influence of the scales. &t is clear that further
research is needed to e/amine the moderating role of social support.
2.;.( The :nfl0ence that Need for Job "0tonom! has on the Celationship
Det%een Job "0tonom! and Job Satisfaction
1eed for Kob autonom did not moderate the relationship bet.een Kob
autonom and Kob satisfaction. 4lthough past empirical studies .ere equi#ocal, it
seemed intuiti#e that differences in need for autonom .ould influence the
relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction. 7he non8supporti#e finding
is consistent .ith a fe. past studies. 0or e/ample, de 3iK! et al., (>AAJ) failed to
demonstrate that need for autonom moderated the relationship bet.een Kob
autonom and emotional e/haustion and health complaints. 0urthermore, 1icolle
(>AAC) found need for autonom moderated the relationship bet.een Kob autonom
and absenteeism in onl ? of ?G analses.
4s the current stud and pre#ious studies generall fail to demonstrate that
need for Kob autonom moderates the relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob
satisfactionMKob stress, this hpothesis .ill no longer be in#estigated. 7oo fe.
studies ha#e been conducted to simpl conclude the effect does not e/ist, ho.e#er it
seems that more testing is required to de#elop a #alid measure of need for Kob
$C?
autonom. Studies are reling on e/plorator measures, and as such ma not be
adequatel measuring the need for Kob autonom construct. 4s such, it is
recommended that researchers firstl attempt to de#elop a need for Kob autonom
scale that is pschometricall sound.
2.;.10 $aEor predictors of Job Satisfaction
&nconsistent .ith the proposed model of Kob satisfaction, onl Kob autonom
and super#isor support uniquel predicted Kob satisfaction for both groups. 7he
relationship bet.een these #ariables and Kob satisfaction .as consistent .ith past
research. 0or Kob autonom, r N %.C? (7iegs et al., >AA$), and for social support at
.or!, r N %.B$ (Dollard et al., $%%%), and r N %.GG (Munro et al., >AAJ).
7he control strategies, personalit, life satisfaction, co8.or!er support, and
difficulties at .or! .ere moderatel correlated .ith Kob satisfaction, ho.e#er the
did not uniquel predict Kob satisfaction. 4s such, se#eral changes need to be made
to the #ariables included in the model. 7he control strategies .ill be retained in the
model, ho.e#er as discussed earlier, se#eral changes .ill be made to the Primar
and Secondar )ontrol Scale. Personalit .as a poor predictor of Kob satisfaction,
and as such, it .ill be e/cluded from stud three. 6ife satisfaction .as also a poor
predictor of Kob satisfaction, ho.e#er it .ill be retained in the model as it is acting as
both an independent #ariable and a dependent #ariable. Super#isor support
e/plained much of the #ariance in Kob satisfaction, and as such both tpes of social
support (i.e., co8.or!er and super#isor) .ill be re8e/amined. Difficulties at .or!
$CC
.ill also be retained in the model, as it is necessar to demonstrate .hat the primar
and secondar control strategies are used for.
&n summar, as a result of the model of Kob satisfaction onl being partiall
supported, se#eral changes .ill be made in stud three. 7hese changes .ill be
e/plained further in chapter C.
2.;.11 /oncl0sion
4lthough the findings demonstrated that Kob autonom did not predict the use
or adapti#eness of the control strategies, one maKor limitation .as identified in this
stud. 7he hpotheses .ere criticised for being too general, and it .as suggested
that stud three should e/amine Kob autonom and the control strategies at the
situational le#el rather than at the occupational le#el. 0urthermore, this stud
highlighted the importance of super#isor support at .or!, .hich .ill be e/amined
further in stud three.
$CB
3 Chapter 4 - Study Three
$CG
/)$ Abstract
7he maKor proposal of this stud is that the controllabilit of a .or! difficult
influences the use and adapti#eness of the control strategies used to handle that
difficult. &t .as e/pected, based on the discrimination model, that in controllable
situations, emploees .ould use more primar control than secondar control, and
that primar control .ould be the most adapti#e. &n uncontrollable situations
ho.e#er, it .as e/pected that emploees .ould use more secondar than primar
control, and that secondar control .ould be the most adapti#e strateg. 7hese
proposals .ere not supported as emploees reported using similar strategies for
controllable and uncontrollable difficulties. 0urthermore, primar control strategies
.ere more adapti#e than secondar control strategies for both tpes of difficulties.
7hese findings challenge the belief that control strategies are influenced b
situational #ariables and also question the assumption that primar control failure
negati#el affects Kob satisfaction. 7he implications of these findings for the
proposed model of Kob satisfaction are discussed.
$CD
/)* "roDosal for StudG hree
7his stud continues to test the proposal that Kob autonom influences the use
and the adapti#eness of primar and secondar control strategies, ho.e#er unli!e
pre#ious studies, it .ill be e/amined at a situational le#el, rather than an
occupational le#el. 4s such, changes are made to the specificit of the hpotheses
and the primar and secondar control scale. 0urther changes are made to the model
of Kob satisfaction, .here it is proposed that the control strategies and social support
at .or! moderate the relationship bet.een controllable and uncontrollable .or!
difficulties and Kob satisfaction.
3.2.1 Specificit! of !potheses Testin# the Proposal that Job "0tonom!
:nfl0ences the /ontrol Strate#ies
&n this stud, the proposal that Kob autonom influences the use and
adapti#eness of the control strategies is e/amined at a more specific le#el. 4s
discussed in chapter ?, studies one and t.o .ere criticised as the .ere not
consistent .ith the definition of the discrimination model. 7he discrimination model
proposes that .hen the situation is controllable, primar control is more adapti#e,
and .hen the situation is uncontrollable, secondar control is more adapti#e.
Ho.e#er, empirical tests of the model, including studies one and t.o, ha#e e/amined
percei#ed control and control strategies at a general le#el (i.e., 7hompson et al.,
>AAGH 7hompson et al., >AACH 7hompson et al., >AAJ).
7he difference bet.een the definition and empirical tests of the
discrimination model ma be important. &f the discrimination model is tested at a
$CJ
more specific le#el, the relationship bet.een the t.o #ariables ma be stronger. 4ll
emploees, .hether the be lo. autonom or high autonom, are e/pected to ha#e
high control o#er some aspects of their Kob and less control o#er other aspects.
0urthermore, all emploees, .hether the be lo. or high Kob autonom, are e/pected
to use primar control in some situations and secondar control in others. B
correlating their general le#el of Kob autonom .ith their general le#el of control
strategies, the results become less e/treme, the lo. and high autonom groups
become more similar, and the correlations become .ea!er.
&n order to accuratel test the discrimination model, stud three .ill e/amine
.hether the controllabilit of a situation influences the use and adapti#eness of the
control strategies used in that situation. Past research e/amining these proposals .ill
be e/amined.
3.2.2 E5aminin# ho% the /ontrollabilit! of a Diffic0lt! :nfl0ences the 3se of
the /ontrol Strate#ies
4s proposed b the life span theor of control, it is e/pected that all
indi#iduals .ill implement primar and secondar control strategies (Hec!hausen I
SchulL, >AAB). Ho.e#er, the ratio of these strategies is e/pected to be influenced b
the controllabilit of the situation. &f the situation is appraised as being controllable,
it is e/pected that people .ill tr to change it using primar control. 7he situation is
amenable to change, and as such, it is e/pected that attempts to change the
en#ironment using primar control .ould be successful.
$CA
&f ho.e#er the situation is appraised as being uncontrollable, it is e/pected
that people .ill attempt to change themsel#es using secondar control. &f the person
tried to change the en#ironment using primar control, the .ould be li!el to
e/perience primar control failure. &n order to a#oid primar control failure
therefore, it is e/pected that people .ould rel on more secondar control. Hence, it
is proposed that the controllabilit of the situation is in#ersel related to the
probabilit of primar control failure, .hich in turn, influences the use of secondar
control strategies.
3.2.3 Empirical St0dies E5aminin# if the /ontrollabilit! of a Sit0ation
:nfl0ences the 3se of /ontrol Strate#ies
4lthough chapter > identified some studies that e/amined the amount of
general primar and secondar control reported b emploees to handle general .or!
difficulties, no studies ha#e been located .hich report the amount of primar and
secondar control people use in controllable and uncontrollable situations. (ne
stud has e/amined the control strategies reported b people onl in lo.8control
situations (i.e., H&=8positi#e men in prison). 4ccording to the discrimination model,
it .ould be e/pected that these men .ould rel on more secondar control than
primar control. 7his .as not the case ho.e#er, as 7hompson et al., (>AAG)
demonstrated that the men reported slightl more primar control (M N CJ.BSSM)
than secondar control (M N CBSSM).
4lthough there are no studies e/amining the use of the control strategies in
controllable and uncontrollable situations, there are some studies that ha#e been
$B%
conducted on coping strategies. 7hese studies generall e/amine the amount of
problem8focussed and emotion8focussed coping strategies reported b people in
controllable and uncontrollable situations (e.g., Bo.man I Stern, >AABH 0ol!man et
al., >AJGH 0orsthe I )ompas, >AJDH 7err I Hnes,>AAJH =alentiner, Holahan I
Moos, >AACH =italiano, De*olfe, Maurio, 3usso I :aton, >AA%).
(ne stud has specificall e/amined coping strategies at .or!. Bo.man and
Stern (>AAB) as!ed nurses to describe t.o stressful e#ents, one that the 'could
control, could change or could do something about- and one that .as 'difficult to
control, that ou had to accept or had to get used to.- Participants then rated the
controllabilit of the situation, and completed 6aLarus and 0ol!man@s (>AJC) coping
scale. "nfortunatel ho.e#er, Bo.man and Stern (>AAB) did not e/amine the mean
coping strategies separatel for each stressful situation. &nstead the aggregated
them, pro#iding mean scores for a#oidance coping, problem8reappraisal coping, and
problem sol#ing coping. &t must be noted ho.e#er that e#en if the means .ere
pro#ided, the #alidit of the research design is questioned. 7here are problem .ith
using the terms 'change- and 'do something about- for controllable situations and
'accept- and 'get used to- for uncontrollable situations. 7hese terms ma bias the
emploees to respond in .as that are consistent .ith the discrimination model. B
their nature, situations that ha#e been changed are those .here primar control
strategies ha#e been used, and situations that ha#e been accepted are those .here
secondar control strategies ha#e been used.
(ther studies ha#e e/amined coping strategies in controllable and
uncontrollable non8.or! situations. 7hese studies ha#e pro#ided some.hat mi/ed
$B>
support. 0or e/ample, 0orsthe and )ompas (>AJD) demonstrated that people used
more problem8focussed coping for e#ents appraised as controllable (M N >?.J$) than
uncontrollable (M N >%.J>), ho.e#er there .ere no differences in emotion8focussed
coping. 0urthermore, 0ol!man et al., (>AJG) found that married couples tend to use
more problem8focussed coping in situations percei#ed as changeable, and more
emotion8focussed coping in situations percei#ed as ha#ing to be accepted.
Ho.e#er, =alentiner et al., (>AAC) demonstrated that college students did not report
more problem8focussed tpe coping (M N BB.?A) than emotion8focussed tpe coping
(M N BD.DJ) in a controllable e#ent. 0urthermore, the did not report more emotion8
focussed tpe coping (M N B?.B%) than problem8focussed tpe coping in an
uncontrollable e#ent (M N BC.?C).
&nstead of reporting the a#erage le#el of coping strategies in controllable and
uncontrollable situations, other studies ha#e e/amined the correlations bet.een
percei#ed control and coping strategies. &n this case, it .ould be e/pected that
percei#ed control .ould be positi#el correlated .ith problem8focussed coping and
negati#el correlated .ith emotion8focussed coping. (#erall ho.e#er, these studies
ha#e tended to be inconsistent.
0or e/ample, (so.iec!i and )ompas (>AAA) demonstrated that problem8
focussed and emotion8focussed coping .ere not significantl related to percei#ed
control. 4 similar result .as found b )on.a and 7err (>AA$) .here problem8
focussed coping, self8denigration and escapism did not correlate .ith the
controllabilit of an e#ent. Ho.e#er, Par!, 0ol!man and Bostrom ($%%>)
demonstrated that controllabilit appraisal .as positi#el correlated .ith problem8
$B$
focussed strategies (i.e., planful problem sol#ing, r N %.$?), and negati#el correlated
.ith emotion8focussed strategies (distancing, r N 8%.$A).
*hen e/amining these studies on coping strategies, the fla.s in the
conceptualisation of problem8focussed and emotion8focussed coping must be
considered. 4s discussed in chapter >, the theor underling problem8focussed and
emotion8focussed coping and the questionnaire designed to assess these strategies
(i.e., *as of )oping 5uestionnaireH *)5) has methodological limitations
(Ed.ards I (@1eill, >AAJ). 7he most concerning problem is that there is o#erlap
among the coping dimensions, .here some problem8focussed coping strategies
resemble emotion8focussed coping strategies (Ed.ards I (@1eill, >AAJ).
7he conceptualisation of primar and secondar control is superior to
problem8focussed and emotion8focussed coping because it maintains the distinction
bet.een changing the en#ironment (i.e., primar control), and changing the self (i.e.,
secondar control). 7hus, the proposal that the controllabilit of the situation
influences the amount of control strategies .ill be tested in this stud.
3.2.3.1 S1mmar!
Based on the proposals of the life span theor of control, it is e/pected that
.hen emploees ha#e a controllable difficult, the use more primar control than
secondar control. *hen the ha#e an uncontrollable difficult, it is e/pected that
the .ill attempt to a#oid primar control failure, and thus report more secondar
control than primar control. 4lthough no studies ha#e e/amined the control
$B?
strategies reported b people in controllable and uncontrollable situations, studies
using coping strategies ha#e offered, at best, mi/ed support.
3.2.* E5aminin# ho% /ontrollabilit! :nfl0ences the "daptiveness of the
/ontrol Strate#ies
Based on the discrimination model (7hompson et al., >AAJ), it is e/pected
that primar control is the most adapti#e strateg in controllable situations, and that
secondar control is the most adapti#e strateg in uncontrollable situations. 7his is
consistent .ith the life span theor of control .hich proposes that although primar
control is the more adapti#e strateg, primar control failure can ha#e negati#e
consequences (Hec!hausen et al., >AAD). &t is postulated that the controllabilit of
the situation is in#ersel related to the probabilit of primar control failure.
4s discussed in chapter >, onl a fe. studies ha#e e/amined the most
adapti#e control strategies in lo.8control situations (7hompson et al., >AAGH >AACH
>AA?H >AAJ). 7hese studies suggest that primar control strategies are more adapti#e
in controllable and uncontrollable situations, ho.e#er these studies .ere criticised
for their measurement of percei#ed control, and primar and secondar control
strategies.
&t must be noted ho.e#er that a similar hpothesis .as being de#eloped in
the coping literature. Se#eral researchers ha#e tested this proposition, referred to as
the 'goodness of fit- hpothesis ()ar#er, Scheier I *eintraub, >AJAH )on.a I
7err, >AA$H 0ol!man et al., >AJGH 3oberts, >AABH =italiano et al., >AA%). 7he
recognise that 'it is not the coping response per se that is the !e to reduce emotional
$BC
distress, but rather ho. .ell the coping strateg fits the percei#ed situation-
((so.iec!i I )ompas, >AAJ, p. CJB).
4lthough there is significant o#erlap among the coping studies and control
strateg studies, researchers are et to integrate the results. 4s there are fe. such
studies, this integration is essential to gain a greater understanding about .hether the
controllabilit of the situation influences the use and adapti#eness of the
controlMcoping strategies in that situation. &t must be noted ho.e#er that the maKorit
of studies ha#e relied on 6aLarus and 0ol!man@s (>AJC) problem8focussed coping
and emotion8focussed coping, .hich .as criticised in chapter >.
3.2.*.1 :nte$ratin$ Empirical St1dies on the Discrimination %odel and the
=oodness of 3it %odel
Empirical studies e/amining .hether the controllabilit of the situation
influences the copingMcontrol scales used in that situation pro#ide mi/ed support.
;enerall, these studies demonstrate the primar control8tpe strategies are more
adapti#e than secondar control8tpe strategies in controllable situations. Ho.e#er,
some of the studies fail to demonstrate that secondar control8tpe strategies are
more adapti#e than primar control8tpe strategies in uncontrollable situations (e.g.,
Bo.man I Stern, >AABH )on.a I 7err, >AA$H (so.ie!i I )ompas, >AAJ, >AAAH
Par!, 0ol!man I Bostrom, $%%>H =italiano et al., >AA%).
0or e/ample, 7hompson et al@s., (>AAG) stud on H&=8positi#e men
demonstrated that primar control .as negati#el related to distress and secondar
control .as positi#el related to distress. Ho.e#er, other studies ha#e demonstrated
$BB
that secondar control is more adapti#e than primar control. 0or e/ample, 7err
and Hnes (>AAJ) demonstrated that for .omen coping .ith in #itro fertiliLation,
problem management coping (i.e., tring to sol#e the problem) .as related to more
distress. Secondar control8tpe strategies (i.e., problem appraisal, and emotional
approach) .ere related to less distress.
&ntegration of the studies testing the goodness of fit model and the
discrimination model highlights the inconsistencies in the area. ;enerall, it appears
as though primar control is adapti#e in controllable situations, but that secondar
control ma not be the most adapti#e strateg in uncontrollable situations. 7hese
results ma be limited, as problems ha#e been identified in the design of the studies.
3.2.*.2 Cesearch Desi$n
3esearchers ha#e tpicall relied on t.o maKor tpes of designs to measure
the goodness of fit hpothesis and the discrimination model. 7he first design
assesses ho. people handle one stressful situation (e.g., )ar#er et al., >AJAH )on.a
I 7err, >AA$H 0ol!man et al., >AJGH 3oberts, >AABH =italiano et al., >AA%).
7picall, the person reports on the most stressful encounter the had during the
pre#ious .ee!, indicating ho. much the could control the situation, and .hat the
did to handle the situation. 7he researcher then correlates the controllabilit of the
situation .ith the coping strategies. 7his measure is problematic ho.e#er as the
respondent chooses .hether the report a controllable or uncontrollable situation and
the researcher cannot influence this #ariable.
$BG
7he second tpe of design, much li!e studies one and t.o, e/amines the
control strategies used b people in lo.8control situations. 3esearchers ha#e studied
#arious groups such as cancer patients ((so.iec!i I )ompas, >AAJ, >AAA),
H&=8 positi#e men (7hompson et al., >AAGH 7hompson et al., >AAC), people
e/periencing age8related phsical changes (7hompson et al., >AAJ), and children
e/periencing homesic!ness (7hurber I *eisL, >AAD). 7hese studies generall assess
ho. much percei#ed control the person has o#er the situation (e.g., cancer) and then
assesses .hich controlMcoping strategies the used to handle the situation
(e.g., (so.iec!i I )ompas, >AAJ). 7his design is criticised ho.e#er as it is
inconsistent .ith the proposed models. Both the discrimination model and the
goodness of fit model refer to one situation. &n order to test .hether the
controllabilit of a situation influences the control strategies used in that situation,
the scale needs to be more specific.
3.2.*.3 S1mmar!
3esearch e/amining the discrimination model and the goodness of fit
hpothesis is equi#ocal. &t appears ho.e#er that the maKorit of studies find that
primar control is adapti#e in controllable situations, but less demonstrate that
secondar control is adapti#e in uncontrollable situations. 7he #alidit of these
findings are questioned ho.e#er, as the research designs are criticised. &n order to
accuratel test the discrimination model, a more specific scale is required .hich
assesses ho. people handle controllable and uncontrollable difficulties.
$BD
3.2.) Developin# a Sit0ation Specific Primar! and Secondar! /ontrol Scale
&n order to test the proposal that the controllabilit of a situation influences
the use and adapti#eness of the control strategies in that situation, a situation specific
primar and secondar control scale is de#eloped. 7his scale o#ercomes man of the
limitations identified in pre#ious scales, as it+ a) assesses ho. people react in
controllable and uncontrollable situationsH b) can be used b .or!ers in an
occupationH and c) contains fe. items.
7he Situation Specific Primar and Secondar )ontrol Scale (Maher I
)ummins ($%%$) is an e/tension of the C
th
edition of the Primar and Secondar
)ontrol Scale (Maher et al., $%%>). 7he scale includes four primar control
strategies and >$ secondar control strategies. 3espondents are as!ed to indicate
ho. often, during the past .ee!, the ha#e used #arious strategies .hen facing a
difficult at .or!. 7he maKor change made to this scale is that rather than thin!ing
about an difficult at .or!, the respondents no. thin! about one difficult that the
can control and one difficult that the cannot control.
7he maKor issue in designing a scale to measure lo.8control and high8control
situations .as deciding on the .ording of the situation. (nl one stud .as located
that tested respondents in controllable situation and uncontrollable situations at .or!
(Bo.man I Stern, >AAB). 0or the controllable situation, the emploee .as told to
consider a situation that the 'could control, could change, or do something about.-
0or the uncontrollable situation, the emploee .as told to consider a situation that
.as 'difficult to control, that ou had to accept or get used to.-
$BJ
(ther researchers e/amining one situation ha#e as!ed 'ho. much control do
ou ha#e o#er- (7hompson et al., >AACH 7hurber I *eisL, >AAD), 'ho. much
influence do ou ha#e o#er- ()on.a I 7err, >AA$) and 'ho. much can ou
change- ()ar#er et al., >AJA, 0ol!man et al., >AJG).
4s mentioned pre#iousl, there are problem .ith using the terms 'change-,
'do something about-, and 'influence- for controllable situations and 'accept- and
'get used to- for uncontrollable situations. 7hese terms ma bias the emploees to
respond in .as that are consistent .ith the discrimination model.
4 #iable alternati#e that does not impl that the situation has been changed is
'control.- 7he emploees could be as!ed to thin! of a difficult that the can
control and a difficult that the cannot control. )ontrol is superior to the other
constructs, as it does not bias the respondents to nominate primar control strategies
in a high8control situation.
)hanges .ere also made to the primar control items. 7he primar control
items .ere designed to be general, assessing .hether the person loo!s for different
.as to o#ercome difficulties, persists, puts in effort, and .or!s out ho. to remo#e
obstacles. )loser e/amination of these items ho.e#er re#ealed se#eral problems.
0or e/ample, the item, 'loo!ed for different .as to o#ercome it- ma not actuall
represent primar control. 4 person .ho loo!s for different .as to o#ercome their
difficulties does not necessaril attempt to change the en#ironment to suit their
needs. 7he ma thin! about the different .as, decide that the are all too ris!,
and then resort to secondar control strategies. 7o demonstrate primar control, a
person needs to do more than Kust thin! of different .as to o#ercome the difficult,
$BA
rather the need to act on their en#ironment. 4s such, this item .as changed to a
strateg identified b 0ol!man and 6aLarus (>AJ%) termed 'choose and act on a
potential solution.-
7he item, '.or! hard to o#ercome it- is also criticised as it implies that the
strateg must be successful for it to represent primar control. 4ccording to this
item, the person must not onl .or! harder, but must also o#ercome the difficult.
Primar control does not necessaril in#ol#e o#ercoming the problem, onl that the
person attempts to change the en#ironment. 4s such, this item .as changed to
'.or! harder.-
4nother problematic item is '.or! out ho. to remo#e obstacles.- 7his item,
adapted from Hec!hausen et al@s., (>AAD) scale, refers to goals rather than
difficulties. 7his item is appropriate for goals as, if a goal is not obtained, there must
be obstacles in the .a of it. Ho.e#er, there ma not necessaril be obstacles in the
.a of a difficult. 7his item does not appear to fit .ith the control scale, .hich
focuses on difficulties at .or!, and as such .as deleted from the scale.
Based on these analses, the follo.ing three items .ere included in the
primar control scaleH 'choose and act on a potential solution-H '!eep tring-H and
'.or! harder.- (ne e/tra item .as de#eloped to account for the fact that other
people, such as management staff, often control man problems in the .or!place. 4
maKor .a that a person ma change difficulties in the .or!place is through
discussions or confrontations. 4n item de#eloped in 6atac!@s (>AJG) coping scale to
measure this is 'discussing the problem .ith the people in#ol#ed.- 4s discussing the
$G%
problem ma not necessaril mean that the en#ironment is changed, the item .as
re#ised to 'discuss solutions .ith the people in#ol#ed.-
7he addition of this item led to a re#ie. of the 'support- item in the
secondar control scale to ensure that the t.o .ere different. &ndeed, it is difficult to
separate support as a primar control strateg and support as a secondar control
strateg. 7he main distinction bet.een the t.o, ho.e#er, is that support as a
primar control strateg in#ol#es the person changing the en#ironment, .hereas
support as a secondar control strateg in#ol#es the person changing themsel#es to
accept the problem.
7he secondar control strateg of support .as measured b the item 'told
someone about it- in pre#ious editions of the scale. &n order to ensure that this item
is distinct from the primar control strateg, it .as changed to clearl demonstrate
that it in#ol#es changing the self (i.e., '& told someone about the difficult to ma!e
me feel better-).
(ne final change to the primar and secondar control scale concerns the
scoring. &n stud t.o, the highest score for primar and secondar control .as
recorded. 7he items .ere not aggregated because the resulting score .as deemed to
be unrepresentati#e of the control strategies. 0or e/ample, using an aggregated
score, a person .ho reported that the use one secondar control strateg e#er time
(>%), and reported ne#er (%) for the remaining strategies .ould recei#e a lo. score.
&n order to demonstrate that this person is using one secondar control strateg all
the time, the highest score for secondar control .as recorded (>%), and the person
recei#ed a high score. Ho.e#er, as demonstrated in stud t.o, using the highest
$G>
score does not appear to be the ans.er. 7his method did not differentiate the
respondents, .ith DGS of the subKects reporting a le#el of primar control bet.een
DDSSM and >%%SSM, and JCS of the subKects reporting a le#el of secondar
control bet.een DDSSM and >%%SSM. 7his range is concerning, suggesting that
there ma ha#e been a ceiling effect. 4s a result, the aggregated scoring procedure
implemented in stud one .ill be used in the current stud. Ho.e#er, it must be
noted that the aggregated scoring method, although used b the maKorit of
researchers in the field, is biased to.ards people .ho use a greater #ariet of
strategies.
3.2.".1 S1mmar!
&n order to test the proposal that the controllabilit of a situation influences
the use and adapti#eness of the control strategies in that situation, a situation specific
primar and secondar control scale .as de#eloped. 7he maKor change made to the
scale is that rather than thin!ing about an difficult at .or!, the emploees are no.
required to thin! about one difficult that the can control and one difficult that
the cannot control. )hanges .ere also made to the .ording of the primar control
items and the scoring procedure.
3.2.9 E5aminin# the $oderatin# Cole of Primar! and Secondar! /ontrol
Strate#ies
&n addition to e/amining the amount and adapti#eness of the control
strategies in controllable and uncontrollable situations, this stud also tests .hether
the control strategies moderate the relationship bet.een .or! difficulties and Kob
$G$
satisfaction. 4lthough no other studies ha#e e/amined the moderating role of the
control strategies, se#eral researchers in the coping literature ha#e suggested that it is
not the stressor that predicts Kob satisfaction, but rather ho. the person deals .ith the
stressor (4ld.in I 3e#enson, >AJD, 4shford, >AJJH Par!es, >AA%, >AACH Perre.e I
Fellars, >AAAH (sipo., Dot I Spo!ane, >AJB).
0or e/ample, 4shford (>AJJ) demonstrated that coping moderated the effect
of organisation transitions on Kob stress, .here emploees .ho shared emotions
e/perienced less stress after organisational change. Par!es (>AA%) also demonstrated
that coping moderated the effect of .or! demands on general health, ho.e#er the
found that emploees .ho reported more direct coping (i.e., problem8focussed
coping) had better health. 4s onl a fe. studies ha#e e/amined this proposal in the
.or!place, and as the ha#e relied on #aring measures of coping, this proposal .ill
be e/amined further.
&t is proposed that primar control strategies are onl useful in reducing stress
.hen the situation is controllable. &n these situations, primar control can be
implemented successfull, and the negati#e effects of the difficult can be reduced.
*hen the situation is uncontrollable ho.e#er, secondar control strategies ma be
useful in helping the person adKust to the situation. &f the use primar control
strategies, the are li!el to e/perience primar control failure, .hich ma increase
their stress. Ho.e#er, if the use secondar control, the can reduce their stress b
accepting the situation. 7hese e/plorator proposals .ill be tested.
$G?
3.2., E5aminin# the $oderatin# Cole of Social S0pport at ?orB
&n addition to primar and secondar control, social support at .or! ma
moderate the relationship bet.een controllable and uncontrollable .or! difficulties
and Kob satisfaction. &n stud t.o, the moderating roles of co8.or!er and super#isor
support .ere e/amined. 7his stud .ill also e/amine the maKor tpes of social
support, namel instrumental and emotional support. 7hese t.o tpes of social
support are e/pected to pla different roles (Ducharme I Martin, $%%%H *ong,
)heu! I 3osen, $%%%). &nstrumental support is e/pected to buffer .or! difficulties
because it helps .or!ers to cope effecti#el .ith problems, .hereas emotional
support is not e/pected to buffer .or! difficulties as it does not directl alter the
stressor (*ong et al., $%%%). Some support has been pro#ided for these proposals,
.here instrumental super#isor support, but not emotional super#isor support, has
been sho.n to buffer the effects of Kob stress on Kob satisfaction (*ong et al., $%%%).
4 more specific e/planation is de#eloped for this stud, .here it is proposed
that both instrumental and emotional support buffer the effects of .or! difficulties.
Specificall, it is proposed that instrumental support buffers the effects of
controllable difficulties and emotional support buffers the effects of uncontrollable
difficulties. &nstrumental support is useful if the difficult is controllable as other
people ma help the person to o#ercome the problem. Ho.e#er, .hen the difficult
is uncontrollable, instrumental social support ma not be useful as there is nothing
that can be done to o#ercome the difficult. 3ather, in these situations, emotional
social support ma help the person to accept these difficulties. 4s this stud is
e/amining both controllable and uncontrollable difficulties, it must be considered
$GC
.hether emotional and instrumental social support moderate both tpes of
difficulties.
3.2.,.1 S1mmar!
7his stud proposes that the control strategies and social support at .or!
moderate the relationship bet.een .or! difficulties and Kob satisfaction.
Specificall, it is e/pected that primar control and instrumental support moderate
the relationship bet.een controllable .or! difficulties and Kob satisfaction.
0urthermore, it is e/pected that secondar control and emotional support moderate
the relationship bet.een uncontrollable .or! difficulties and Kob satisfaction.
$GB
/)/ #evised 7odel of =ob Satisfaction
7his stud aims to test the model of Kob satisfaction presented in 0igure J,
.hich is fundamentall different to the pre#ious t.o models. 7he model proposes
that emploees e/perience controllable and uncontrollable difficulties, .hich are
negati#el related to Kob satisfaction.
&n response to these difficulties, emploees can implement primar and
secondar control strategies. &t is e/pected that the ratio of control strategies .ill
#ar depending on .hether the difficult is controllable or uncontrollable. 0or
controllable difficulties, it is e/pected that .or!ers .ill rel on primar more than
secondar control. 0or uncontrollable difficulties, it is e/pected that .or!ers .ill
rel on secondar more than primar control.
7he adapti#eness of the control strategies is also e/pected to #ar depending
on .hether the difficult is controllable or uncontrollable. 0or controllable
difficulties, it is e/pected that primar control .ill be more adapti#e and therefore
more positi#el related to Kob satisfaction than secondar control. 4s the situation is
controllable, it is li!el that a person can change it.
0or uncontrollable difficulties, secondar control .ill be more positi#el
related to Kob satisfaction than primar control. 4s the situation is uncontrollable, it
is unli!el that a person can change the situation using primar control, and thus
secondar control .ould be more adapti#e than primar control failure.
Both tpes of difficulties (controllable and uncontrollable) are e/pected to be
directl and indirectl related to Kob satisfaction. Emploees .ho report more
difficulties at .or! are e/pected to report lo.er Kob satisfaction. Ho.e#er t.o
$GG
#ariables that ma moderate the relationship bet.een .or! difficulties and Kob
satisfaction are primar and secondar control and social support at .or!. 7hese
moderation effects are represented b the interaction terms in 0igure J.
&n regard to primar and secondar control, it is proposed that primar
control strategies are useful in reducing the effects of .or! difficulties .hen the
situation is controllable. *hen the situation is uncontrollable, secondar control
strategies ma reduce the effects of .or! difficulties on Kob satisfaction.
&n regard to social support at .or!, it is e/pected that instrumental support
.ill buffer the effects of controllable difficulties on Kob satisfaction. Emotional
support is e/pected to buffer the effects of uncontrollable difficulties on Kob
satisfaction.
&n addition to .or! difficulties, Kob autonom and life satisfaction are
e/pected to directl predict Kob satisfaction. Both of these relationships ha#e been
demonstrated in studies one and t.o.
&n summar, controllable and uncontrollable .or! difficulties, the primar
and secondar control strategies used to handle such difficulties, and social support
at .or!, are e/pected to determine Kob satisfaction. 9ob satisfaction is, in turn,
e/pected to influence, and be influenced b, life satisfaction.
$GD
3igure .% #evised 7odel of =ob Satisfaction

)ontrollable Difficulties
"ncontrollable Difficulties
&nstrumental
Support
Emotional Support
9ob
4utonom
=ob
Satisfaction
Secondar )ontrol
Primar )ontrol
)ontrol Diff /
&nstrumental
Support
"ncontrol
Diff /
Emotional
Support
)ontrollable
Diff / Primar
)ontrol
"ncontrollable
Diff /
Secondar
)ontrol
6ife Satisfaction
Secondar )ontrol
$GJ
Primar )ontrol
$GA
/)1 !GDotheses
>) *hen .or!ers face controllable difficulties, the are e/pected to use primar
control more than secondar control. )on#ersel, .hen .or!ers face uncontrollable
difficulties, the are e/pected to use secondar control more than primar control.
*or!ers should match their control strategies to the controllabilit of the
situation. *hen the situation is controllable, the .or!ers .ill be li!el to change it
using primar control. *hen the situation is uncontrollable, the .or!ers .ill be
li!el to accept the situation using secondar control.
$) *hen .or!ers face controllable difficulties, primar control is e/pected to be
more positi#el related to Kob satisfaction than secondar control. )on#ersel, .hen
.or!ers face uncontrollable difficulties, secondar control is e/pected to be more
positi#el related to Kob satisfaction than primar control.
7his hpothesis is based on the discrimination model, .hich proposes that
primar control is more adapti#e in controllable situations, and that secondar
control is more adapti#e in uncontrollable situations.
?) Primar control .ill moderate the effect of controllable difficulties on Kob
satisfaction and secondar control .ill moderate the effect of uncontrollable
difficulties on Kob satisfaction.
7his hpothesis proposes that primar control strategies are useful in
reducing the influence of .or! difficulties on Kob satisfaction .hen the situation is
$D%
controllable. *hen the situation is uncontrollable ho.e#er, secondar control
strategies are e/pected to reduce the effects of .or! difficulties on Kob satisfaction.
C) &nstrumental social support .ill moderate the effects of controllable .or!
*hen the difficult is controllable, it is proposed that other people ma help the
person to o#ercome the problem.
B) Emotional social support .ill moderate the effects of uncontrollable .or!
Emotional social support is e/pected to help reduce the influence of uncontrollable
difficulties on Kob satisfaction. &n these cases, instrumental social support ma not be
useful as the situation cannot be o#ercome, ho.e#er emotional social support ma
help reduce the se#erit of these difficulties.
G) *or! difficulties, the control strategies used to handle .or! difficulties, social
support at .or!, Kob autonom and life satisfaction, .ill predict Kob satisfaction.
7hese #ariables are e/pected to be maKor predictors of Kob satisfaction, as
demonstrated in 0igure J.
$D>
/)2 7ethod
3.).1 Participants
7he sample consisted of $>C general emploees, obtained from a database
and through con#enience sampling. 7he age of the participants ranged from $>8D?
ears, .ith the a#erage being CC.DJ ears (SDN>B.>J). 7he demographic
characteristics of the sample are displaed in 7able ?G.
able /0% DemograDhic Characteristics of the SamDle
=ariable S sample
;ender
7ale 1<)<
3emale 1<)<
(ccupation
"rofessional 10)<
Business >?.>
7rade >%.D
)lerical >?.>
3etail G.>
6abourer >.A
(ther ?.?
Hours .or!ed per .ee!
>8$% >?.G
$>8?% >C.%
/$%1: *<)0
1$%2: *<)$
B>8G% >$.>
G>U C.D
4olded values indicate the largest DroDortion)
$D$
3.).2 $aterials
4ll of the respondents recei#ed a plain language statement (refer to 4ppendi/
1) and a questionnaire. 7he questionnaire consisted of scales measuring controllable
and uncontrollable difficulties, primar and secondar control for such difficulties,
Kob autonom, Kob satisfaction, life satisfaction and social support at .or!.
3.".2.1 0ontrollable and 4ncontrollable Diffic1lties
)ontrollable and uncontrollable difficulties .ere measured in the Situation
Specific Primar and Secondar )ontrol Scale (Maher I )ummins, $%%$H refer to
4ppendi/ (). 4lthough the most direct .a to measure this #ariable .ould be to
as!, 'ho. often do ou e/perience difficulties that ou can controlMcannot control-,
this item .as deemed to be too cogniti#el ta/ing and prone to errors. 3ather the
emploees .ere gi#en a list of potential difficulties that the ma face at .or! such
as super#isors, co8.or!ers, !ind of .or!, pa, .or!8place rules, promotion, time
management and others. 7he indicated .hich difficulties the e/perienced that
the could control.
&n order to determine ho. frequentl the e/perienced controllable
difficulties, the .ere as!ed to consider the difficult that the e/perienced most
often and could control, and indicate ho. often the e/perienced it. 7his process
.as repeated for uncontrollable difficulties.
4lthough this question onl refers to one difficult, it .as deemed to be the
best method. (ne alternati#e is to as! them on a#erage ho. often the e/perience
the difficulties the tic!ed. Ho.e#er, it is e/tremel difficult for emploees to
$D?
mentall calculate ho. often the e/perience each difficult the tic!ed and then
calculate the a#erage. 4nother alternati#e .ould be to get them to indicate ho.
often the e/perienced each difficult. 7his .as problematic ho.e#er, as there are
an unlimited number of .or! difficulties, particularl as this stud is reling on a
general sample of emploees.
3.".2.2 Primar! 0ontrol and Secondar! 0ontrol
7he Situation Specific Primar and Secondar )ontrol Scale (Maher I
)ummins, $%%$H refer to 4ppendi/ () .as used in this stud. 7he main difference
bet.een this scale and earlier scales is that the respondents no. indicate .hich
control strategies the use for controllable difficulties and uncontrollable difficulties.
7here are four primar control, and >$ secondar control strategies from .hich to
choose. 7here is also the option to list other strategies that the use. Each strateg is
rated on a fi#e8point scale ranging from % (ne#er) to C (al.as).
3.".2.3 Job #1tonom!
9ob autonom .as measured b the Kob autonom items in the 9ob Diagnostic
Sur#e (Hac!man I (ldham, >ADB). 7his scale consists of three items that assess
o#erall percei#ed Kob autonom, such as '&n m Kob, & can decide on m o.n ho. to
go about doing m .or!- (refer to 4ppendi/ B). 7he items .ere rated on a >%8point
scale ranging from > (do not agree at all) to >% (agree completel). 4s discussed in
stud t.o, the pschometric statistics are adequate.
$DC
3.".2.* Job Satisfaction
9ob satisfaction .as measured b a one8item measure. 7he item 'ta!ing into
consideration all the things about our Kob, ho. satisfied are ou .ith it- .as rated
on an >>8point scale. 4lthough internal consistenc cannot be established .ith a
single8item measure, this measure of Kob satisfaction has been sho.n to correlate
.ith other measures of Kob satisfaction, .here r N %.G? (*anous et al., >AAD).
&n studies one and t.o, a facet measure of Kob satisfaction .as also used. 4s
this facet measure .as onl used to gain insight into the particular occupational
groups, it is not necessar in this stud .hich is reling on a general sample of
emploees.
3.".2." 9ife Satisfaction
6ife satisfaction .as measured b the Personal *ell8being &nde/ de#eloped
recentl b )ummins et al., ($%%>). 7his scale attempts to o#ercome some
methodological problems that .ere identified in the )omprehensi#e 5ualit of 6ife
Scale, .hich .as used in studies one and t.o. Most of these problems in#ol#e the
obKecti#e scale, or the importance scale, rather than the satisfaction scale. Ho.e#er,
some problems .ere identified .ith the se#en domains of life satisfaction, such as
the domain of emotional .ell8being or happiness refers to an affecti#e state rather
than a domain of life ()ummins, $%%$). 0urthermore, the .ording of some of the
items .ere not optimal ()ummins, $%%$). 4s such, rather than happiness, future
securit is included as a domain of life satisfaction. 7hus, the Personal *ell8being
&nde/ consists of se#en domains of satisfaction .hich are rated on an >>8point scale
$DB
(refer to 4ppendi/ P).
3.".2./ Social S1pport at ?orB
&n stud t.o, social support at .or! .as measured b :arase! and 7heorell@s
(>AA%) scale. 7his scale consisted of both instrumental and emotional support,
ho.e#er the items .ere designed to be summed to pro#ide an o#erall support score.
7hese items .ere e/amined more closel in this stud to ensure that the .ere
appropriate for a range of occupations.
Some problems .ere identified .ith the instrumental support scale. 0or
e/ample, the item, 'm super#isor creates a good team.or! en#ironment for me-
ma not measure instrumental support. &t is not necessar that an emploees .or!s
in a team.or! en#ironment for them to recei#e instrumental support. 7o pro#ide
instrumental support, the emploer onl needs to offer some material assistance. 4
further problem .ith the scale concerns the item 'm co8.or!ers are competent.-
7his item, although intended to measure instrumental support, onl assesses the co8
.or!ers competence. )o8.or!ers ma indeed be competent, ho.e#er this does not
mean that the offer assistance .hen required. 7hese problems, although the .ere
not recognised in stud t.o, .ill be rectified in this stud.
4 re#ie. of the other maKor measures of social support at .or! .as
underta!en. 7his re#ie. demonstrated that although there are man scales that claim
to measure social support at .or!, fe. adequatel measure emotional and
instrumental support. Some researchers rel on a one item measure, such as 'ho.
true is it that our super#isors are .armMfriendl .hen ou ha#e problems- and 'ho.
$DG
true is it that our super#isor helps ou complete a gi#en tas!- (Himle I 9aaratne,
>AA>H *ong et al., $%%%). 7hese scales are criticised ho.e#er for failing to capture
the different .as that emotional or instrumental support can be offered.
Some studies ha#e relied on scales .hich onl focus on emotional support
and fail to measure instrumental support (Dollard et al., $%%%, 3odrigueL, Bra#o,
Peiro I Schaufeli, $%%>). (thers do not claim to measure either component ()aplan
et al., >ADBH =an der Doef I Maes, >AAA), .hilst others still claim to measure fi#e
tpes of social support ("nden, >AAG).
(ne e/plorator scale recentl de#eloped b Ducharme and Martin ($%%%)
does not appear to suffer from an of these problems. 7heir scale, de#eloped onl to
assess co8.or!er support, includes fi#e items assessing instrumental support and fi#e
items assessing emotional support. )onsistentl, a factor analsis on the scale
demonstrated that t.o factors emerged. 7o ma!e this scale appropriate for the
current stud, it .as posited that the co8.or!er items could also be applied to
super#isors. &f this .ere done, the scale .ould consist of $% items. 4s this ma be
unnecessaril long, some items .ere deleted. Specificall, onl the three highest
loading items .ere selected each for instrumental and emotional support. 0or
emotional support, these .ere 'our co8.or!ers reall care about ou-, 'ou feel
close to our co8.or!ers- and 'our co8.or!ers ta!e a personal interest in ou.-
7hese three items .ere also changed to be applicable to super#isors.
0or instrumental support, the items .ere 'our co8.or!ers .ould fill in .hile
ou@re absent-, 'our co8.or!ers are helpful in getting the Kob done- and 'our
$DD
co8.or!ers gi#e useful ad#ice on Kob problems.- 7hese three items also needed to be
applicable to super#isors. 4s one of them .as not (i.e., 'our super#isors .ould fill
in .hile ou .ere absent-), the ne/t highest loading item in the factor analsis .as
selected. 7his .as 'our co8.or!ers assist .ith unusual .or! problems.- 7he
resulting scale is a si/8item scale for co8.or!er support and a si/8item scale for
super#isor support, that both assess instrumental and emotional support (refer to
4ppendi/ 5).
3.).3 Proced0re
Ethics appro#al .as obtained from Dea!in "ni#ersit. 7he maKorit of the
sample .as obtained from a database de#eloped b 4ustralian "nit and Dea!in
"ni#ersit. 7his database contains information for A%% people that ha#e been
randoml selected from the population, and ha#e agreed to participate in a sur#e.
7he emploment status of these people .as un!no.n, and as such t.o
questionnaires .ere sent to them, one if the .ere emploed, and one if the .ere
unemploed. 4 total of $B% ($DS) questionnaires .ere returned ho.e#er onl >?%
(>C.CCS) of these .ere completed b people that .ere emploed. 7he remainder of
the sample .as obtained through con#enience, and sno.balling.
$DJ
/)0 #esults
3.9.1 Data Screenin# and /hecBin# of "ss0mptions
7he data set .as e/amined for missing #alues, outliers, normalit and
linearit. 7here .ere #er fe. missing #alues for measures of life satisfaction, Kob
satisfaction, Kob autonom, Kob demands, and co8.or!er support (i.e., R BS). 7here
.as a higher rate of missing #alues for super#isor support (>AS) and primar and
secondar control (GS, >>S, respecti#el). 7he treatment of these #alues depended
on their conte/t. &f the participant had completed the maKorit of the scale, the
missing #alues .ere replaced .ith the group mean. &f ho.e#er, the person had failed
to complete an of the scale, the .ere e/cluded from analses using that scale.
(#erall, this treatment resulted in less than BS of the missing #alues being replaced
.ith the group mean.
"ni#ariate outliers .ere identified in the measures of life satisfaction
($ cases), Kob satisfaction (? cases), Kob autonom (> case), co8.or!er support
(C cases), and primar and secondar control (? cases). 7hese #alues .ere re8coded
to lie .ithin three standard de#iations of the mean.
Man of the scales .ere negati#el s!e.ed, .here the s!e.Mstandard
error W ?. 7hese include life satisfaction (8C.CC), Kob satisfaction (8B.%A), Kob
autonom (8D.%D), and co8.or!er and super#isor support (8C.BG, 8B.>B, respecti#el).
4s transformations are not recommended for #ariables that are mildl and naturall
s!e.ed (7abachnic! I 0idell, >AAD), these #ariables .ere not transformed.
3easonabl linear relationships .ere e#ident among the #ariables.
$DA
3.9.2 Descriptive Statistics and :nter1/orrelations
7able ?D contains the means and standard de#iations of the maKor #ariables.
7his table demonstrates that emploees are using primar more than secondar
control in controllable and uncontrollable situations. (ther interesting findings are
that emploees report that their co8.or!ers offer more instrumental and emotional
support than their emploers. 4dditionall, the le#el of life satisfaction is in the
e/pected range.
7able ?J displas the correlations among the maKor #ariables. Se#eral
#ariables correlate .ell .ith Kob satisfaction including Kob autonom, life
satisfaction, social support at .or!, and difficulties at .or!. Strong correlations are
also obser#ed among primar control in controllable situations and primar control
in uncontrollable situations. Similarl, secondar control in controllable situations is
strongl correlated to secondar control in uncontrollable situations.
$J%
able /<% 7eans and Standard Deviations of the 7aKor (ariables
=ariable M SD
9ob Satisfaction D>.GD >J.C>
9ob 4utonom DJ.>J $%.?C
6ife Satisfaction8domain D?.GJ >?.DG
)o8.or!er emotional support DC.G? $%.J>
)o8.or!er instrumental support DJ.%? $>.?%
Super#isor emotional support GB.JG $G.GG
Super#isor instrumental support D%.BB $G.?$
0requenc of controllable difficulties BJ.D% $%.??
0requenc of uncontrollable difficulties BD.%D $$.$B
Primar control for controllable difficult D>.AJ >?.%B
Secondar control for controllable difficult B?.DC >$.>$
Primar control for uncontrollable difficult GB.BG >G.D?
Secondar control for uncontrollable difficult B?.>% >$.GJ
4ll scores ha#e been con#erted to a percentage of scale ma/imum (SSM) .hich
ranges from %8>%%. 7he formula is (mean score for the original domain8>) / >%%M
(number of scale points O>)
able /.% 'nter%Correlations among 7aKor (ariables
9S 94 )dif "dif Pc) Sc) Pc" Sc" 6S Sup
9S
94 :)2<
)dif %:)/< %:)**
"dif %:)/2 %:)/* :)1*
Pc) :)*< :)/1 8%.>? 8%.>C
Sc) 8%.>$ %:)*2 8%.%? %.>% 8%.%?
Pc" :)*/ %.>J 8%.>$ 8%.>> :)0- %.%G
Sc" 8%.%C 8%.>G 8%.%B %.>% %.%D :)01 :)*:
6S :)10 :)/1 8%.>C 8%.>? %.>? 8%.>? %.>A
Sup :)/< :)1: %:)*$ %:)*1 %.>% %.%C %.%J %.%J :)*0
)o. :)1. :)1$ 8%.>C 8%.>C %.%D 8%.%G %.%A %.%C :)/$ :)2<
4olded items DP:):$
9S 8 Kob satisfactionH 94 8 Kob autonomH )dif 8 controllable difficultiesH
"dif 8uncontrollable difficultiesH Pc) 8 primar control for controllable difficultiesH
Sc) 8 secondar control for controllable difficultiesH Pc" 8 primar control for
uncontrollable difficultiesH Sc" 8 secondar control for uncontrollable difficultiesH
6S 8 life satisfactionH Sup 8 super#isor supportH )o. 8 co8.or!er support.
$J>
3.9.3 2actor "nal!ses
0actor analses .ere conducted on the t.o e/plorator scales in the stud
measuring primar and secondar control strategies and social support at .or!.
3.9.* Primar! and Secondar! /ontrol Scale
7.o factor analses .ere required to e/amine the primar and secondar
control items for a controllable difficult and an uncontrollable difficult. 0or both
of these analses, the assumptions .ere met .here Bartlett@s test of sphericit .as
significant, and :aiser8Meer8(l!in (:M() measure of sampling adequac
e/ceeded %.G%.
0or controllable difficulties, a principle component analsis .ith direct
oblimin rotation ielded fi#e factors. 7hese fi#e factors accounted for B?.JS of the
#ariance, ho.e#er onl G of the >G items loaded on onl one factor, and as such, this
fi#e8factor solution could not be interpreted. 7he analsis .as repeated using a four8
factor solution. 7en items loaded on onl one factor, and the primar control items
loaded on a separate factor to the secondar control items. Ho.e#er, there .as no
pattern to the secondar control items that loaded on the remaining three factors. &n
response to this, a three8factor analsis .as conducted. 7his analsis .as much
clearer, demonstrating that all of the primar control items loaded on 0actor >, and
the secondar control items .ere mainl di#ided among 0actor $ and 0actor ?.
4s demonstrated in 7able ?A, 0actor > consists of all four primar control
items. 7.o of the secondar control items negati#el loaded on this factor as .ell,
and as such, the .ill be e/cluded from the analses. 0actors $ and ? contain the
$J$
remaining secondar control items. 7he items that loaded on 0actor $ .ere support,
#icarious, past success, beha#ioural a#oidance and positi#e re8interpretation, .hilst
the items that loaded on 0actor ? .ere predicti#e8negati#e, .isdom, and attribution.
7here is a theoretical distinction among these items that .as introduced in chapter ?.
4s demonstrated in 7able >A, t.o functions of secondar control are posited, namel
self8protecti#e and self8affirmati#e.
Self8protecti#e secondar control strategies reduce the negati#e impact of the
situation, .hilst self8affirmati#e secondar control strategies increase positi#e
feelings about the self. 4ll of the items that loaded on 0actor $ in#ol#e
self8affirmation, .hilst the items that loaded on 0actor ? in#ol#e self8protection. &t
must be noted ho.e#er that some strategies that .ere e/pected to load on the t.o
factors did not. 7he self8affirmati#e strateg of do.n.ard social comparison did not
load on 0actor $. 0urthermore, the self8protecti#e strategies of goal disengagement,
illusor optimism, and denial did not load on 0actor ?. Despite this ho.e#er, o#erall
the factor analsis supports the t.o tpes of secondar control.
$J?
able /-% 3actor AnalGsis of "rimarG and SecondarG Control 'tem in
Controllable Situations
&tem 0> 0$ 0?
Pc> Discuss solutions .ith the people in#ol#ed. %.BG
PcC )hoose a solution and act on it. %.D%
PcD *or! harder. %.C$
Pc>% :eep tring. %.G%
Sc* hink that the difficultG doesnBt matter) %:)0$
Sc/ hink that this difficultG will work out okaG
in the end)
Sc2 hink that ' knew this difficultG would
haDDen)
:)0.
Sc0 hink that ' canBt alwaGs get what ' want) :)</
Sc; ThinB that : am better off than man! other
people.
Sc- hink that this difficultG is not mG fault) :)1*
Sc11 Tell someone abo1t this diffic1lt! to maBe me
feel better.
0."*
Sc12 ThinB of the s1ccess of m! famil!Afriends. 0./1
Sc13 ThinB abo1t m! s1ccess in other areas. 0.,*
Sc1* Do somethin$ different+ liBe $oin$ for a &alB. 0.//
Sc$2 'gnore this difficultG) %:)0/
Sc1/ 9ooB for somethin$ else that is positive in the
sit1ation.
0./"
Eigen#alues $.C% $.$B >.CG
S =ariance >B.%> >C.%C A.>$
)umulati#e #ariance >B.%> $A.%B ?G.>D
Self%Drotective secondarG control items are bolded.
Self2affirmative secondar! control items are italicised.
0actor >8 Primar )ontrol, 0actor $8 Self8affirmati#e, 0actor ?8 Self8protecti#e
&n addition to the controllable difficulties, a principal component analsis
.ith direct oblimin rotation .as conducted on the strategies used for uncontrollable
difficulties. 7his analsis ielded si/ factors, ho.e#er as onl one item loaded on
one factor, a fi#e8factor solution, and a four8factor solution .ere requested. Both
analses could not be interpreted, as there .as no pattern to the secondar control
$JC
items. 4s such, a three8factor solution .as conducted. 7his solution .as remar!abl
similar to the analsis of controllable situations. 4s demonstrated in 7able C%, all
four primar control items loaded on 0actor >, and the secondar control items
loaded on their respecti#e tpes of secondar control (i.e., self8protecti#e and
self8affirmati#e). 4s .ith the analsis for controllable situations ho.e#er, there are
a fe. e/ceptions, .here goal disengagement and denial loaded on 0actor >. "nli!e
the controllable analsis, 0actor $ included the self8affirmati#e strateg of do.n.ard
social comparison, ho.e#er it also included illusor optimism, .hich is a self8
protecti#e strateg. 0inall, 0actor ? .as the same in both analses .here it
e/cluded goal disengagement, illusor optimism, and denial.
$JB
able 1:% 3actor AnalGsis of "rimarG and SecondarG Control 'tems in
Uncontrollable Situation
&tem 0> 0$ 0?
Pc> Discuss solutions .ith the people in#ol#ed. %.GG
PcC )hoose a solution and act on it. %.D%
PcD *or! harder. %.BA
Pc>% :eep tring. %.G>
Sc* hink that the difficultG doesnBt matter) %:)0.
Sc/ hink that this difficultG will work out okaG
in the end)
:)1$
Sc2 hink that ' knew this difficultG would
haDDen)
:)0/
Sc0 hink that ' canBt alwaGs get what ' want) :)</
Sc; ThinB that : am better off than man! other
people.
0.";
Sc- hink that this difficultG is not mG
fault)
:)21
Sc11 Tell someone abo1t this diffic1lt! to maBe me
feel better.
0.3)
Sc12 ThinB of the s1ccess of m! famil!Afriends. 0.",
Sc13 ThinB abo1t m! s1ccess in other areas. 0.,0
Sc1* Do somethin$ different+ liBe $oin$ for a &alB. 0./3
Sc$2 'gnore this difficultG) %:)02
Sc1/ 9ooB for somethin$ else that is positive in the
sit1ation.
0.//
Eigen#alues $.A% $.$A >.G%
S =ariance >J.>G >C.?? >%.%$
)umulati#e #ariance >J.>G ?$.CA C$.B>
Self%Drotective secondarG control items are bolded)
Self2affirmative secondar! control items are italicised.
0actor >8 Primar )ontrol, 0actor $8 Self8affirmati#e, 0actor ?8 Self8protecti#e
)ommonalties among the t.o factor analses .ere e/amined. 7his stud
aims to compare the primar and secondar control strategies for controllable .ith
uncontrollable difficulties, and as such, the comparisons should be based on the same
items. 0or primar control, all four items loaded on 0actor > in both analses, and as
$JG
such the .ill all be included. 0or self8affirmati#e secondar control, the common
items .ere sc>>, sc>$, sc>?, sc>C, and sc>G. 4s such, self8protecti#e secondar
control .ill be measured b these items (i.e., support, #icarious, present success,
acti#e a#oidance, and positi#e re8interpretation). 0or self8protecti#e secondar
control, the common items .ere scB, scG, and scA, .hich are predicti#e8negati#e,
.isdom, and attribution. 7able C> demonstrates .hich self8protecti#e and self8
affirmati#e strategies .ere included in the analses.
able 1$%SecondarG Control 'tems included in AnalGses
7pe of Strateg Strateg &tem )urrent Stud
Self8protecti#e 4ttribution Self8protecti#e
Self8protecti#e Predicti#e81egati#e Self8protecti#e
Self8protecti#e *isdom Self8protecti#e
Self8protecti#e ;oal Disengagement 88
Self8protecti#e &llusor (ptimism 88
Self8protecti#e Denial 88
Self8affirmati#e Support Self8affirmati#e
Self8affirmati#e =icarious Self8affirmati#e
Self8affirmati#e Present Success Self8affirmati#e
Self8affirmati#e 4cti#e 4#oidance Self8affirmati#e
Self8affirmati#e Positi#e 3e8interpretation Self8affirmati#e
Self8affirmati#e Do.n.ard Social )omparison 88
3.9.) Social S0pport at ?orB
4 principal components factor analsis .ith direct oblimin rotation .as
conducted on the social support scale to ensure that the items .ere measuring four
tpes of support, namel co8.or!er instrumental support, co8.or!er emotional
support, super#isor instrumental support and super#isor emotional support. 7he
assumptions .ere met .here Bartlett@s test of sphericit .as significant, and
$JD
:aiser8Meer8(l!in (:M() measure of sampling adequac e/ceeded %.G%.
4s demonstrated in 7able C$, all of the super#isor items loaded on 0actor >,
and all of the co8.or!er items loaded on 0actor $. 7he instrumental support and the
emotional support items for super#isors and co8.or!ers did not load on different
factors. 4s these factor loadings are #er high, the scale should onl be di#ided into
co8.or!er support and emotional support. Ho.e#er, as the hpotheses refer to the
specific tpes of support, the instrumental and emotional support items .ill remain
separate.
able 1*% 3actor AnalGsis of the Social SuDDort at Work Scale
&tem 0> 0$
M co8.or!ers reall care about me. %.J$
& feel close to m co8.or!ers. %.JJ
M co8.or!ers ta!e a personal interest in me. %.A?
M co8.or!ers assist .ith unusual .or! problems. %.JJ
M co8.or!ers are helpful in getting the Kob done. %.A>
M co8.or!ers gi#e useful ad#ice on Kob problems. %.DD
M super#isor reall cares about me. %.JG
& feel close to m super#isor. %.A>
M super#isor ta!es a personal interest in me. %.JJ
M super#isor assists .ith unusual .or! problems. %.A>
M super#isor is helpful in getting the Kob done. %.A?
M super#isor gi#es useful ad#ice on Kob problems. %.A?
Eigen#alues D.?C $.%B
S =ariance G>.AD >D.%B
)umulati#e S #ariance G>.AD DA.%$
$JJ
/)< !GDothesis esting
&n order to test the hpotheses, repeated measures analses of #ariance .ere
conducted to compare the use of control strategies in different situations, and
multiple regression analses .ere used to e/amine the adapti#eness of the control
strategies. Hierarchical regression analses .ere conducted to e/amine the
moderating role of the control strategies and social support on the relationship
bet.een .or! difficulties and Kob satisfaction. 0inall, a standard multiple
regression analsis .as conducted to e/amine the maKor predictors of Kob
satisfaction. 4s in stud t.o, the alpha le#el .as reduced to %.%> in order to reduce
the ris! of 7pe & errors.
3.,.1 !pothesis .ne1 3se of /ontrol Strate#ies for /ontrollable and
3ncontrollable Diffic0lties
Hpothesis one proposes that .hen .or!ers face controllable difficulties,
the use more primar control than secondar control, and .hen .or!ers face
uncontrollable difficulties, the use more secondar control than primar control.
Before e/amining this hpothesis, the tpes of difficulties that emploees are
reporting as being controllable or uncontrollable are e/amined. 4s demonstrated in
7able C?, the most common controllable difficulties .ere .ith time management,
moti#ation and co8.or!ers. 7he most uncontrollable difficulties .ere .ith pa,
amount of .or!, .or!8place rules, and promotion.
able 1/ % Controllable and Uncontrollable Difficulties #eDorted bG EmDloGees
$JA
Difficult S es and
controllable
S es and
uncontrollable
Difficulties .ith super#isors ?J.J ?B.B
Difficulties .ith co8.or!ers G%.D >D.J
Difficulties .ith !ind of .or! B$.J $A.A
Difficulties .ith pa $?.C CG.?
Difficulties .ith .or!8place rules ?%.C CC.C
Difficulties .ith promotion >$.> C%.$
Difficulties .ith time management G$.> >A.G
Difficulties .ith moti#ation G$.G >>.$
Difficulties .ith .or! times CA.B $?.C
Difficulties .ith amount of .or! C$.> CC.A
(ther C.D C.$
7o test .hether .or!ers use more primar control .hen the face
controllable difficulties and more secondar control .hen the face uncontrollable
difficulties, t.o repeated8measures analses of #ariance .ere conducted. 7he
#ariables .ere normall distributed, and the homogeneit of #ariance .as met.
:eppel (>AA>) proposes that the adequac of the sphericit tests has been questioned
and as such, researchers should assume that sphericit does not hold, and ma!e the
adKustments.
0or the controllable difficulties, Mauchl@s test of sphericit .as not #iolated.
Ho.e#er, ;reenhouse8;eisser epsilon .as greater than %.DB, and as such, the
degrees of freedom .ere calculated using the Hunh80eldt epsilon. 7he difference
.as significant, 0 (>.AJC, C%%.D>$) N AA.GC, p N %.%%. 4s demonstrated in 7able CC,
emploees reported significantl more primar control than affirmati#e secondar
control, 0 (>, $%$) N >JD.AC, p N %.%%, and self8protecti#e secondar control,
0 (>, $%$) N ?$.$D, p N %.%%. Emploees did not report more protecti#e secondar
control than affirmati#e secondar, 0 (>, $%$) N >.$%, p N %.$D. 7hus, consistent .ith
$A%
the first part of hpothesis one, emploees reported more primar control than
secondar control for a controllable difficult.
0or the uncontrollable difficulties, ;reenhouse8;eisser epsilon .as greater
than %.DB, and as such, Hunh80eldt epsilon .as used. 7his demonstrated that the
difference .as significant, 0 ($, ?JG) N ?J.BD, p N %.%%. 4s demonstrated in 7able
CC, emploees reported more primar control than self8affirmati#e secondar control,
0 (>, >A?) N J%.$D, p N %.%%, and self8protecti#e secondar control,
0 (>, >A?) N $A.AC, p N %.%%. Emploees also reported more self8protecti#e
secondar control than self8affirmati#e secondar control, 0 (>, >A?) N J.DJ,
p N %.%%?. (#erall ho.e#er, inconsistent .ith the second part of hpothesis one,
emploees reported more primar than secondar control for uncontrollable
difficulties.
able 11% EmDloGees Use of "rimarG and SecondarG Control in Controllable
and Uncontrollable Situations
Situation Strateg M SD
)ontrollable Primar )ontrol D>.AJ >?.%B
Secondar )ontrol8 Self affirmation B$.JJ >G.D%
Secondar )ontrol8 Self protecti#e BC.G% >G.$>
"ncontrollable Primar )ontrol GC.BG >G.D?
Secondar )ontrol8Self8affirmation B%.DC >G.DG
Secondar )ontrol8 Self8protecti#e BB.CB >G.A%
7o determine the most commonl used control strategies to handle
controllable and uncontrollable difficulties, the means for each indi#idual strateg
.ere e/amined. 4s demonstrated in 7able CB, the most commonl used primar
$A>
control strateg for controllable and uncontrollable difficulties is '!eep tring- and
the least common strateg is 'discuss solutions .ith the people in#ol#ed.- 7he most
common secondar control strateg for controllable and uncontrollable difficulties is
'thin! that & am better off than man other people.- 7he least common secondar
control strateg for controllable difficulties is 'ignore this difficult- and for
uncontrollable difficulties is 'thin! that the difficult doesn@t matter.-
$A$
able 12% 7eans and Standard Deviations of 'ndividual Control Strategies
Strateg )ontrollable "ncontrollable
M SD M SD
Discuss solutions .ith the people in#ol#ed.
(pc)
GG.%% $?.GC BB.%? $D.%%
)hoose a solution and act on it. (pc) D?.$J >A.?B G>.D? $B.$>
*or! harder. (pc) GD.CA $%.BG G?.A$ $C.C%
>eeD trGing) 8Dc; <<)2. $.)2* <<)2. $.)2*
7hin! that the difficult doesn@t matter. (sc) ??.AA $G.D$ ?%.>B $G.>A
7hin! that this difficult .ill .or! out o!a in
the end. (sc)
B?.?? $D.DJ CA.?G $B.G?
7hin! that & !ne. this difficult .ould happen.
(sc)
BB.GD $B.>A BB.GD $B.>A
7hin! that & can@t al.as get .hat & .ant. (sc) B>.C$ $C.J? B>.C$ $C.J?
hink that ' am better off than manG other
DeoDle) 8sc;
0<)1- **)-. 0<)1- **)-.
7hin! that this difficult is not m fault. (sc) BG.>G $?.CC BG.>G $?.CC
7ell someone about this difficult to ma!e me
feel better. (sc)
BG.C% $D.B> BG.CC $G.?A
7hin! of the success of m familMfriends. (sc) CG.C? $D.?% C>.$? $J.%%
7hin! about m success in other areas. (sc) BC.BG $?.CJ B?.$$ $C.B?
Do something different, li!e going for a .al!.
(sc)
CB.J> $G.GA CC.$% $J.>C
&gnore this difficult. (sc) $C.JD $$.BA ?%.BC $G.DJ
6oo! for something else that is positi#e in the
Situation. (sc)
G>.$> $?.%J BJ.G? $$.G>
4olded strategies have highest freNuencies
3.,.2 !pothesis T%o1 "daptiveness of the /ontrol Strate#ies for
/ontrollable and 3ncontrollable Diffic0lties
Hpothesis t.o proposes that primar control is more positi#el related to Kob
satisfaction than secondar control for controllable difficulties and that secondar
control is more positi#el related to Kob satisfaction than primar control for
uncontrollable difficulties. &n order to test this hpothesis, t.o standard multiple
regression analses .ere conducted.
$A?
.ere met for both analses, and there .as no e#idence of multicollinearit. 0or the
controllable situation, 3 .as significantl different from Lero, 3 N %.$G,
0 (?, >AA) N C.G?, p N %.%%C. 4s demonstrated in 7able CG, onl primar control
predicted Kob satisfaction, accounting for BS of the #ariance. 7hus, consistent .ith
the first part of hpothesis t.o, primar control .as more positi#el correlated .ith
Kob satisfaction than secondar control for controllable difficulties.
0or the uncontrollable difficulties, 3 .as also significantl different from
Lero, 3 N %.$A, 0 (?, >A%) N B.JD, p N %.%%>. 4s .ith the controllable difficult, onl
primar control predicted Kob satisfaction, accounting for almost GS of the #ariance.
7hus, inconsistent .ith the second part of hpothesis t.o, primar control .as more
positi#el correlated .ith Kob satisfaction than secondar control for uncontrollable
difficulties.
$AC
able 10% Standard 7ultiDle #egression AnalGsis "redicting =ob Satisfaction
3rom "rimarG and SecondarG Control
Difficult =ar 9S P) S)84 B sr
$
(unique)
)ontrol
P) %.$CQQ %.?? %.$C B.?JQQ
S)8 4 %.%? %.>$ %.%%D %.%%G
S)8 P 8%.%> 8%.%> %.%A 8%.%J 8%.%J
3 N%.$GQQ 3
$
N%.%D 4dK3
$
N%.%B
"ncontrol
P) %.$GQQ %.$J %.$B B.ABQQ
S)84 %.>? %.>J %.>> %.%>
S)8P 8%.%J %.%B %.>C 8%.>> %.%J
3 N%.$AQQ 3
$
N%.%A 4dK3
$
N%.%D
QQpR%.%>
)ontrol 8 controllable difficultH "ncontrol 8 uncontrollable difficultH 9S8 Kob
satisfactionH P) 8 primar controlH S)84 8 self8affirmati#e secondar controlH
S)8P8 self8protecti#e secondar control.
&n order to determine the most adapti#e control strategies for controllable and
uncontrollable difficulties, the correlations bet.een each indi#idual strateg and Kob
satisfaction are presented in 7able CD. 7his table demonstrates that the most adapti#e
primar control strateg for both tpes of difficulties is '!eep tring- and the least
adapti#e is '.or! harder.- 7he most adapti#e secondar control strateg for a
controllable difficult is 'thin! that & am better off than man other people- and in an
uncontrollable situation is 'loo! for something else that is positi#e in the situation.-
7he least adapti#e secondar control strateg in both situations is 'ignore this
difficult.-
$AB
able 1<% Correlations between 'ndividual Control Strategies and =ob
Satisfaction for Controllable and Uncontrollable Difficulties
Strateg )ontrollable "ncontrollable
Discuss solutions .ith the people in#ol#ed. (pc) %.>> %.>AQQ
)hoose a solution and act on it. (pc) %.$?QQ %.>B
*or! harder. (pc) %.%A %.>C
>eeD trGing) 8Dc; :)*1LL :)*-LL
7hin! that the difficult doesn@t matter. (sc) 8%.$$QQ 8%.%?
7hin! that this difficult .ill .or! out o!a in the
end. (sc)
%.>? %.>$
7hin! that & !ne. this difficult .ould happen.
(sc)
8%.%A 8%.%J
7hin! that & can@t al.as get .hat & .ant. (sc) 8%.%$ %.%%G
hink that ' am better off than manG other
DeoDle) 8sc;
:)**LL %.>D
7hin! that this difficult is not m fault. (sc) 8%.>% 8%.%A
7ell someone about this difficult to ma!e me feel
better. (sc)
8%.%J 8%.%?
7hin! of the success of m familMfriends. (sc) 8%.%C %.%%C
7hin! about m success in other areas. (sc) %.>$ %.>AQQ
Do something different, li!e going for a .al!. (sc) 8%.%$ 8%.%%A
&gnore this difficult. (sc) 8%.$BQQ 8%.>A
&ook for something else that is Dositive in the
situation) 8sc;
%.>B :)/$LL
QQpR%.%>
3.,.3 !pothesis Three1 The $oderatin# Cole of Primar! and Secondar!
/ontrol
&n order to test hpothesis three proposing that primar control moderates the
effect of controllable difficulties on Kob satisfaction and secondar control moderates
the effect of uncontrollable difficulties on Kob satisfaction, t.o hierarchical multiple
regression analses .ere conducted.
$AG
.ere met for both analses, and there .as no e#idence of multicollinearit. 4s
demonstrated in 0igure A, difficulties (i.e., controllable or uncontrollable) .ere
entered in the first step. &n the second step the moderator #ariable .as entered (i.e.,
primar or secondar control), and in the third step the interaction term .as entered.
$AD
)ontrollable difficulties
Primar
control
)ontrollable difficulties /
primar control
"ncontrollable difficulties
Secondar
control
"ncontrollable Difficulties
/ secondar control
9ob Satisfaction
3igure - C "rimarG and SecondarG Control 7oderate the #elationshiD between
Work Difficulties and =ob Satisfaction
(rder of =ariable Entr
a)
Step >
Step $
Step ?
b)
Step >
Step $
Step ?
&n the primar control analsis, 3 .as significantl different from Lero after
controllable difficulties .ere entered, 3 N %.?$, 0 (>, >AA) N $$.A>, p N %.%%. 4s
demonstrated in 7able CJ, 3 increased after primar control .as added, 3 N %.?A,
0inc (>, >AJ) N >$.%B, p N %.%%>. 7he addition of the interaction term ho.e#er did
not increase 3, .here 3 N %.C>, 0inc (>, >AD) N $.AA, p N %.%A. 7hus, inconsistent
.ith hpothesis three, primar control did not moderate the effect of controllable
.or! difficulties on Kob satisfaction.
&n the secondar control analsis, 3 .as significantl different from Lero
after uncontrollable difficulties .ere entered, 3 N %.?B, 0 (>, >JA) N $G.GJ, p N %.%%.
9ob Satisfaction
$AJ
4s demonstrated in 7able CJ, 3 did not increase .hen secondar control .as added,
3 N %.?G, 0inc (>, >JJ) N >.D?, p N %.>A, or .hen the interaction term .as added,
3 N %.?D, 0 (>, >JD) N >.?B, p N %.$B. 4s such, inconsistent .ith hpothesis three,
secondar control did not moderate the effect of uncontrollable .or! difficulties on
Kob satisfaction.
$AA
able 1.% !ierarchical 7ultiDle #egression testing the 7oderating #ole of
Control Strategies on the #elationshiD between Work Difficulties and =ob
Satisfaction
Step &= D= B sr
$
(unique)
> )ontrollable difficulties 9S 8%.$A 8%.?$ >%.?%QQ
3 N%.?$QQ 3
$
N%.>% 4dK3
$
N%.>%
$ )ontrollable difficulties 9S 8%.$J 8%.?> A.$CQQ
Primar control %.?$ %.$? B.>BQQ
3 N%.?AQQ 3
$
N%.>G 4dK3
$
N%.>B
? )ontrollable difficulties 9S 8%.J> 8%.JA $.J$QQ
Primar )ontrol 8%.%J 8%.%G
Primar control
%.%%D %.GB
3 N%.C> 3
$
N%.>D 4dK3
$
N%.>G
> "ncontrollable difficulties 9S 8%.$A 8%.?B >$.?AQQ
3 N%.?BQQ 3
$
N%.>$ 4dK3
$
N%.>$
$ "ncontrollable difficulties 9S 8%.?% 8%.?G >$.JAQQ
Secondar )ontrol
3 N%.?G 3
$
N%.>? 4dK3
$
N%.>$
? "ncontrollable difficulties 9S 8%.BG 8%.GJ
Secondar control 8%.>? 8%.%A
/ Secondar control
%.%%C %.?A
3 N%.?D 3
$
N%.>C 4dK3
$
N%.>$
QQpR%.%>H 9S O 9ob satisfaction
?%%
3.,.3.1 S1mmar!
Emploees reported using more primar than secondar control strategies for
both controllable and uncontrollable difficulties. Primar control .as more
positi#el related to Kob satisfaction than secondar control for both tpes of
difficulties. 4lthough primar control .as positi#el related to Kob satisfaction, it
did not moderate the effect of controllable difficulties on Kob satisfaction. Similarl,
secondar control did not moderate the effect of uncontrollable .or! difficulties on
Kob satisfaction.
3.,.* !pothesis 2o0r 1 $oderatin# Cole of :nstr0mental S0pport
7o test hpothesis four, proposing that instrumental support moderates the
relationship bet.een controllable difficulties and Kob satisfaction, hierarchical
regression analses .ere conducted for co8.or!ers and super#isors. 7he
assumptions of normalit, linearit, and homoscedasticit of residuals .ere met for
both analses, and there .as no e#idence of multicollinearit. &n the first step
difficulties .ere entered (i.e., controllable or uncontrollable). &n the second step the
moderator #ariable .as entered (i.e., co8.or!er instrumental or super#isor
instrumental), and in the third step the interaction term .as entered.
0or co8.or!ers instrumental support, 3 .as significantl different from Lero
after step one, 3 N %.?$, 0 (>, >AJ) N $$.DC, p N %.%%, .here controllable difficulties
accounted for >%S of the #ariance in Kob satisfaction. 3 increased after step t.o,
?%>
3 N %.CA, 0inc (>, >AD) N ?%.D$, p N %.%%, .here difficulties and co8.or!er
instrumental support accounted for JS and >CS of the #ariance, respecti#el. 3 did
significantl increase .hen the interaction term .as added in step ?, 3 N %.B%,
0inc (>, >AG) N C.?%, p N %.%?, .here the interaction term accounted for >.GCS of the
#ariance. 7his analsis, displaed in 7able CA, is consistent .ith hpothesis four.
4lthough not significant at %.%>, this analsis, as in stud t.o, .ill be
e/amined further as onl a fe. studies ha#e e/amined the moderating role of social
support. 0urthermore, as discussed in stud t.o, it is difficult to achie#e statistical
significance in moderation analses as the po.er is lo. (Bob!o, $%%>).
)ontrollable .or! difficulties .ere regressed on Kob satisfaction separatel
for those .ith lo. co8.or!er support, and those .ith high co8.or!er support. 4s
proposed b )ohen and )ohen (>AJ?), the lo. and high distinction .as defined as
scores that fell one standard de#iation belo. or abo#e the mean for super#isor
support. 4s demonstrated in 0igure >%, the regression lines .ere consistent .ith the
hpothesis, .here the slope of the regression line of controllable .or! difficulties on
Kob satisfaction .as steeper for high co8.or!er instrumental support than for lo. co8
.or!er instrumental support.
?%$
3igure $: % #egression of Controllable Work Difficulties on =ob Satisfaction for
EmDloGees with &ow 'nstrumental Co%Worker SuDDort and EmDloGees with
!igh 'nstrumental Co%Worker SuDDort
N 8%.%%BJ/ U GC.B>J
N %.%$?>/ U DG.JC
%
>%
$%
?%
C%
B%
G%
D%
J%
A%
>%%
% >% $% ?% C% B% G% D% J% A% >%%
Controllable Difficulites
=
o
b

S
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
6o. co8.or!er
instrumental
support
High co8.or!er
instrumental
support
?%?
0or super#isors instrumental support, 3 .as significantl different from Lero
after step one, 3 N%.?G, 0 (>, >DG) N $B.A$, p N %.%%. 4s demonstrated in 7able CA, 3
increased after super#isors instrumental support .as added, 3 N %.C$,
0inc (>, >DB) N >%.D?, p N %.%%>, ho.e#er it did not increase further .hen the
interaction term .as added, 3 N %.C$, 0 (>, >DC) N %.%G, p N %.J%. 7hus, inconsistent
.ith hpothesis four, super#isor instrumental support did not moderate the effect of
controllable .or! difficulties on Kob satisfaction.
?%C
able 1-% !ierarchical #egression AnalGses esting the 7oderating #ole of
'nstrumental SuDDort
Step &= D= B sr
$
(unique)
> )ontrollable difficulties 9S 8%.$J 8%.?$ >%.?%QQ
3 N%.?$QQ 3
$
N%.>% 4dK3
$
N%.>%
$ )ontrollable difficulties 9S 8%.$G 8%.$A J.CAQQ
)o8.or!ers instrumental %.?> %.?D >C.BGQQ
3 N%.CAQQ 3
$
N%.$C 4dK3
$
N%.$?
? )ontrollable difficulties 9S 8%.GC 8%.D$ C.$%
)o8.or!ers instrumental %.%> %.%$ .
)o8.or!ers instrumental
%.%%B %.BB >.GCQ
3 N%.B%Q 3
$
N%.$B 4dK3
$
N%.$C
> )ontrollable difficulties 9S 8%.?? %.>D >$.J>QQ
3 N%.?GQQ 3
$
N%.>? 4dK3
$
N%.>$
$ )ontrollable difficulties 9S 8%.$J 8%.?> J.ACQQ
Super#isors instrumental %.>G %.$? B.%$QQ
3 N%.C$QQ 3
$
N%.>J 4dK3
$
N%.>D
? )ontrollable difficulties 9S 8%.?$ 8%.?B
Super#isors instrumental %.>? %.>J
Super#isors instrumental
%.%%%B %.%G
3 N%.C$ 3
$
N%.>J 4dK3
$
N%.>D
QpR%.%B, QQpR%.%>H 9S8 9ob satisfaction
3.,.) !pothesis 2ive1 $oderatin# Cole of Emotional S0pport
&n order to test hpothesis fi#e, proposing that emotional support moderates
the effect of uncontrollable .or! difficulties on Kob satisfaction, t.o hierarchical
?%B
multiple regression analses .ere conducted. 7he assumptions of normalit,
linearit, and homoscedasticit of residuals .ere met for both analses, and there
.as no e#idence of multicollinearit.
0or co8.or!ers, 3 .as significantl different from Lero after uncontrollable
difficulties had been entered, 3 N %.??, 0 (>, >A$) N $C.CJ, p N %.%%. 3 significantl
increased after co8.or!er emotional support .as entered, 3 N %.BB,
0inc (>, >A>) N B>.?$, p N %.%%. Ho.e#er, as demonstrated in 7able B%, the addition
of the interaction term in step three .as not significant, 3 N %.BG,
0inc (>, >A%) N >.JB, p N %.>J. 7hus, inconsistent .ith hpothesis fi#e, co8.or!er
emotional support did not moderate the effect of uncontrollable .or! difficulties on
Kob satisfaction.
0or super#isors, 3 .as significantl different from Lero after step one,
3 N %.?G, 0 (>, >D?) N $C.AB, p N %.%%. 4s demonstrated in 7able B%, 3 did
significantl increase after super#isors emotional support .as entered, 3 N %.CB,
0inc (>, >D$) N >G.A%, p N %.%%, but did not increase further .hen the interaction term
.as added, 3 N%.CG, 0 (>, >D>) N %.DG, p N %.?A. &nconsistent .ith hpothesis fi#e,
co8.or!er and super#isor emotional support did not moderate the effect of
uncontrollable .or! difficulties on Kob satisfaction.
?%G
able 2:% !ierarchical #egression AnalGses esting the 7oderating #ole of
Emotional SuDDort
Step &= D= B sr
$
(unique)
> "ncontrollable difficulties 9S 8%.$J 8%.?C >>.$AQQ
3 N%.?CQQ 3
$
N%.>> 4dK3
$
N%.>>
$ "ncontrollable difficulties 9S 8%.$? 8%.$J D.GDQQ
)o8.or!ers emotional %.?J %.C? >J.DBQQ
3 N%.BBQQ 3
$
N%.?% 4dK3
$
N%.$A
? "ncontrollable difficulties 9S 8%.CB 8%.BB $.BJQQ
)o8.or!ers emotional %.$% %.$?
/ )o8.or!ers emotional
%.%%? %.??
3 N%.BG 3
$
N%.?> 4dK3
$
N%.?%
> "ncontrollable difficulties 9S 8%.?% 8%.?G >>.$$QQ
3 N%.?GQQ 3
$
N%.>? 4dK3
$
N%.>$
$ "ncontrollable difficulties 9S 8%.$C 8%.$A D.ABQQ
Super#isors emotional %.$% %.$A D.JCQQ
3 N%.CBQQ 3
$
N%.$% 4dK3
$
N%.$%
? "ncontrollable difficulties 9S 8%.?D 8%.CC $.G$Q
Super#isors emotional %.%A %.>?
/ Super#isors emotional
%.%%$ %.$%
3 N%.CG 3
$
N%.$> 4dK3
$
N%.>A
QpR%.%B, QQpR%.%>H 9S O 9ob satisfaction
?%D
3.,.".1 S1mmar!
&n summar, onl co8.or!er instrumental support moderated the effect of
difficulties on Kob satisfaction. Super#isor instrumental support, super#isor
emotional support and co8.or!er emotional support did not act as moderators.
3.,.9 !pothesis Si51 $aEor Predictors of Job Satisfaction
&n order to test hpothesis si/, proposing that Kob autonom, difficulties at
.or!, control strategies, social support at .or!, and life satisfaction predict Kob
satisfaction, a standard regression analsis .as conducted. 7he assumptions of
normalit, linearit, and homoscedasticit of residuals .ere met for both analses,
and there .as no e#idence of multicollinearit.
*hen all of the #ariables .ere entered, 3 .as significantl different from
Lero, 3 N %.DC, 0 (>$, >C$) N >?.A$, p N %.%%. 4s demonstrated in 7able B>,
controllable difficulties, Kob autonom, life satisfaction, and co8.or!ers emotional
support uniquel predicted Kob satisfaction. &nconsistent .ith hpothesis si/
ho.e#er, control strategies, uncontrollable difficulties, and super#isor social support
did not uniquel predict Kob satisfaction.
?%J
able 2$% Standard 7ultiDle #egression "redicting =ob Satisfaction
Predictor B sr
$
(unique)
)ontrollable difficulties 8%.>J 8%.>J $.G$QQ
"ncontrollable difficulties 8%.>> 8%.>?
9ob autonom %.$C %.$D C.%JQQ
Secondar control8 )ontrollable situation >.?% %.%?
Secondar control8 "ncontrollable
Situation
8%.CA 8%.%>
Primar control8 )ontrollable situation ?.>B %.%A
Primar control8"ncontrollable situation %.D$ %.%?
6ife Satisfaction %.?> %.>A C.C>QQ
)o8.or!ers emotional support %.>D %.>A >.CAQ
)o8.or!ers instrumental support %.>C %.>G
Super#isors emotional support 8%.%C 8%.%G
Super#isors instrumental support 8%.%$ 8%.%$
3 N%.DCQQ 3
$
N%.BC 4dK3
$
N%.B%
QpR%.%B, QQpR%.%>H 3 is composed of >B.B$S unique #ariance and JC.CJS shared
#ariance.
3.,./.1 S1mmar!
*hen all of the #ariables in the hpothesised model of Kob satisfaction .ere
entered into a regression equation, the accounted for BCS of the #ariance.
Ho.e#er, onl controllable difficulties, Kob autonom, life satisfaction, and
co8.or!er emotional support uniquel predicted Kob satisfaction.
3.,., /oncl0sion
Emploees reported using more primar than secondar control in both
controllable and uncontrollable situations. Primar control .as more adapti#e than
secondar control in both situations and .as positi#el correlated .ith Kob
satisfaction. Ho.e#er, primar and secondar control did not moderate the effect of
?%A
.or! difficulties on Kob satisfaction. )o8.or!er instrumental support did moderate
the effect of controllable .or! difficulties on Kob satisfaction, ho.e#er super#isor
instrumental support did not. 0urthermore, emotional support did not moderate the
effect of uncontrollable difficulties on Kob satisfaction. 7he maKor predictors of Kob
satisfaction .ere controllable difficulties, Kob autonom, life satisfaction and
co8.or!er instrumental support. 7hese findings .ill no. be discussed.
?>%
/). Discussion
7he stud proposed that the controllabilit of a .or! difficult influences the
use and adapti#eness of the control strategies used to handle that difficult. 7he
findings demonstrated, ho.e#er, that for both controllable and uncontrollable
difficulties, primar control strategies .ere used more than secondar control
strategies, and primar control strategies .ere more adapti#e than secondar control
strategies. 7hese findings, .hich are inconsistent .ith the discrimination model,
suggest that trait control strategies ma e/ist. 7he proposal that emploees use
similar control strategies in all situations questions the assumption that emploees
using primar control in uncontrollable situations .ill e/perience primar control
failure.
7he results from this stud also question the importance of the control
strategies, as the, along .ith social support, did not moderate the effect of .or!
difficulties on Kob satisfaction. 7hese findings must be regarded .ith caution
ho.e#er as limitations ha#e no. been identified in the operationalisation of .or!
difficulties. 7hese hpotheses .ill no. be e/amined.
/)- !GDotheses esting
7he hpotheses can be grouped into three maKor proposals. 7he first proposal
is that the controllabilit of a difficult influences the use and adapti#eness of the
control strategies used to handle that difficult. 7he second proposal is that the
control strategies and social support at .or! moderate the effects of .or! difficulties
on Kob satisfaction. 7he third proposal is that general Kob autonom, difficulties at
?>>
.or!, control strategies, social support at .or! and life satisfaction predict Kob
satisfaction. Before these proposals are discussed, the conceptualisation of the
control strategies requires e/planation.
3.(.1 Primar! /ontrol+ Self1Protective Secondar! /ontrol+ and Self1
"ffirmative Secondar! /ontrol
0actor analses of the control strategies demonstrated that emploees .ere
using three tpes of control strategies, namel primar control, self8protecti#e
secondar control and self8affirmati#e secondar control. 4lthough t.o tpes of
secondar control .ere identified in chapter $, it .as not !no.n .hether the
differences bet.een them .ould be great enough to form separate factors. 4s this
.as the case ho.e#er, the t.o tpes of secondar control require further e/ploration.
4ll of the secondar control strategies in#ol#e people changing themsel#es to
fit in .ith their situation, ho.e#er there are t.o .as that this can be done. Self8
protecti#e secondar control strategies reduce negati#e feelings about the situation.
7he strategies that loaded on the self8protecti#e factor .ere attribution ('7hin! that
this difficult is not m fault-), predicti#e negati#e ('7hin! that & !ne. this difficult
.ould happen-), and .isdom ('7hin! that & can@t al.as get .hat & .ant-). 7hese
strategies ma!e the situation less concerning, and people conclude that a situation is
not as bad as it seems.
7he second tpe of secondar control, self8affirmati#e, promotes positi#e
feelings. 7he strategies that .ere identified as being self8affirmati#e .ere support
('7ell someone about this difficult to ma!e me feel better-), #icarious ('7hin! of
?>$
the success of m famil or friends-), present success (i.e., '7hin! about m success
in other areas-), acti#e a#oidance ('Do something different, li!e going for a .al!-)
and positi#e re8interpretation ('6oo! for something else that is positi#e in the
situation-). 7hese strategies ma!e people feel good about themsel#es and their li#es.
&t must be noted that this conceptualisation of self8protecti#e and self8
affirmati#e secondar control .as not completel supported. 0our items did not load
on the e/pected factors. Specificall, do.n.ard social comparison ('7hin! that & am
better off than man other people-) did not load on the self8affirmati#e factor.
0urthermore, goal disengagement ('7hin! that the difficult doesn@t matter-),
illusor optimism ('7hin! that this difficult .ill .or! out o!a in the end-) and
denial ('&gnore this difficult-) did not load on the self8protecti#e factor. 7here is no
read e/planation as to .h these items did not load on the e/pected factors. )learl
ho.e#er, the maKorit of items .ere consistent .ith the conceptualisation of self8
protecti#e and self8affirmati#e secondar control.
4lthough this is a no#el approach to secondar control strategies, it must be
noted that the conceptualisation of these three strategies is still consistent .ith
Hec!hausen and SchulL@s (>AAB) proposals. Specificall, primar control strategies
in#ol#e attempts to change the en#ironment to fit in .ith the self, and both tpes of
secondar control strategies in#ol#e attempts to change the self to fit in .ith the
en#ironment. 7he ne. idea ho.e#er is that some secondar control strategies
reduce negati#e feelings, .hilst others promote positi#e feelings.
4lthough factor analses ha#e not been conducted on other primar and
secondar control scales as the generall contain onl one item (i.e., 7hompson et
?>?
al., >AAG, >AAC), the ha#e been conducted on coping scales. 7he factors emerging
from these analses can be compared to the three factors found in this stud. 4s the
most common coping scale is the *as of )oping 5uestionnaire (0ol!man I
6aLarus, >AJBH 0ol!man, )hesne, )oo!e, Boccellari I )ollette, >AAC), factor
analses of this scale .ill be e/amined.
"nli!e the Situation Specific Primar and Secondar )ontrol Scale (Maher et
al., $%%$), .hich uses one item for each strateg, the *as of )oping 5uestionnaire
(0ol!man I 6aLarus, >AJB) uses multiple items for each strateg. 4s such, .hen
factor analses are conducted on the scale, the items cluster according to the tpe of
strateg. 0or e/ample, 0ol!man et al., (>AJG) demonstrated that a factor analsis,
a#eraged across se#eral samples ielded eight factors, including confrontati#e
coping, distancing, self8controlling, see!ing social support, accepting responsibilit,
escape8a#oidance, planful problem sol#ing and positi#e reappraisal. &t must be noted
ho.e#er, that as discussed in chapter >, factor analses conducted on this scale are
far from consistent (Ed.ards I (@1eill, >AAJ).
0actor analses of the *as of )oping 5uestionnaire are not comparable to
those conducted on the Situation Specific Primar and Secondar )ontrol Scale.
0actor analses of the *as of )oping 5uestionnaire identif .hich items measure a
particular strateg, .hereas factor analses of the Situation Specific Primar and
Secondar )ontrol Scale (Maher et al., $%%$) identif .hich strategies cluster
together. 4s such, the factor analses in the current stud are theoreticall different
from pre#ious analses. 3ather than Kust e/amining .hether items measure a
?>C
strateg, the demonstrate ho. the strategies are related to each other. 7his means
that the underling purpose of the strategies can be e/amined.
7he de#elopment of three tpes of control strategies is e/plorator, and as
such, further research is required. Ho.e#er, this conceptualisation ma be useful in
determining the best tpe of secondar control. &t could be hpothesised that self8
affirmati#e secondar control .ould be more positi#el correlated .ith Kob and life
satisfaction than self8protecti#e secondar control, as rather than Kust decreasing
negati#e feelings, the increase positi#e feelings. 7his proposal is not supported in
the current stud as both self8protecti#e and self8affirmati#e secondar control
strategies .ere not related to Kob satisfaction. Despite this ho.e#er, further research
ma benefit from recognising there ma be t.o tpes of secondar control. 7he
three maKor proposals of this stud .ill no. be e/amined.
3.(.2 Proposal .ne: The /ontrollabilit! of the Diffic0lt! :nfl0ences the
"mo0nt and "daptiveness of the /ontrol Strate#ies 3sed to $ana#e that
Diffic0lt!
3.).2.1 The #mo1nt of 0ontrol Strate$ies 4sed for 0ontrollable and
&t .as hpothesised that emploees .ould use more primar than secondar
control for controllable difficulties, and more secondar than primar control for
uncontrollable difficulties. Support .as found for the former part of the hpothesis,
ho.e#er no support .as found for the latter as emploees reported using more
primar than secondar control for uncontrollable difficulties.
?>B
7hese finding are partiall consistent .ith the life span theor of control
(Hec!hausen I SchulL, >AAB). 7his theor proposes that people prefer primar
control and that it has primac o#er secondar control. )onsistentl, emploees
reported more primar than secondar control for controllable difficulties.
Ho.e#er, the theor also proposes that .hen people are faced .ith
uncontrollable situations, the probabilit of primar control failure increases, and
control strategies focus on changing oneself rather than changing ones en#ironment
(Hec!hausen I SchulL, >AAB). 7his does not appear to be the case for the emploees
in this stud ho.e#er, as the report more primar than secondar control in
uncontrollable situations.
(nl one other stud has reported the amount of control strategies used in an
uncontrollable situation. 7hompson et al., (>AAG) demonstrated that H&= positi#e
men in prison (i.e., lo.8control situation) reported slightl more primar control (M
N CJ.BSSM) than secondar control (M N CBSSM). 7his stud, .hich is also
inconsistent .ith the life span theor of control, .as criticised in chapter > for
measuring primar control using percei#ed control and secondar control using
acceptance. Ho.e#er, it no. appears that e#en .hen a ne. measure of primar and
secondar control is used, emploees report using more primar than secondar
control for uncontrollable difficulties. 7hree e/planations ha#e been de#eloped for
this finding.
?>G
3.).2.2 ?h! is Primar! 0ontrol 4sed more than Secondar! 0ontrol for
4ncontrollable Diffic1lties@
7here are three possible e/planations for the emploees reporting more
primar than secondar control for uncontrollable difficulties. 0irst, it ma be that
.hen completing the questionnaire, the respondents .ere unable to conceptualise
uncontrollable difficulties. Second, primar control ma be used first for all
difficulties and secondar control ma onl be used if primar control fails. 7hird,
the controllabilit of the situation ma not influence the control strategies people use,
and rather people ma ha#e trait control strategies. 7hese e/planations .ill be
discussed.
3.).2.3 a- 0oncept1alisation of 0ontrollable and 4ncontrollable Diffic1lties
(ne reason .h the emploees ma ha#e reported higher primar control than
secondar control in uncontrollable situations is that the emploees .ere unable to
conceptualise the distinction bet.een controllable and uncontrollable difficulties.
7he terms 'controllable- and 'uncontrollable- .ere used because, although being
abstract in nature, the did not bias the respondents as much as other constructs such
as change, influence, do something about, or accept.
Despite being abstract, it appears that the participants generall did understand
these terms and the distinction bet.een them. 7he results demonstrated that the
maKorit of participants indicated that difficulties .ith time management, moti#ation
and co8.or!ers .ere controllable and difficulties .ith pa, amount of .or!,
?>D
.or!8place rules and promotion .ere uncontrollable. 4s such, it appears that the
participants understood .hat constituted a controllable and an uncontrollable
difficult, and hence this proposal does not e/plain .h emploees reported higher
primar than secondar control in uncontrollable situations.
3.).2.* b- Primar! control is :mplemented 3irst for 0ontrollable and
4nother e/planation for the finding that primar is used more than secondar
control for uncontrollable difficulties is that primar control is al.as implemented
first. &t .as assumed that emploees .ould rel on secondar control for
uncontrollable difficulties in an attempt to a#oid primar control failure. Ho.e#er, it
must be noted that Hec!hausen and SchulL (>AAB) proposed that primar control
strategies are used first and it is possible that this applies in controllable and
uncontrollable situations. Perhaps people attempt to change all situations using
primar control, and if the fail, the then rel on secondar control strategies. &f
this is the case, it .ould be e/pected that people .ould use comparable amounts of
primar control in controllable and uncontrollable situations, but that the .ould use
more secondar control in uncontrollable situations.
4s demonstrated b the mean le#els of primar and secondar control
ho.e#er, this does not appear to be case. 7he primar control le#els .ere similar for
controllable situations (M N D>.AJ) and uncontrollable situations (M N GC.BG),
ho.e#er there .as no difference in their le#els of secondar control
?>J
(controllable, M N B?.DC, uncontrollable, M N B?.>%). Hence, the proposal that
emploees report more primar control than secondar control in uncontrollable
situations because the use primar control first in such situations and onl use
secondar control .hen primar control fails, does not appear to be supported.
3.).2." c- Trait 0ontrol Strate$ies
4nother e/planation for the finding that the emploees reported more
primar control than secondar control for uncontrollable difficulties is that trait
control strategies ma e/ist. People ma ha#e a set of strategies that the
consistentl use to handle their difficulties, and the ma not consider the usefulness
of the strateg .ithin that situation. 7he correlations bet.een the control strategies
used in controllable situations .ith the control strategies used in uncontrollable
situations supports this proposal. Primar control for a controllable difficult .as
strongl correlated .ith primar control for an uncontrollable difficult (r N %.GA).
0urthermore, secondar control for a controllable difficult .as strongl correlated
.ith secondar control for an uncontrollable difficult (r N %.GC). 7he correlations
bet.een primar and secondar control strategies .ere much .ea!er. Primar and
secondar control strategies for controllable difficulties .ere not correlated. Primar
and secondar control for uncontrollable difficulties .ere onl .ea!l correlated
(r N %.$%).
7he idea that peoples@ responses to difficulties are stable has been discussed
in the coping literature. &t is proposed that people ha#e coping 'stles-,
'dispositions-, or 'traits- that the bring to the situation ()ar#er et al., >AJA).
?>A
4ccordingl, 'people do not approach each coping conte/t ane., but rather bring to
bear a preferred set of coping strategies that remains relati#el fi/ed across time and
circumstances- ()ar#er et al., >AJA, p. $D%).
0e. researchers ha#e e/amined trait coping, perhaps because 0ol!man and
6aLarus (>AJG) disputed the idea, proposing that coping is conte/tual, and that it is
influenced b the person@s appraisal of the situation. Ho.e#er, other studies besides
the current research dispute this proposition. 4 stud conducted b Sch.artL, 1eale,
Marco, Shiffman and Stone (>AAA) assessed trait coping using the Dail )oping
5uestionnaire (Stone I 1eale, >AJC) and the *as of )oping 5uestionnaire
(0ol!man I 6aLarus, >AJC). 7he question at the beginning of each scale .as
changed to 'ho. do ou tpicall deal .ith stressful situations.- 7he also
measured coping using a momentar measure .here participants .ere gi#en a
programmable palm8top computer. Participants .ould tpe in their stressful e#ents
and indicate ho. the coped .ith them immediatel after the e#ent.
7he e/amined ho. much of the #ariance in the momentar scales .as due
to differences among indi#iduals. 0or e/ample, for escape coping, the e/amined
ho. much of the #ariance .as due to the tendenc for some indi#iduals to report
escape coping more than others. 7he results demonstrated that C$S of the #ariabilit
in the momentar assessments .as due to indi#idual differences in escape coping.
7he other coping strategies accounted for less of the #ariance, ranging bet.een
$%8?%S for the *as of )oping Scale, and for >B8>AS of the Dail )oping Scale.
7hese findings suggest that a person@s coping response could be partiall predicted
from a general coping scale, and thus supports trait coping.
?$%
7he proposal that coping is a trait or disposition can be used to e/plain the
current findings. Emploees ma ha#e reported using primar control for an
uncontrollable difficult because primar control strategies are .ithin their
disposition. 7hus, rather than e#aluating the situation, the e#aluate the coping
strategies the ha#e in their repertoire.
3.).2./ S1mmar!
)onsistent .ith the life span theor of control, emploees reported using
more primar than secondar control for controllable difficulties. &nconsistentl
ho.e#er, the also reported using more primar than secondar control for
uncontrollable difficulties. 7hree e/planations .ere de#eloped to account for these
findings. 7he first, proposing that emploees did not understand uncontrollable
difficulties, .as dismissed, as emploees seemed to classif their difficulties as
e/pected. 7he second e/planation proposed that people use more primar control for
uncontrollable difficulties because the implement primar control first for all
difficulties, and onl use secondar control if primar control fails. 7his .as not
supported b the data, as the le#els of secondar control .ere the same. 7he third
e/planation proposed that the controllabilit of the situation did not influence the
control strategies the emploees used. 3ather, it is proposed that emploees ha#e
Xtrait@ control strategies. Emploees ma fail to e#aluate the situation and rather
simpl use the strategies in their repertoire. 7he relationship bet.een these control
strategies and Kob satisfaction .ill no. be e/amined.
?$>
3.).2., #daptiveness of Primar! and Secondar! 0ontrol for 0ontrollable and
&t .as hpothesised that primar control .ould be more adapti#e than
secondar control for controllable difficulties and that secondar control .ould be
more adapti#e than primar control for uncontrollable difficulties. Partial support
.as pro#ided for this hpothesis, as primar control .as more positi#el related to
Kob satisfaction than secondar control for controllable difficulties. &nconsistentl
ho.e#er, primar control .as also more positi#el related to Kob satisfaction than
secondar control for uncontrollable difficulties.
7hese findings are inconsistent .ith the discrimination model (7hompson et
al., >AAJ), .hich proposes that primar control is the most adapti#e strateg onl for
controllable situations. 3ather, the findings support the primacMbac!8up model
(7hompson et al., >AAJ), .hich proposes that primar control is more adapti#e than
secondar control in both controllable and uncontrollable situations.
4s .ith the current stud, past empirical studies ha#e supported the
primacMbac! up model (7hompson et al., >AAGH >AACH >AA?H >AAJ). 4s limitations
.ere identified in these studies ho.e#er, it .as thought that .hen these limitations
.ere addressed, the discrimination model .ould be supported. 7hese limitations,
discussed in chapter >, concern the measurement of percei#ed control and primar
and secondar control strategies. 4 more notable fla. ho.e#er is that these studies
failed to adequatel test the discrimination model and the primacMbac!8up model.
3ather than correlating the controllabilit of a situation .ith the control strategies
used to handle that situation, these studies e/amined general le#els of percei#ed
?$$
control and control strategies. Some of the studies did e/amine the constructs at a
more specific le#el (e.g., 7hompson et al., >AAG, >AAC), ho.e#er the then
aggregated the items to obtain an o#erall measure of percei#ed control and an o#erall
measure of primar and secondar control. &t appears ho.e#er that e#en .hen all of
the limitations .ere addressed, the findings still supported the primacMbac! up
model.
7he current findings, although referring to control strategies, can also be
compared to the empirical studies on the goodness of fit hpothesis for coping
strategies. 7hese studies generall demonstrate that, consistent .ith the current
findings, problem8focussed strategies are more adapti#e than emotion8focussed
strategies in controllable situations. 7he also demonstrate that emotion8focussed
strategies are not more adapti#e than problem8focussed strategies in uncontrollable
situations (e.g., Bo.man I Stern, >AABH )on.a I 7err, >AA$H (so.ie!i I
)ompas, >AAJ, >AAAH Par!, 0ol!man I Bostrom, $%%>H =italiano et al., >AA%).
7hese studies .ere criticised for their research designs in the introduction. &t appears
ho.e#er, that e#en .hen these problems are addressed, similar results are obtained.
&n summar, it appears that consistent .ith past studies, primar control is
more adapti#e than secondar control for both controllable and uncontrollable
difficulties. 4s man fla.s .ere identified .ith the past studies, it .as e/pected that
.hen these fla.s .ere addressed, the results .ould be more consistent .ith the
discrimination model. 7his is not the case ho.e#er, and as such further e/ploration
is needed to e/plain .h primar control is more adapti#e than secondar control in
uncontrollable situations.
?$?
3.).2.; ?h! is Primar! 0ontrol more #daptive than Secondar! 0ontrol in
4ncontrollable Sit1ations@
7he finding that primar control is adapti#e in uncontrollable situations is
contrar to intuition. 4s such, it is important that this finding can be e/plained
theoreticall. &t .as e/pected that if emploees tried to change an uncontrollable
situation using primar control, the .ould fail and this failure .ould negati#el
influence percei#ed competence, self8efficac, self8esteem (Hec!hausen et al., >AAD),
and Kob satisfaction.
7he current findings, .hich demonstrate that primar control is positi#el
related to Kob satisfaction for uncontrollable difficulties, challenge the assumptions
regarding primar control failure. Primar control failure has not been measured in
the past, or in the current stud, as it is e/tremel difficult to assess. &t requires the
person to indicate ho. often the used each of the control strategies and indicate the
successfulness of each strateg. 7his is cogniti#el ta/ing for the respondents, and if
completed for primar and secondar control, .ould add another >D items to each
control scale (controllable and uncontrollable). More importantl ho.e#er, it ma
not e#en be possible for people to recall this information. *hilst the ma
remember .hether the sol#ed a problem, it is unli!el that the can recall .hich
strateg .as more successful than others. 0urthermore, it ma actuall be a
combination of strategies that contributes to the problem being o#ercome. 0or these
reasons, the successfulness of the strategies .as not assessed.
4s primar control failure .as not measured in the current stud ho.e#er, it
is possible that it did not beha#e as e/pected. 0irstl, it ma be that the emploees
?$C
.ho are implementing primar control are not e/periencing primar control failure.
Secondl, emploees ma be e/periencing primar control failure, et e/periencing
fe. negati#e consequences. 7hese e/planations .ill be discussed.
3.).2.) Primar! 0ontrol does not lead to Primar! 0ontrol 3ail1re
&n regard to the first e/planation, emploees .ho reported high primar
control for 'uncontrollable- difficulties ma ha#e reported high Kob satisfaction
because the successfull implemented the strategies. Perhaps people onl use
primar control .hen the !no. that the .ill be successful. &ndeed, it seems
maladapti#e for people to use primar control if the !no. that it .ill lead to
&f it proposed that emploees onl use primar control .hen the !no. the
.ill be successful, it must still be questioned ho. the could successfull change an
uncontrollable situation using primar control. (ne possibilit is that the difficulties
reported b emploees as being uncontrollable are onl lo.8control difficulties.
Most of the difficulties reported, such as pa, promotion and .or!place8rules ma
not be completel uncontrollable. (ther people determine them, and it is possible for
the people to be influenced, and thus for primar control to be successful. Perhaps
different results .ould be obtained if people .ere gi#en difficulties that are clearl
uncontrollable such as the death of a lo#ed one or a natural disaster.
?$B
3.).2.10 Primar! 0ontrol 3ail1re does not Ne$ativel! :nfl1ence Job
Satisfaction
&n regard to the second e/planation, it ma be that the emploees are
e/periencing primar control failure, but that the primar control failure is not
ha#ing negati#e effects. 7he life span theor of control proposes that primar
control failure .ill threaten percei#ed competence, self8efficac, and self8esteem
(Hec!hausen et al., >AAD). &t must be noted ho.e#er that these effects ha#e not been
tested. Perhaps it is better to ha#e tried to implement primar control and failed than
to ha#e not tried at all. Emploees can tell themsel#es that there .as nothing more
the could do, and thus the ma feel better about their o.n control efforts.
Both of these e/planations are speculati#e, and indeed require empirical
#alidation. 7o do this, future studies need to in#est time in de#eloping and
measuring the successfulness of primar and secondar control strategies.
3.).2.11 S1mmar!
4lthough primar control .as more adapti#e than secondar control in
controllable situations, it .as also more adapti#e in uncontrollable situations. 7hese
findings are inconsistent .ith the discrimination model and the goodness of fit
hpothesis. &t is difficult to e/plain as it .as e/pected that emploees .ho used
primar control for uncontrollable difficulties .ould e/perience primar control
failure. Ho.e#er, it ma be that the emploees onl use primar control .hen the
!no. that the .ill be successful. 4lternati#el, the emploees ma e/perience
primar control failure, et the consequences of primar control failure ma be less
?$G
damaging than not attempting at all. 0urther empirical research is required to
e/amine these proposals.
3.(.3 Proposal T%o: $oderators of /ontrollable and 3ncontrollable
Diffic0lties on Job Satisfaction
Moderators of .or! difficulties .ere e/amined, as these #ariables ma be
more amenable to change than .or! difficulties. Emploers ma be reluctant to
reduce .or! difficulties, .here both the Kob and the organisation .ould need to
undergo a thorough assessment. 0urthermore, it ma be impossible to reduce some
.or! difficulties if the are inherent in the nature of the .or!.
&t .as hpothesised that the control strategies and social support at .or!
.ould moderate the relationship bet.een .or! difficulties and Kob satisfaction.
&nconsistentl ho.e#er, primar control did not moderate the effect of controllable
difficulties, and secondar control did not moderate the effect of uncontrollable
difficulties. 0or the social support #ariables, onl co8.or!er instrumental support
moderated the effect of controllable .or! difficulties on Kob satisfaction. &t must be
noted that this finding .as significant at %.%B, ho.e#er it .as not significant at the
more stringent alpha le#el of %.%>. 4s fe. studies ha#e e/amined the moderating
role of social support in the .or!place ho.e#er, this finding .as e/amined further.
7he finding that co8.or!er support plaed a greater role than super#isor
support is inconsistent .ith other studies (e.g., Beehr, >AJBH 0enlason I Beehr,
>AACH 3ussell, 4ltmaier I =an =elLen, >AJD). &t .as e/pected that as co8.or!ers
ha#e less influence o#er difficulties at .or!, their support .ould not be as beneficial
?$D
as super#isor support (0enlason I Beehr, >AAC). &t must be noted ho.e#er that the
measure of super#isor support used in this scale .as e/plorator. 4lthough the scale
has face #alidit, there are no independent pschometric data for the scale. 7he
findings .ill be compared to past studies.
3.).3.1 Past St1dies E6aminin$ the %oderators of Stress
&n regard to the control strategies, no other studies ha#e e/amined .hether
the control strategies moderate the effect of .or! difficulties. Ho.e#er, a fe.
studies ha#e demonstrated that coping strategies moderate the effect of stressors on
stress (4ld.in I 3e#enson, >AJD, 4shford, >AJJH Par!es, >AA%, >AACH Perre.e I
Fellars, >AAAH (sipo. et al., >AJB). 7hese studies are inconsistent .ith the current
findings, demonstrating that some coping strategies do moderate .or! stress. 7here
is no conclusi#e e#idence ho.e#er, as to .hich control strategies moderate .or!
stress.
&n regard to social support, a fe. studies, including stud t.o, ha#e
demonstrated that social support at .or! has a moderating effect on Kob satisfaction
(i.e., :arase! et al., >AJ$H 6andsbergis et al., >AA$). Ho.e#er, other studies ha#e
failed to find the moderating role of social support ()ha, >AA?H de 9onge I
6ande.eerd, >AA?H Melamed at al., >AA>H Par!es I =on 3abenau, >AA?). 4s
discussed in chapter ?, one difference bet.een the supporti#e and non8supporti#e
studies is the measure of social support.
7.o of the supporti#e studies (i.e., current stud and 6andsbergis et al.,
>AA$) relied on :arase! and 7heorell@s (>AA%) scale. 4lthough some of the items in
?$J
:arase! and 7heorell@s (>AA%) scale .ere criticised in this chapter, there is certainl
no agreed .a of measuring social support at .or! ("nden, >AAG). 7he current stud
does not shed light on the problem ho.e#er, as the social support scale did not factor
as e/pected. 7he scale .as onl measuring t.o #ariables, super#isor support and
co8.or!er support. 0urther research is needed on the operationalisation of social
support to ensure that all four tpes of social support are assessed.
&n general, the findings on the moderating role of the control strategies and
social support are some.hat inconsistent .ith other similar studies. (ne maKor
difference bet.een the current stud and the other studies ho.e#er is the
independent #ariable. (ther studies ha#e relied on Kob stress or .or! demands,
.hereas this stud used .or! difficulties. 7his ma ha#e been problematic since
.or! difficulties, controllable and uncontrollable, did not strongl predict Kob
satisfaction.
3.).3.2 9imitations in the %oderation !potheses
7he finding that .or! difficulties did not strongl predict Kob satisfaction is a
concern for the robustness of this analsis. 4 moderation analsis tests .hether the
relationship bet.een t.o #ariables (i.e., .or! difficulties and Kob satisfaction) #aries
depending on a moderator #ariable (i.e., control strategies or social support). 4
median split conducted on the moderator produces a lo. group and a high group.
7he relationship bet.een .or! difficulties and Kob satisfaction for each group is then
e/amined. &f the relationship bet.een the t.o #ariables is not strong for the a#erage
group ho.e#er, it is unli!el that it .ill be strong .hen the moderator is lo. or high.
?$A
&t .as e/pected that .or! difficulties .ould strongl predict Kob satisfaction,
and as such, t.o e/planations ha#e been de#eloped to account for the .ea!
relationship. 7hese concern the nature of .or! difficulties and the operationalisation
of .or! difficulties.
3.).3.3 Nat1re of ?orB Diffic1lties
3esearchers that ha#e e/amined the moderating role of social support ha#e
e/amined Kob demands rather than .or! difficulties. 9ob demands are the
pschological stressors in the .or! en#ironment (i.e., high pressure of time, high
.or!ing pace, difficult and mentall e/acting .or!H :arase! I 7heorell, >AA%).
*or! difficulties are much broader than Kob demands, and refer to an problems that
emploees face at .or!.
3.).3.* .perationalisation of ?orB Diffic1lties
*or! difficulties .ere measured b as!ing the emploees to indicate ho.
often the e/perienced their most commonl occurring difficult. 7his is a difficult
question to ans.er, as the emploee needs to consider all of the difficulties that the
face, thin! about ho. often the face each one and identif the one that the face the
most.
7his item .as useful in that it led people into thin!ing about ho. the handle
that difficult, ho.e#er it ma not ha#e accuratel assessed .or! difficulties. (ne
person ma e/perience one difficult all the time et rarel e/perience an other
difficulties. 4nother person ma e/perience ten difficulties all the time. "sing the
current scale ho.e#er, these respondents .ould recei#e the same score. 7hus, the
??%
difficult at .or! scale requires re#ision. Perhaps the primar and secondar control
scale could still include the item assessing the most common difficult as this helps
respondents to focus on a specific situation, ho.e#er another measure of .or!
difficulties is required.
De#eloping a #alid measure of .or! difficulties for a general sample of
emploees is problematic. 7he ob#ious solution is to as! respondents on a#erage
ho. often the face controllable and uncontrollable difficulties at .or!. 7hese items
ma be prone to errors ho.e#er as the are cogniti#el ta/ing, requiring the
emploee to mentall a#erage their .or! difficulties.
4nother solution is to as! respondents to indicate ho. often the e/perience
each difficult that the select from a list. Hence, as .ith the current scale, the
respondents .ould be gi#en a list of general .or! difficulties. 7he .ould tic!
.hich ones the e/perience and could control and then indicate ho. often the
e/perience each difficult. 7he .ould then do the same for uncontrollable
difficulties. 7he problem ho.e#er is that .ith the addition of the frequenc item, the
length of the scale doubles. 0urthermore, there are an unlimited number of .or!
difficulties and as such, some .ould be omitted.
4nother solution is to de#elop a list of occupational specific difficulties and
as! emploees ho. often the e/perience them. 7his solution, although it .ould
enable the testing of the moderation hpotheses, is discouraged ho.e#er, as different
occupational groups cannot be compared.
(ne final solution is offered. 4n open8ended format could be used, .here
respondents are as!ed to list their top fi#e difficulties at .or!, and for each one,
??>
indicate ho. often the face it. 7his solution ma be more time8consuming for the
researcher to code, ho.e#er it is not too cogniti#el ta/ing and it can be applied to a
general sample of emploees.
3.).3." S1mmar!
7here .as little support for the moderating role of the control strategies and
social support on the relationship bet.een .or! difficulties and Kob satisfaction.
7hese findings are limited ho.e#er b the operationalisation of .or! difficulties.
7he scale onl e/amined the most frequentl occurring difficult and as such, did not
pro#ide an accurate assessment of .or! difficulties. 0uture researchers ma need to
use an open8ended format, .here respondents are as!ed to list their difficulties at
.or! and indicate ho. often the face each one.
3.(.* Proposal Three: Predictors of Job Satisfaction
&t .as hpothesised that Kob autonom, difficulties at .or!, control strategies,
social support at .or!, and life satisfaction .ould predict Kob satisfaction. (nl
controllable difficulties, Kob autonom, life satisfaction, and co8.or!er emotional
support uniquel predicted Kob satisfaction (>BS). 7hus, primar and secondar
control strategies, uncontrollable difficulties, co8.or!er instrumental support, and
super#isor emotional support and instrumental support did not uniquel predict Kob
satisfaction. Possible e/planations for these findings are discussed.
7he finding that the control strategies did not uniquel predict Kob satisfaction
is particularl difficult to e/plain. &t is intuiti#e that the control strategies that
emploees use to handle .or! difficulties influence their le#el of Kob satisfaction.
??$
(ne possibilit is that it ma not be primar and secondar control alone that predict
Kob satisfaction, rather the effecti#eness of the control strategies. 0uture studies ma
need to assess the control strategies and the effecti#eness of them.
7he finding that uncontrollable difficulties did not uniquel predict Kob
satisfaction ma reflect the operationalisation of .or! difficulties. Emploees .ere
as!ed ho. often the face their most commonl occurring controllable and
uncontrollable difficult. 4s discussed pre#iousl, this measure ma be fla.ed and
as such, more research is required to understand the importance of .or! difficulties
in predicting Kob satisfaction.
7he finding that super#isor support did not uniquel predict Kob satisfaction
ma also be e/plained b its measurement. 4s discussed pre#iousl, the social
support scale did not factor as e/pected, and it appeared as though the scale .as onl
measuring t.o #ariables, super#isor support and co8.or!er support. 7he scale .as a
co8.or!er scale that .as e/tended to super#isors. Perhaps separate scales are
required for the different roles. 4s such, further research is needed on the
operationalisation of social support to ensure that all four tpes of social support are
assessed.
3.).*.1 S1mmar!
Partial support .as pro#ided for the proposed predictors of Kob satisfaction,
as controllable difficulties, Kob autonom, life satisfaction and co8.or!er emotional
support uniquel predicted Kob satisfaction. 7he finding that primar and secondar
control strategies, uncontrollable difficulties, co8.or!er instrumental support and
???
super#isor emotional and instrumental support did not uniquel predict Kob
satisfaction ma be due to operationalisation issues.
3.(.) /oncl0sion
7he stud tested three maKor proposals, .hich centered on Kob satisfaction,
control strategies and the controllabilit of the situation. 7he first proposal that the
controllabilit of the difficult influences the use and adapti#eness of the control
strategies used for that difficult, .as not supported. Emploees reported using
more primar control than secondar control for controllable and uncontrollable
difficulties. 7hree e/planations .ere de#eloped to account for these findings,
ho.e#er the most plausible .as that people ha#e trait control strategies.
&n addition to being used more than secondar control, primar control .as
also more adapti#e than secondar control for controllable and uncontrollable
difficulties. 7hese findings, .hich are inconsistent .ith the discrimination model,
challenge the assumptions about primar control failure. &t is possible that primar
control .as adapti#e for uncontrollable difficulties because it .as being
implemented successfull. &f it .as being implemented successfull, perhaps the
.or! difficulties at .or! .ere lo.8control rather than being uncontrollable.
4lternati#el, the emploees ma ha#e been e/periencing primar control failure,
ho.e#er that failure ma not ha#e negati#el affected Kob satisfaction.
7he second maKor proposal, that the control strategies and social support at
.or! moderated the effects of .or! difficulties on Kob satisfaction, .as generall not
supported. 7he findings tended to be inconsistent .ith pre#ious studies e/amining
??C
Kob stress, and the replacement of Kob stress .ith .or! difficulties .as questioned.
Specific problems .ith the operationalisation of .or! difficulties .ere identified that
ma ha#e limited the findings.
7he third proposal, that general Kob autonom, difficulties at .or!, control
strategies, social support at .or! and life satisfaction predict Kob satisfaction .as
partiall supported. (n the basis of these findings, it .as clear that measures of
primar and secondar control, .or! difficulties, and social support require further
e/ploration.
&n summar, these findings suggest that a satisfied .or!er has high Kob
autonom, high social support, high life satisfaction, fe. .or! difficulties, and uses
primar control to deal .ith controllable and uncontrollable difficulties. 7he
implications of these findings .ill be discussed in chapter B.
4 Chapter 5 - Final Discussion
??B
??G
1)$ Abstract
7his thesis tested a model of Kob satisfaction that includes en#ironmental and
dispositional predictors. 7he maKor proposal of the model is that Kob autonom
influences the use and adapti#eness of primar and secondar control strategies. 7he
model also e/amines other predictors of Kob satisfaction, including life satisfaction,
.or! difficulties, and social support at .or!. 4dditionall, it proposes that the
control strategies and social support at .or! moderate the relationship bet.een .or!
difficulties and Kob satisfaction. Empirical support offered for these proposals in
chapters t.o, three and four are re#ie.ed and a re#ised model of Kob satisfaction is
presented. 7his model continues to include Kob autonom, primar and secondar
control, life satisfaction and .or! difficulties, ho.e#er it also includes the
successfulness of primar and secondar control and re8introduces personalit
#ariables.
??D
1)* he DeveloDment of A ,ew 7odel of =ob Satisfaction
7his thesis de#eloped a model of Kob satisfaction that includes en#ironmental
(i.e., Kob autonom, social support at .or!, and .or! difficulties) and dispositional
predictors (i.e., primar and secondar control, personalit and life satisfaction).
7his model e/tended the Kob demand8control model (:arase! I 7heorell, >AA%),
offering an alternati#e e/planation for the positi#e relationship bet.een Kob
autonom and Kob satisfaction. 7he Kob demand8control model .as selected for
further in#estigation because, unli!e other dominant theories, it is highl applicable
to the .or!place and attracti#e to emploers.
7he Kob demand8control model proposes that Kob demands and Kob decision
latitude interact to predict Kob satisfaction, and that the most satisfied .or!ers are
those .ho ha#e high Kob decision latitude and high Kob demands. 7he implication of
this proposal is that emploers can increase Kob satisfaction .ithout reducing .or!
demands.
4ccording to :arase! and 7heorell (>AA%), emploees .ith high Kob decision
latitude can translate the phsiological arousal produced from Kob demands into
action through effecti#e problem sol#ing. 7he propose that .or!ers .ith high Kob
autonom are 'gi#en the freedom to decide .hat is the most effecti#e course of
action in response to a stressor- (:arase! I 7heorell, >AA%, p. ?G). Ho.e#er, this
e/planation has been criticised for being tautological. &t proposes that Kob control, or
the abilit to choose at .or!, increases Kob satisfaction because it allo.s people to
choose ho. the deal .ith their demands at .or!.
??J
4n alternati#e e/planation for the positi#e lin! bet.een Kob autonom and
Kob satisfaction is that emploees .ith high Kob autonom ha#e higher Kob
satisfaction because the respond differentl to .or! difficulties. Emploees can
respond to .or! difficulties in t.o .asH the can either change the situation using
primar control or the can change themsel#es using secondar control.
&t is e/pected that these primar and secondar control strategies mediate the
relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction. 9ob autonom is e/pected to
influence the amount of control strategies that emploees use and the adapti#eness of
those strategies.
&n regard to the amount of control strategies, emploees .ith high Kob
autonom are e/pected to rel on more primar control and less secondar control
than emploees .ith lo. Kob autonom. 4s primar control strategies are preferred
o#er secondar control strategies, emploees .ith higher Kob autonom ha#e higher
Kob satisfaction than emploees .ith lo.er Kob autonom.
&n regard to the adapti#eness of the strategies, it is e/pected that primar
control strategies are more adapti#e than secondar control onl .hen the situation is
controllable. *hen the situation is uncontrollable, secondar control is e/pected to
be the most adapti#e strateg.
7he maKor proposal of the model of Kob satisfaction is thus that+ >) primar
and secondar control mediate the relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob
satisfaction. Ho.e#er, se#eral other propositions are also e/amined, including thatH
$) social support at .or! and life satisfaction are positi#el related to Kob satisfaction
andH ?) the control strategies and social support at .or! moderate the relationship
??A
bet.een .or! difficulties and Kob satisfaction. Empirical tests of these proposals .ill
be e/amined.
1- Primar! and Secondar! /ontrol Strate#ies $ediate the Celationship Det%een
Job "0tonom! and Job Satisfaction
&t is e/pected that primar and secondar control strategies e/plain the
relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction. 9ob autonom is e/pected to
influence the amount of control strategies than emploees report, and the
adapti#eness of the control strategies.
*.2.1.1 Job #1tonom! :nfl1ences the 4se of Primar! and Secondar! 0ontrol
Strate$ies
&t is e/pected that all emploees, .ith either lo. or high Kob autonom,
implement primar and secondar control strategies. 4ccording to the life span
theor of control (Hec!hausen I SchulL, >AAB), primar control has primac o#er
secondar control as it is preferred and is implemented first. &f primar control is
implemented successfull, the problem is resol#ed. &f primar control fails ho.e#er,
the person is e/pected to implement secondar control strategies to compensate for,
and a#oid, future primar control failure.
*hen these propositions are applied to the .or!place, it is e/pected that Kob
autonom influences the li!elihood of primar control failure. &t is proposed that Kob
autonom is in#ersel related to the probabilit of primar control failure, .hich in
turn, influences the use of secondar control strategies. 7hus, emploees .ith high
?C%
Kob autonom are e/pected to e/perience less primar control failure and as such, use
less secondar control than emploees .ith lo. Kob autonom.
7his proposal .as tested b comparing the control strategies reported b lo.
Kob autonom .or!ers .ith those reported b high Kob autonom .or!ers. Stud
one compared supermar!et .or!ers and academics, .hilst stud t.o compared
teachers and academics. Both of these studies pro#ided minimal support.
&n stud one, the supermar!et .or!ers reported similar le#els of primar
control and more secondar control, than the academics. 4lthough these results
suggest that Kob autonom influences the use of secondar control, but not primar
control, it must be noted that these results are based on the le#els of Kob autonom
inferred from tpe of occupation. 7hus, it is assumed that supermar!et .or!ers are
lo. in Kob autonom and academics are high in Kob autonom. *hen the same
analsis .as conducted .ith the reported le#els of Kob autonom, the results
changed, in that onl primar control .as related to Kob autonom. 7hus the findings
from stud one suggest that Kob autonom influences the use of primar control, but
not secondar control. 7hese findings .ere limited ho.e#er, as the primar and
secondar control scale used in this stud .as fla.ed. 7he rating scale did not
assess ho. much control strategies the person .as using, rather ho. much the
agreed .ith the strategies presented to them in the scale.
7he primar and secondar control scale .as re#ised for stud t.o and
administered to teachers and academics. 7his stud .as not supporti#e of the
proposals ho.e#er, as the groups reported similar le#els of primar and secondar
control. *hen studies one and t.o are considered together, it appears as though
?C>
there is little support for the proposal that Kob autonom influences the use of the
control strategies.
7hese findings .ere attributed to, in part, the specificit of the hpotheses.
Studies one and t.o e/amined the proposal that Kob autonom influences the control
strategies at a general le#el, measuring ho. much control emploees ha#e o#er their
.or! en#ironment and ho. the generall handle .or! difficulties. &t .as e/pected
that this relationship ma increase in strength ho.e#er if the hpotheses .ere more
specific. &n this case, the controllabilit of one situation .ould be correlated .ith the
control strategies used to handle that situation.
4s such, stud three e/amined the amount of control strategies that
emploees used for controllable and uncontrollable difficulties. &t .as hpothesised
that emploees .ould use more primar than secondar control for controllable
difficulties and more secondar than primar control for uncontrollable difficulties.
&nconsistentl ho.e#er, emploees reported more primar than secondar control
strategies for controllable and uncontrollable difficulties.
(ne e/planation for this finding is that emploees ha#e trait control
strategies. 7he use of primar and secondar control for controllable difficulties .as
highl correlated .ith the use of primar and secondar control for uncontrollable
difficulties. 7hus, people ma ha#e a set of strategies that the consistentl use to
handle their difficulties. 3ather than e#aluating the controllabilit of each .or!
difficult, emploees ma simpl use the strategies that the !no..
&f the amount of primar and secondar control used b emploees remains
stable across situations, then a dispositional factor, such as personalit ma predict
?C$
the control strategies. 4 fe. researchers ha#e pre#iousl e/amined ho. personalit
#ariables relate to coping strategies (Brebner, $%%>H )ar#er et al., >AJAH ;unthert,
4rmeli I )ohen, >AAAH Sa!lofs!e I :ell, >AABH Scheier, *eintraub I )ar#er,
>AJG). &t is proposed that people .ith high e/tro#ersion use acti#e coping strategies
.here the tal! out their problems and people .ith high neuroticism use passi#e
coping strategies .here the tend to blame themsel#es, and also other people ()osta,
Somerfield I Mc)rae, >AAG). 7hese proposals are e/tended to the control strategies,
.here it is e/pected that e/tro#ersion is positi#el related to primar control and
neuroticism is positi#el related to secondar control.
7he correlations bet.een e/tro#ersion and neuroticism and the control
strategies .ere e/amined in studies one and t.o. &n regard to e/tro#ersion, stud
one demonstrated that primar control .as positi#el correlated .ith e/tro#ersion
for the academics, r N %.$B, and the supermar!et .or!ers, r N %.C$. 0urthermore, in
stud t.o, primar control .as positi#el related to e/tro#ersion for the academics,
r N %.$%. 7hus, these findings suggest that people high on e/tro#ersion use more
primar control.
&n regard to neuroticism, stud one demonstrated that there .as no
relationship bet.een secondar control and neuroticism. Stud t.o pro#ided some
support, as teachers@ le#els of neuroticism .ere positi#el related to secondar
control (r N %.>A). 4lthough these findings suggest that neuroticism is at best, onl
.ea!l correlated .ith secondar control, studies using coping strategies ha#e
demonstrated that neuroticism is strongl correlated .ith emotion8focussed coping
(i.e., Brebner, $%%>H Sa!lofs!e I :ell, >AAB). 7hese higher correlations ma
?C?
reflect the difference bet.een emotion8focussed coping strategies and secondar
control strategies. &n general emotion8focussed strategies tend to be more negati#e
than secondar control strategies and thus ma be more positi#el correlated .ith
neuroticism. 4s the secondar control strategies de#eloped for this stud included
more positi#e strategies, further research ma be required to e/amine .hich
personalit #ariables predict secondar control. &t might be useful to e/amine ho.
the remaining personalit #ariables (i.e., conscientiousness, agreeableness and
openness) relate to secondar control.
&n regard to the proposed model of Kob satisfaction, the finding that
emploees reported similar le#els of control strategies in controllable and
uncontrollable situations suggests that changes need to be made to the model. 4s
such, rather than Kob autonom, it is proposed that personalit predicts the use of the
control strategies.
*.2.1.2 S1mmar!
7here .as marginal support for the proposal that Kob autonom predicts the
use of the control strategies. *hen this proposal .as changed to be more specific,
the controllabilit of the difficult did not influence the use of primar and secondar
control strategies. 7he finding that emploees reported similar le#els of primar and
secondar control for controllable and uncontrollable difficulties suggests that trait
control strategies ma e/ist. Emploees ma ha#e a set of control strategies that the
regularl use, irrespecti#e of the controllabilit of the problem. 4s such, the model of
?CC
Kob satisfaction is changed so that personalit predicts the control strategies rather
than Kob autonom or the controllabilit of the situation.
*.2.1.3 Job #1tonom! :nfl1ences the #daptiveness of Primar! and Secondar!
0ontrol
7he relationship bet.een the control strategies and Kob satisfaction is
e/pected to change depending on the le#el of Kob autonom. 7his hpothesis is
based on the discrimination model, .hich proposes that primar control is the more
adapti#e strateg in controllable situations and that secondar control is the more
adapti#e strateg in uncontrollable situations. 7his model underlies the philosoph
of the serenit praerH ';rant me the strength to change .hat & can, the patience to
accept .hat & cannot, and the .isdom to !no. the difference- (7hompson et al.,
>AAJ, p. BJD). 4n alternati#e model has also been de#eloped, namel the
primacMbac!8up model. 7his model proposes that primar control is more adapti#e
than secondar control in controllable and relati#el uncontrollable situations.
Pre#ious empirical studies ha#e supported the primacMbac!8up model
(7hompson et al., >AAGH >AACH >AA?H >AAJ), ho.e#er these studies .ere criticised for
their measurement of the controllabilit of the situation and the control strategies. &n
studies one and t.o, the correlations bet.een the control strategies and Kob
satisfaction for the lo. Kob autonom group .ere compared to the correlations for
the high Kob autonom group. Stud one supported the primacMbac! up model,
demonstrating that primar control .as the most adapti#e strateg for both the
academics and the supermar!et .or!ers. 4s the scale of primar control .as
?CB
subsequentl criticised, the proposal .as re8tested .ith a re#ised scale in stud t.o.
Stud t.o did not support the primacMbac!8up model or the discrimination model,
demonstrating that primar and secondar control strategies .ere not related to Kob
satisfaction.
4s mentioned pre#iousl, in both of these studies, the hpotheses .ere not
consistent .ith the definition of the discrimination model or the primacMbac!8up
model. 7he hpotheses .ere too general and as such .ere made more specific in
stud three. &n this stud, the relationships bet.een the control strategies for
controllable and uncontrollable difficulties and Kob satisfaction .ere e/amined.
7he findings from stud three refuted the discrimination model and supported
the primacMbac!8up model. Primar control .as more adapti#e than secondar
control for controllable and uncontrollable difficulties. 7hese findings suggest that
emploees should use primar control .hene#er the face a difficult at .or!, e#en
if it is uncontrollable.
7he proposal that primar control is adapti#e in uncontrollable situations is
difficult to e/plain as is it is assumed that the are li!el to e/perience primar
control failure. &t must be noted ho.e#er that primar control failure .as not
measured, and as such, the assumption that primar control in uncontrollable
situations results in primar control failure ma be inaccurate. &t is possible that
emploees using primar control for uncontrollable difficulties report higher Kob
satisfaction because the implemented it successfull. 4s such, the successfulness of
the control strategies must be measured in future studies.
?CG
7his proposal is incorporated in the re#ised model of Kob satisfaction. &t is
no. proposed that primar and secondar control strategies are not directl related to
Kob satisfaction, rather that the indirectl influence Kob satisfaction through the
successfulness of the control strategies. 0or e/ample, suppose t.o emploees report
ha#ing primar control strategies in their repertoire, ho.e#er onl one of them
implements primar control successfull. &t .ould be e/pected that the emploee
.ho is successfull implementing primar control .ould report higher Kob
satisfaction than the emploee e/periencing primar control failure. 4s such, the
successfulness of primar control ma be a better predictor of Kob satisfaction than
primar control directl. &t is e/pected that if emploees successfull implement the
strategies, the .ill report higher Kob satisfaction.
*.2.1.* S1mmar!
7he controllabilit of the difficult did not influence the relationship bet.een
the control strategies and Kob satisfaction. E#en .hen the situation .as
uncontrollable, primar control .as the most adapti#e strateg. 7hese findings,
along .ith pre#ious research, refute the discrimination model and support the
primacMbac!8up model. 7he primacMbac!8up model is difficult to e/plain as people
.ho use primar control in uncontrollable situations are e/pected to e/perience
primar control failure. Primar control failure .as not measured ho.e#er, and as
such, the successfulness of the control strategies must also be measured in future
studies. 7he model of Kob satisfaction is re#ised .here it is proposed that the control
?CD
strategies are indirectl related to Kob satisfaction through the successfulness of the
control strategies.
*.2.2 /oncl0sion: Do the /ontrol Strate#ies $ediate the Celationship
Det%een Job "0tonom! and Job Satisfaction@
7he abo#e findings demonstrate that the control strategies do not e/plain the
relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction. 4s such, the question of
.h Kob autonom is related to Kob satisfaction remains unans.ered. (ne possibilit
is self8determination. 4ccording to De)harms (>AGJ) and Deci and 3an (>AJG),
humans ha#e an innate need for competence and self8determination. &ndi#iduals
attempt to see! out situations that challenge them. 7he find these acti#ities
re.arding and e/perience positi#e emotions such as enKoment and e/citement (0a
I 0rese, $%%>H 3an I Deci, $%%>).
4nother possibilit is Kob status. Emploees .ith high Kob autonom ha#e
Kobs that generall in#ol#e more responsibilit and Kob status than emploees .ith
lo. Kob autonom. 4lthough fe. studies ha#e e/amined the relationship bet.een
Kob status and Kob satisfaction, one stud has demonstrated that female emploees
.ith higher Kob status tend to report higher Kob satisfaction than females emploees
.ith lo.er Kob status (Secret I ;reen, >AAJ).
4nother possibilit is self8esteem. Emploees .ith high Kob autonom ma
feel that their emploer trusts them and thus ma #alue themsel#es more than
emploees .ith lo. Kob autonom. Self8esteem has been sho.n to be positi#el
related to Kob satisfaction, .here the a#erage correlation is r N %.$G (9udge I Bono,
?CJ
$%%>). 7hus, Kob status or self8esteem ma mediate the relationship bet.een Kob
autonom and Kob satisfaction.
&t is important that researchers continue to e/amine .h Kob autonom is
related to Kob satisfaction as the e/planation offered b :arase! and 7heorell (>AA%)
in the Kob demand8control model (:arase! I 7heorell, >AA%) is tautological and
#ague. &t is necessar that researchers understand the mechanism underling the
proposal that Kob autonom can reduce the influence of Kob demands.
*.2.3 2- Social S0pport at ?orB and 8ife Satisfaction Directl! Predict Job
Satisfaction
7he ne/t maKor proposal of the model of Kob satisfaction is that social support
at .or! and life satisfaction predict Kob satisfaction.
*.2.3.1 Social S1pport at ?orB
Social support is e/pected to be directl related to Kob satisfaction. &n stud
t.o, super#isor support (r N %.GC, r N %.CG), and co8.or!er support (r N %.?A,
r N %.C$) .ere positi#el correlated .ith Kob satisfaction for the teachers and
academics, respecti#el. 0urthermore, stud three demonstrated that super#isor
support (r N %.?D) and co8.or!er support (r N %.CJ) .ere moderatel correlated .ith
Kob satisfaction. &n regard to the proposed model of Kob satisfaction, social support at
.or! appears to be an important predictor.
?CA
*.2.3.2 9ife Satisfaction
6ife satisfaction is e/pected to be positi#el related to Kob satisfaction. &n
stud one, life satisfaction .as not related to Kob satisfaction for the supermar!et
.or!ers, ho.e#er it .as .ea!l related for the academics, r N %.$%. 7he results .ere
stronger in stud t.o, .here life satisfaction .as moderatel correlated .ith Kob
satisfaction for the academics, r N %.?J and the teachers, r N %.CG. Stud three also
demonstrated, using a general sample of emploees that r N %.CG. (n the basis of
these findings, it is concluded that life satisfaction is a direct predictor of Kob
satisfaction.
7he positi#e correlations bet.een life satisfaction and Kob satisfaction support
the spillo#er model, .hich proposes that satisfaction in one domain of an
indi#idual@s life e/tends into other areas. 6ife satisfaction ma spillo#er into Kob
satisfaction or Kob satisfaction ma spillo#er into life satisfaction. 7hus, emploers
need to ensure that their emploees are satisfied .ith all maKor areas of their li#es,
not Kust the .or!place. Emploees also need to be satisfied .ith their standard of
li#ing, their health, their personal relationships, their safet, and feeling part of their
communit.
7he le#els of life satisfaction reported b the emploees are particularl
interesting. 4ccording to )ummins ($%%%b), life satisfaction is held under
homeostatic control. "sing t.o standard de#iations to define the normati#e range, it
is predicted that the mean subKecti#e life satisfaction of *estern population samples
la .ithin the range D%8J%SSM ()ummins, >AAB). )onsistentl, all mean le#els la
.ithin the D%8J%SSM range, M N DJ.?>, M N D?.%A, M N DC.$%, M N DB.G>,
?B%
M N D?.GJ. 7he finding that life satisfaction can be predicted .ithin such a small
range is remar!able. E#en the emploees .ith lo. Kob autonom (i.e., supermar!et
.or!ers and teachers) reported le#els of life satisfaction that .ere .ithin the
normati#e range.
7he mechanisms that underlie this prediction in#ol#e personalit, percei#ed
control, optimism, and self8esteem ()ummins, $%%%b). More empirical studies are
needed to e/amine ho. these predictors are related to life satisfaction. 7hese results
are not onl important in de#eloping a theor of life satisfaction, but these predictors
are important for emploers attempting to increase Kob satisfaction.
*.2.3.3 S1mmar!
Social support at .or! and life satisfaction both directl predicted Kob
satisfaction and are included in the re#ised model of Kob satisfaction. &t is proposed
that social support influences Kob satisfaction and that life satisfaction and Kob
satisfaction influence each other.
*.2.* 3- The /ontrol Strate#ies and Social S0pport at ?orB $oderate the
Celationship Det%een ?orB Diffic0lties and Job Satisfaction
*.2.*.1 %oderatin$ Cole of 0ontrol Strate$ies
Pre#ious researchers ha#e suggested that it is not the stressor that predicts Kob
satisfaction, but rather ho. the person deals .ith the stressor (4ld.in I 3e#enson,
>AJD, 4shford, >AJJH Par!es, >AA%, >AACH Perre.e I Fellars, >AAAH (sipo., Dot I
Spo!ane, >AJB). 7hus, it is e/pected that if emploees match their control strategies
?B>
to the situation, the negati#e influence of .or! difficulties on Kob satisfaction is
lessened.
Stud three did not support this proposal ho.e#er, demonstrating that
primar and secondar control did not act as moderators. 7hese findings suggest that
e#en if emploees match their control strategies to the situation, the negati#e
influence of .or! difficulties on Kob satisfaction is not lessened. 4s such, this part of
the model of Kob satisfaction requires re#ision.
4n alternati#e proposal is offered. 3ather than the control strategies
moderating the effect of .or! difficulties on Kob satisfaction, the successfulness of
the strategies ma be important. 7hus, it is e/pected that if emploees successfull
implement the matching control strategies, the influence of .or! difficulties on Kob
satisfaction decreases. 7he model of Kob satisfaction is thus altered, .here the
successfulness of primar control moderates the effect of controllable difficulties,
and the successfulness of secondar control moderates the effect of uncontrollable
difficulties.
*.2.*.2 %oderatin$ Cole of Social S1pport
&n regard to social support at .or!, it is e/pected that co8.or!er and
super#isor support moderate the effect of .or! difficulties on Kob satisfaction. Stud
t.o demonstrated that super#isor support, but not co8.or!er support moderated .or!
difficulties. 4s super#isor support increased, the relationship bet.een .or!
difficulties and Kob satisfaction decreased.
?B$
Stud three e/amined the tpes of social support, proposing that instrumental
support buffers the effects of controllable difficulties and emotional support buffers
the effects of uncontrollable difficulties. Marginal support .as found for this
proposal, as co8.or!er instrumental support moderated the relationship bet.een
controllable .or! difficulties and Kob satisfaction.
7hese findings in stud t.o and three are some.hat inconsistent. 7his
inconsistenc ma be attributed to, in part, the measurement of .or! difficulties. &n
stud t.o, general .or! difficulties .ere measured b the item 'ho. often do ou
face difficulties at .or!,- 7his item is prone to errors as it is cogniti#el ta/ing,
requiring the emploee to mentall a#erage their .or! difficulties.
&n stud three, controllable and uncontrollable .or! difficulties .ere
measured b as!ing emploees ho. often the face their most commonl occurring
controllable and uncontrollable difficult. 7his scale .as also criticised as it onl
focused on one difficult. (ne person ma e/perience one difficult all the time et
rarel e/perience an other difficulties. 4nother person ma e/perience ten
difficulties all the time. "sing the current scale ho.e#er, these respondents .ould
recei#e the same score.
&t is thus concluded that further research is needed to e/amine the #ariables
that moderate the relationship bet.een .or! difficulties and Kob satisfaction. 7his
research needs to measure .or! difficulties using an open8ended format, .here
respondents list their top fi#e difficulties at .or! and indicate ho. often the face
each one. 7his scale is not e/pected to be e/cessi#el ta/ing and can be
administered to a general sample of emploees. "sing this scale, it is e/pected that
?B?
instrumental support .ill moderate the effect of controllable difficulties and
emotional support .ill moderate the effect of uncontrollable difficulties.
*.2.*.3 S1mmar!
7here .as no support for the moderating role of the control strategies on the
relationship bet.een .or! difficulties and Kob satisfaction, ho.e#er there .as some
support for social support at .or!. 4s primar and secondar control did not act as
moderators, the model of Kob satisfaction .as re#ised to e/amine the successfulness
of the control strategies. 4lthough there .as onl minimal support for the
moderating role of social support, the indirect relationship is retained in the model of
Kob satisfaction as the operationalisation of .or! difficulties .as criticised.
?BC
1)/ #evised 7odel of =ob Satisfaction
7his discussion has combined the results from three studies to de#elop a
re#ised model of Kob satisfaction (refer to 0igure >>). 7he re#isions are based on the
current results, findings from other research, or are purel speculati#e. 7he bolded
arro.s and #ariables represent changes made to the model.
7he first proposal that personalit influences the use of the control strategies
is based on past studies of coping and personalit. 4lthough further research needs
to be conducted to determine .hich personalit #ariables predict secondar control,
it is proposed that e/tro#ersion is positi#el related to primar control. Past research
has also demonstrated that e/tro#ersion is also positi#el related to Kob satisfaction
and life satisfaction, and that neuroticism is negati#el related to Kob satisfaction and
life satisfaction. 7hus, personalit influences the control strategies, Kob satisfaction,
and life satisfaction.
Primar and secondar control strategies are no longer directl related to Kob
satisfactionH rather it is speculated that the are indirectl related to Kob satisfaction
through the successfulness of the control strategies. &t is e/pected that if emploees
successfull implement the strategies, the .ill report higher Kob satisfaction.
&n addition to the successfulness of the control strategies, Kob autonom and
social support at .or! are e/pected to be positi#el related to Kob satisfaction. 9ob
satisfaction is also e/pected to be reciprocall related to life satisfaction. 7hese
relationships ha#e all been demonstrated in the current findings.
Based on the findings of stud three, controllable and uncontrollable
difficulties are e/pected to be negati#el related to Kob satisfaction. 7he relationship
?BB
bet.een .or! difficulties and Kob satisfaction is hpothesised to be moderated b the
successfulness of the control strategies and social support at .or!.
Specificall, it is e/pected that the successfulness of primar control
moderates the effect of controllable difficulties, and the successfulness of secondar
control moderates the effect of uncontrollable difficulties. 7he effect of controllable
.or! difficulties on Kob satisfaction is e/pected to be less .hen primar control is
successful, and the effect of uncontrollable difficulties on Kob satisfaction is e/pected
to be less .hen secondar control is successful.
Social support at .or! is also e/pected to moderate the effect of .or!
difficulties on Kob satisfaction. 4s demonstrated in stud three, instrumental support
is e/pected to moderate the effect of controllable difficulties on Kob satisfaction. &t is
also hpothesised that emotional support .ill moderate the effect of uncontrollable
difficulties on Kob satisfaction. 4lthough this proposal .as not supported in stud
three, it is e/pected that .hen a ne. measure of .or! difficulties is used, it .ill be
supported.

?BG
3igure $$% #evised 7odel of =ob Satisfaction

)ontrollable
Difficulties
"ncontrollable
Difficulties
&nstrumental
Support
Emotional Support
9ob
4utonom
=ob
Satisfaction
Secondar )ontrol
Primar )ontrol
)ontrollable
Diff /
&nstrumental
Support
"ncontrol
Diff /
Emotional
Support
)ontrollable
Diff /
Success P)
"ncontrol
Diff /
Success of
S)
6ife Satisfaction
Success of P)
Personalit
Success of S)
Secondar )ontrol
Primar )ontrol
Success of
Success of
?BD
1)1 Conclusion
7his thesis e/tended the Kob demand8control model (:arase! I 7heorell,
>AA%), offering an alternati#e e/planation for the relationship bet.een Kob autonom
and Kob satisfaction. 4 model of Kob satisfaction .as de#eloped .hich included Kob
autonom, primar and secondar control, life satisfaction, .or! difficulties and
social support at .or!. 7he maKor proposal of this model .as that Kob autonom
influences the use and adapti#eness of primar and secondar control strategies.
Empirical testing of the model demonstrated that primar and secondar
control did not mediate the relationship bet.een Kob autonom and Kob satisfaction.
Emploees reported using more primar control than secondar control for
controllable and uncontrollable difficulties. 0urthermore, primar control .as more
adapti#e than secondar control for both tpes of difficulties.
"sing these findings, a re#ised model of Kob satisfaction .as de#eloped. 7his
model proposes that rather than Kob autonom, personalit influences the use of the
control strategies. 0urthermore, it is proposed that the control strategies do not
directl relate to Kob satisfaction, rather the are indirectl related through the
successfulness of the control strategies. &n addition to these #ariables, Kob autonom,
social support at .or!, life satisfaction and .or! difficulties continue to be included
as predictors of Kob satisfaction.
?BJ
1)2 3inal Word
7his stud de#eloped a model of Kob satisfaction that offered an alternati#e
e/planation to :arase! and 7heorell (>AA%) for the relationship bet.een Kob
autonom and Kob satisfaction. Based on the life span theor of control (Hec!hausen
I SchulL, >AAB) and the discrimination model (7hompson et al., >AAJ), it .as
proposed that emploees .ith high Kob autonom reported high Kob satisfaction
because the relied on more primar control and less secondar control strategies
than emploees .ith lo. Kob autonom. 7hese proposals .ere not supported, as
primar control .as the most commonl used and most adapti#e strateg for
controllable and uncontrollable difficulties. 7hese findings suggest that the serenit
praer might best be changed to
';rant me the strength to change the things & can2. and the things & cannot.-

?BA
1)0 #eferences
4bouserie, 3. (>AAG). Stress, coping strategies and Kob satisfaction in
uni#ersit academic staff. Educational Pscholog, >G, CA8BD.
4gho, 4.(., Price, 9.6., I Mueller, ).*. (>AA$). Discriminant #alidit of
measures of Kob satisfaction, positi#e affecti#it and negati#e affecti#it. 9ournal of
(ccupational and (rganiLational Pscholog, GB, >JB8>AG.
4lderfer, ).P. (>AGA). 4n empirical test of a ne. theor of human needs.
(rganiLational Beha#ior and Human Performance, C, >C$8>DB.
4ld.in, ).M., I 3e#enson, 7.4. (>AJD). Does coping help, 4
ree/amination of the relation bet.een coping and mental health. 9ournal of
Personalit and Social Pscholog, B?, ??D8?CJ.
4lgera, 9.4. (>AJ%). :enmer!en #an .er!. "npublished Ph.D. 7hesis,
"ni#ersit of 6eiden.
4mbrose, M.6., I :uli!, ).7. (>AAA). (ld friends, ne. faces+ Moti#ation
research in the >AA%s. 9ournal of Management, $B, $?>8$?D.
4rmstrong, 7.B. (>AD>). 9ob content and conte/t factors related to
satisfaction for different occupational le#els. 9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog, BB, BD8
GB.
4rnold, H.9., I House, 3.9. (>AJ%). Methodological and substanti#e
e/tensions to the 9ob )haracteristics Model of moti#ation. (rganiLational Beha#ior
and Human Decision Processes, $B, >G>8>J?.
?G%
4r#e, 3.D., Bouchard, 7.9., Segal, 1.6., I 4braham, 6.M. (>AJA). 9ob
satisfaction+ En#ironmental and genetic components. 9ournal of 4pplied
Pscholog, DC, >JD8>A$.
4r#e, 3.D., Mc)all, B.P., Bouchard, 7.9., 7aubman, P., I )a#anaugh, M.4.
(>AAC). ;enetic influences on Kob satisfaction and .or! #alues. Personalit and
&ndi#idual Differences, >D, $>8??.
4shford, S.9. (>AJJ). &ndi#idual strategies for coping .ith stress during
organisational transitions. 9ournal of 4pplied Beha#ioral Science, $C, >A8?G.
Baron, 3.M., I :enn, D.4. (>AJG). 7he moderator8mediator #ariable
distinction in social pschological research+ )onceptual, strategic and statistical
considerations. 9ournal of Personalit and Social Pscholog, B>, >>D?8>>J$.
Beehr, 7.4. (>AJB). 7he role of social support in coping .ith organiLational
stress. &n 7.4. Beehr., I 3.S. Bhagat (Eds.), Human Stress and )ognition in
(rganiLations+ 4n &ntegrated Perspecti#e. (pp. ?DB8?AJ). 1e. Eor!+ *ile
Beutell, 1.6., I *ittig8Berman, ". (>AAA). Predictors of .or!8famil
conflict and satisfaction .ith famil, Kob, career, and life. Pschological 3eports, JB,
JA?8A%?.
Bob!o, P. ($%%>). )orrelation and 3egression+ 4pplications for &ndustrial8
(rganiLational Pscholog and Management. 6ondon+ Sage.
Boe, :.*. (>AAJ). )oping and famil relationships in stress resistance+ 4
stud of Kob satisfaction of nurses in Singapore. &nternational 9ournal of 1ursing
Studies, ?B, ?B?8?G>.
?G>
Bogg, 9., I )ooper, ). (>AAB). 9ob satisfaction, mental health, and
occupational stress among senior ci#il ser#ants. Human 3elations, CJ, ?$D8?C>.
Boomsma, 4. (>AJ?). (n the robustness of 6&S3E6 (ma/imum li!elihood
estimation) against small sample siLes of nonnormalit. "npublished Ph.D. thesis,
"ni#ersit of ;roningen, 7he 1etherlands.
BoonLaier, B., 0ic!er, B., I 3ust, B. ($%%>). 4 re#ie. of research on the 9ob
)haracteristics Model and the attendant Kob diagnostic sur#e. South 4frican
9ournal of Business Management, ?$, >>8?B.
Bo.man, ;.D., I Stern, M. (>AAB). 4dKustment to occupational stress+ 7he
relationship of percei#ed control to effecti#eness of coping strategies. 9ournal of
)ounseling Pscholog, C$, $AC8?%?.
Brafield, 4.H., I 3othe, H.0. (>AB>). 4n inde/ of Kob satisfaction. 9ournal
of 4pplied Pscholog, ?B, ?%D8?>>.
Breaugh, 9.4. (>AJA). 7he *or! 4utonom Scales+ 4dditional #alidit
e#idence. Human 3elations, C$, >%??8>%BG.
Breaugh, 9.4. (>AAJ). 7he de#elopment of a ne. measure of global .or!
autonom. Educational and Pschological Measurement, BJ, >>A8>$A.
Brebner, 9. ($%%>). Personalit and stress coping. Personalit and &ndi#idual
Differences, ?>, ?>D8?$D.
Brenner, =.)., )armac!, ).*., I *einstein, M.;. (>AD>). 4n empirical test
of the moti#ation8hgiene theor. 9ournal of 4ccounting 3esearch, A, ?BA8?GG.
Burger, 9.M., I )ooper, H.M. (>ADA). 7he desirabilit of control.
Moti#ation and Emotion, ?, ?J>8?A?.
?G$
Bur!e, 3.9., I ;reenglass, E.3. ($%%%). Hospital restructuring and nursing
staff .ell8being+ 7he role of coping. &nternational 9ournal of Stress Management, D,
CA8BA.
)ahill, 9. (>AAJ). Stories of success and sur#i#al+ 7he role of primar and
secondar control mechanisms in the subKecti#e .ell8being of people on methadone
maintenance treatment programs. "npublished Honours thesis, Dea!in "ni#ersit,
Melbourne, 4ustralia.
)ammann, )., 0ichman, M., 9en!ins, D., I :lesh, 9. (>ADA). 7he Michigan
(rganiLational 4ssessment 5uestionnaire. "npublished manuscript, "ni#ersit of
Michigan+ 4nn 4rbor.
)ampbell, 9.P., I Pritchard, 3.D. (>ADG). Moti#ation theor in &ndustrial and
(rganiLational Pscholog. &n M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handboo! of &ndustrial and
(rganiLational Pscholog. (pp G?8>?%). )hicago+ 3and Mc1all.
)aplan, 3.D., )obb, S., 0rench, 9.3.P. 9r., Harrison, 3."., I Pinneau, S.3. 9r.
(>ADB). 9ob Demands and *or!er Health. ".S. Department of Health, Education,
and *elfare Publication 1o. DB8>G%. *ashington D.).+ ".S. ;o#ernment Printing
(ffice, 7he &nstitute for Social 3esearch.
)arson, :.D., 6anier, P.4., I )arson, P.P. ($%%>). 4 glimpse inside the
i#or to.er+ 4 cross8sectional comparison of .or! orientations in academia.
&nternational 9ournal of Public 4dministration, $C, CDA8CA$.
)ar#er, ).S., Scheier, M.0., I *eintraub, 9.:. (>AJA). 4ssessing coping
strategies+ 4 theoreticall based approach. 9ournal of Personalit and Social
Pscholog, BG, $GD8$J?.
?G?
)hampou/, 9.E. (>AJ%). 4 three sample test of some e/tensions to the 9ob
)haracteristics Model of .or! moti#ation. 4cadem of Management 9ournal, $?,
CGG8CDJ.
)ha, E.*. (>AA?). Social support, indi#idual differences and .ell8being+ a
stud of small business entrepreneurs and emploees. 9ournal of (ccupational and
(rganiLational Pscholog, GG, $JB8?%$.
)hipperfield, 9.;., Perr, 3.P., I Menec, =.H. (>AAA). Primar and
secondar control8enhancing strategies. 9ournal of 4ging and Health, >>, B>D8B?A.
)lar!, 4.E. (>AAG). 9ob satisfaction in Britain. British 9ournal of &ndustrial
3elations, ?C, >JA8$>D.
)lar!, 4.E., I (s.ald, 4.9. (>AAG). Satisfaction and comparison income.
9ournal of Public Economics, GA, BD8J>.
)oa!es, S.9., I Steed, 6.;. (>AAA). SPSS+ 4nalsis .ithout 4nguish.
Brisbane+ 9ohn *ile.
)ohen, 9., I )ohen, P. (>AJ?). 4pplied Multiple 3egressionM)orrelation
4nalsis for the Beha#ioral Sciences. Hillsdale, 1.9+ 6a.rence Erlbaum.
)ohen, S., I :amarac!, 7., Mermelstein, 3., I Hoberman, H.M. (>AJB).
Measuring the functional components of social support. &n &.;. Sarason., I B.3.
Sarason (Eds.), Social Support+ 7heor, 3esearch and 4pplications. 7he Hague,
1etherlands+ 1iKhoff.
)ole, M. (>AJA). 7he politics of stress in teaching. &n M.)ole., I S. *al!er
(Eds.), 7eaching and Stress. (pp.>G>8>D%). Milton :enes+ (pen "ni#ersit Press.
?GC
)onstantinople, 4. (>AGD). Percei#ed instrumentalit of the college as a
measure of attitudes to.ards college. 9ournal of Personalit and Social Pscholog,
B, >AG8$%>.
)on.a, =.9., I 7err, D.9. (>AA$). 4ppraised controllabilit as a moderator
of the effecti#eness of different coping strategies+ 4 test of the goodness of fit
hpothesis. 4ustralian 9ournal of Pscholog, CC, >8D.
)ooper, ).6., Sloan, S., I *illiams, S. (>AJJ). (ccupational Stress
&ndicator. *indsor+ 10E381elson.
)osta, P.7. 9r., I Mc)rae, 3.3. (>AJB). 7he 1E( Personalit &n#entor
Manual. (dessa, 06+ Pschological 4ssessment 3esources.
)osta, P.7. 9r., I Mc)rae, 3.3. (>AJA). Personalit as a life long
determinant of .ellbeing. &n 6.F. Malatesta., I ).E. &LLard (Eds.), Emotion in 4dult
De#elopment. (p.>C>8>BD). Be#erl Hills, )4+ Sage.
)osta, P.7. 9r., I Mc)rae, 3.3. (>AA$). 1E( P&83 professional manual.
(dessa, 06+ Pschological 4ssessment 3esources.
)osta, P.7. 9r., Somerfield, M.3., I Mc)rae, 3.3. (>AAG). Personalit and
coping+ 4 reconceptualisation. &n M. Feidner., I 1.S. Endler (Eds.), Handboo! of
)oping+ 7heor, 3esearch, 4pplications. 1e. Eor!+ *ile
)ousins, 3. ($%%>). Predicting subKecti#e qualit of life+ 7he contributions of
personalit and percei#ed control. "npublished Doctorate thesis, Dea!in "ni#ersit,
Melbourne, 4ustralia.
)ramer, D. (>AAB). 6ife and Kob satisfaction+ 4 t.o8.a#e panel stud. 7he
9ournal of Pscholog, >$A, $G>8$GJ.
?GB
)ummins, 3.4. (>AAB). (n the trail of the gold standard for subKecti#e .ell8
being. Social &ndicators 3esearch, ?B, >DA8$%%.
)ummins, 3.4. (>AAG). 7he domain of life satisfaction+ 4n attempt to order
chaos. Social &ndicators 3esearch, ?J, ?%?8?$J.
)ummins, 3.4. (>AAD). )omprehensi#e 5ualit of 6ife Scale84dult Manual
()om5ol84B). Melbourne, 4ustralia+ Dea!in "ni#ersit.
)ummins, 3.4. ($%%%a). (bKecti#e and subKecti#e qualit of life+ 4n
interacti#e model. Social &ndicators 3esearch, B$, BB8D$.
)ummins, 3.4. ($%%%b). 1ormati#e life satisfaction+ Measurement issues
and a homeostatic model. &n B. Fumbo (Ed.), Social &ndicators and 5ualit of 6ife
3esearch Methods+ Methodological De#elopment and &ssues. 4msterdam+ :lumer.
)ummins, 3.4. ($%%$). )a#eats to the )omprehensi#e 5ualit of 6ife Scale.
http+MMacqol.dea!in.edu.au.
)ummins, 3.4., Ec!ersle, 3., Pallant, 9., =an =ugt, 9., Shelle, 9., Puse,
M., I MisaKon, 3. ($%%>). 7he 4ustralian "nit &nde/ of *ell8Being+ Sur#e >+
3eport >. (on8line). 4#ailable+ http+MMacqol.dea!in.edu.au.
)ummins, 3.4., I 1istico, H. (in press). Maintaining life satisfaction+ 7he
role of positi#e cogniti#e bias. 9ournal of Happiness Studies
De)harms, 3. (>AGJ). Personal )ausation. 1e. Eor!+ 4cademic Press.
Deci, E.6., I 3an, 3.M. (>AJB). &ntrinsic Moti#ation and Self8
Determination in Human Beha#iour. 1e. Eor!+ Plenum Press.
de 9onge, 9., Breu!elen, ;.9.P., 6ande.eerd, 9.4., I 1iKhuis, 0.9.1. (>AAAa).
)omparing group and indi#idual le#el assessments of Kob characteristics in testing
?GG
the 9ob Demand8)ontrol Model+ 4 multile#el approach. Human 3elations, B$, AB8
AD.
de 9onge, 9., Mulder, M.9.;.P., I 1iKhuis, 0.9.1. (>AAAb). 7he incorporation
of different demand concepts in the Kob demand8control model+ Effects of health care
professionals. Social Science and Medicine, CJ, >>CA8>>G%.
De1e#e, :.M. (>AAA). Happ as an e/tro#erted clam, 7he role of
personalit for subKecti#e .ell8being. Pschological Science, J, >C>8>CC.
De 3iK!, 4.E., 6e Blanc, P., Schaufeli, *.B., I de 9onge, 9. (>AAJ). 4cti#e
coping and need for control as moderators of the Kob demand8control model+ Effects
on burnout. 9ournal of (ccupational and (rganiLational Pscholog, D>, >8>J.
Diener, E., Suh, E.M., 6ucas, 3.E., I Smith, H.6. (>AAA). SubKecti#e .ell8
being+ 7hree decades of progress. Pschological Bulletin, >$B, $DG8?%$.
Dollard, M.0., *inefield, H.3., *inefield, 4.H., I 9onge, 9.D. ($%%%).
Pschosocial ser#ice .or!ers+ 4 test of the demand control8support model. 9ournal
of (ccupational and (rganiLational Pscholog, D?. B%>8B>%.
Doran, 6.&., Stone, =.:., Brief, 4.P., I ;eorge, 9.M. (>AA>). Beha#ioral
intentions as predictors of Kob attitudes+ 7he role of economic choice. 9ournal of
4pplied Pscholog, DG, C%8CB.
Ducharme, 6.9., I Martin, 9. ($%%%). "nre.arding .or!, co8.or!er support,
and Kob satisfaction. *or! and (ccupations, $D, $$?8$CC.
D.er, D.H., I ;anster, D.). (>AA>). 7he effects of Kob demands and
control in emploee attendance and satisfaction. 9ournal of (rganiLational Beha#ior,
>$, BAB8G%J.
?GD
Ed.ards, 4.6. (>ABA). Ed.ards Personal Preference Schedule. 1e. Eor!+
Pschological )orporation.
Ed.ards, 9.3., I (@1eill, 3. (>AAA). 7he construct #alidit of scores on the
*as of )oping 5uestionnaire+ )onfirmator analsis of alternati#e factor
structures. Educational and Pschological Measurement, BJ, ABB8AJ?.
E#ans, B.:., I 0ischer, D.;. (>AA$). 4 hierarchical model of participator
decision8ma!ing, Kob autonom and percei#ed control. Human 3elations, CB, >>GA8
>>A%.
E#ans, M.;. (>AA>). 7he problem of analLing multiplicati#e composites+
interactions re#isited. 4merican Pschologist, CG, G8>B.
E.en, 3.B. (>AGC). Some determinants of Kob satisfaction+ 4 stud of the
generalisabilit of HerLberg@s theor. 9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog, CJ, >G>8>G?.
0a, D., I 0rese, M. ($%%%). Self8starting beha#ior at .or!+ 7o.ard a theor
of personal initiati#e. &n 9. Hec!hausen (Ed.), Moti#ational Pscholog of Human
De#elopment. 4msterdam+ Elser#ier Science.
0elce, D., I Perr, 9. (>AAB). 5ualit of life+ &ts definition and measurement.
3esearch in De#elopmental Disabilities, >G, B>8DC.
0enlason, :.9., I Beehr, 7.4. (>AAC). Social support and occupational stress+
Effects of tal!ing to others. 9ournal of (rganiLational Beha#ior, >B, >BD8>DB.
0erris, :.3. (>ADD). 4 test of the e/pectanc theor of moti#ation in an
accounting en#ironment. 7he 4ccounting 3e#ie., ?, G%B8G>B.
?GJ
0inla, *., Martin, 9.:., 3oman, P.M., I Blum, 7.). (>AAB). (rganiLational
structure and Kob satisfaction+ Do bureaucratic organiLations produce more satisfied
emploees, 4dministration and Societ, $D, C$D8CB>.
0isher, ).D. ($%%%). Mood and emotions .hile .or!ing+ missing pieces of
Kob satisfaction, 9ournal of (rganiLational Beha#ior, $>, >JB8$%$.
0isher, S. (>AAC). Stress in 4cademic 6ife+ 7he Mental 4ssembl 6ine.
Buc!ingham+ (pen "ni#ersit Press.
0letcher, B.)., I 9ones, 0. (>AA?). 4 refutation of :arase!@s Demand8
Discretion Model of (ccupational Stress .ith a range of dependent measures.
9ournal of (rganiLational Beha#ior, >C, ?>A8??%.
0ol!man, S., )hesne, M.4., )oo!e, M., I Bocccellari, 4. (>AAC).
)aregi#er burden in the H&=8positi#e and H&=8negati#e partners of men .ith 4&DS.
9ournal of )onsulting and )linical Pscholog, G$, DCG8DBG.
0ol!man, S., I 6aLarus, 3.S. (>AJ%). 4n analsis of coping in a middle8aged
communit sample. 9ournal of Health and Social Beha#ior, $>, $>A8$?A.
0ol!man, S., I 6aLarus, 3.S. (>AJB). &f it changes, it must be a process+
Stud of emotion and coping during three stages of a college e/amination. 9ournal
of Personalit and Social Pscholog, CJ, >B%8>D%.
0ol!man, S., 6aLarus, 3.S., Dun!el8Schetter, )., De6ongis, 4., I ;ruen, 3.9.
(>AJG). Dnamics of a stressful encounter+ )ogniti#e appraisal, coping and
encounter outcomes. 9ournal of Personalit and Social Pscholog, B%, AA$8>%%?.
?GA
0orsthe, ).9., I )ompas, B.E. (>AJD). &nteraction of cogniti#e appraisals of
stressful e#ents and coping+ 7esting the goodness of fit hpothesis. )ogniti#e
7herap and 3esearch, >>, CD?8CJB.
0o/, M.6., D.er, D.9., I ;anster, D.). (>AA?). Effects of stressful Kob
demands and control on phsiological and attitudinal outcomes in a hospital setting.
4cadem of Management 9ournal, ?G, $JA8?>A.
0o/, S., I 0eldman, ;. (>AJJ). 4ttention state and critical pschological
states as mediators bet.een Kob dimensions and Kob outcomes. Human 3elations, C>,
$$A8$CB.
0ried, E. (>AA>). Meta8analtic comparisons of the 9ob Diagnostic Sur#e
and 9ob )haracteristics &n#entor as correlates of .or! satisfaction and performance.
9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog, DG, GA%8GAD.
0ried, E., I 0erris, ;.3. (>AJD). 7he #alidit of the 9ob )haracteristics
Model+ 4 re#ie. and meta8analsis. Personnel Pscholog, C%, $JD8?$$.
0ried, E., I 0erris, ;.3. (>AA>). 7he dimensionalit of Kob characteristics+
Some neglected issues. 9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog, D>, C>A8C$G.
0riedman, 6.)., 1elson, D.=., Baer, P.E., 6ane, M., Smith, 0.E., I D.or!in,
3.9. (>AA$). 7he relationship of dispositional optimism, dail life stress, and
domestic en#ironment to coping methods used b cancer patients. 9ournal of
Beha#ioral Medicine, >B, >$D8>C>.
0riesen, D., Holda.a, E.4., I 3ice, 4.*. (>AJ?). Satisfaction of school
principals .ith their .or!. Educational 4dministration 5uarterl, >A, ?B8BJ.
?D%
0rone, M.3., 3ussell, M., I )ooper, M.6. (>AAC). 3elationship bet.een Kob
and famil satisfaction+ )ausal or noncausal co#ariation, 9ournal of Management,
$%, BGB8BDA.
0ung8!am, 6. (>AAJ). 9ob satisfaction and autonom of Hong :ong
registered nurses. 9ournal of 4d#anced 1ursing, $D, ?BB8?GC.
;anster, D.). (>AJA). *or!er control and .ell8being+ 4 re#ie. of research
in the .or!place. &n S. Sauter., 9. Hurrell., I ). )ooper (Eds.), 9ob )ontrol and
*or!er Health. (pp. ?8$C). )hichester, ".:+ *ile.
;anster, D.)., D.er, D.9., I 0o/, M.6. ($%%>). E/plaining emploees@
health care costs+ 4 prospecti#e e/amination of stressful Kob demands, personal
control, and phsiological reacti#it. 9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog, JG, ABC8AGC.
;anster, D.)., I 0usilier, M.3. (>AJA). )ontrol in the .or!place. &n ).6.
)ooper., I &. 3obertson (Eds.), &nternational 3e#ie. of &ndustrial and
(rganiLational Pscholog. (pp. $?B8$J%). 6ondon+ 9ohn *ile
;ardner, ;. (>ADD). &s there a #alid test of HerLberg@s t.o8factor theor,
9ournal of (ccupational Pscholog, B%, >AD8$%C.
;aLiel, H.H. (>AJA). Determinants of percei#ed deficienc of autonom
among elementar school administrators. Social Beha#ior and Personalit, >D, BD8
GG.
;eer, P.D., I Dal, 9.P. (>AAJ). Predicting Kob satisfaction for relocated
.or!ers+ &nteraction of relocating consequences and emploee age. 7he 9ournal of
Pscholog, >?$, C>D8C$D.
?D>
;illet, B., I Sch.ab, D.P. (>ADB). )on#ergent and discriminant #alidities of
corresponding 9ob Descripti#e &nde/ and Minnesota Satisfaction 5uestionnaire
Scales. 9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog, G%, ?>?8?>D.
;raham, *.:., I Balloun, 9. (>AD?). 4n empirical test of Maslo.@s need
hierarch theor. 9ournal of Humanistic Pscholog, >?, AD8>%J.
;rant, ;.P., I Murra, ).E. (>AAA). 7eaching in 4merica+ 7he Slo.
3e#olution. )ambridge, Mass+ Har#ard "ni#ersit Press.
;unthert, :.)., )ohen, 6.H., I 4rmeli, S. (>AAA). 7he role of neuroticism in
dail stress and coping. 9ournal of Personalit and Social Pscholog, B, >%JD8>>%%.
Hac!man, 9.3., I (ldham, ;.3. (>ADB). De#elopment of the 9ob Diagnostic
Sur#e. 9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog, G%, >BA8>D%.
Hac!man, 9.3., I (ldham, ;.3. (>ADG). Moti#ation through the design of
.or!+ 7est of a theor. (rganiLational Beha#ior and Human Performance, >G, $B%8
$DA.
Hac!man, 9.3., I (ldham, ;.3. (>AJ%). *or! 3edesign. 3eading, Mass+
4ddison8*esle.
Hall, D.7., I 1ougaim, :.E. (>AGJ). 4n e/amination of Maslo.@s need
hierarch theor in an organiLational setting. (rganiLational Beha#ior and Human
Performance, ?, >$8?B.
Hallida, ).4., I ;raham, S. ($%%%). '&f & get loc!ed up, & get loc!ed up-+
Secondar control and adKustment among Ku#enile offenders. Personalit and Social
Pscholog Bulletin, $G, BCJ8BBA.
?D$
Hallq#ist, 9., Diderichsen, 0., 7heorell, 7., 3euter.all, )., I 4hlbom, 4.
(>AAJ). &s the effect of Kob strain on mocardial infarction ris! due to interaction
bet.een high pschological demands and lo. decision latitude, 3esults from
Stoc!holm Heart Epidemiolog Program (SHEEP). Social Science and Medicine,
CG, >C%B8>C>B.
Hart, P.M. (>AAA). Predicting emploee life satisfaction+ 4 coherent model
of personalit, .or! and non8.or! e/periences, and domain satisfaction. 9ournal of
4pplied Pscholog, JC, BGC8BJC.
Har.ood, M.:., I 3ice, 3.*. (>AA$). 4n e/amination of the referent
selection processes underling Kob satisfaction. Social &ndicators 3esearch, $D, >8?A.
Hatfield, 9.D., 3obinson, 3.B., I Huseman, 3.). (>AJB). 4n empirical
e#aluation of a test for assessing Kob satisfaction. Pschological 3eports, BG, ?A8CB.
Ha.!ins, M.9., Ha.!ins, *.E., I 3an, E.3. (>AJA). Self8actualisation as
related to age of facult members at a large Mid.estern "ni#ersit. Pschological
3eports, GB, >>$%8>>$$.
Hec!hausen, 9., I SchulL, 3. (>AAB). 4 life span theor of control.
Pschological 3e#ie., >%$, $JC8?%C.
Hec!hausen, 9., SchulL, 3., I *rosch, ). (>AAD). 7echnical 3eport+
(ptimiLation in primar and secondar control+ (PS Scales, a measurement
instrument for general and domain specific strategies of control and de#elopment
regulation. Berlin+ Ma/ Planc! &nstitute for Human De#elopment.
Heeps, 6., )roft, )., I )ummins, 3.4. ($%%%). 7he Primar and Secondar
)ontrol Scale ($
nd
ed) . Melbourne+ Dea!in "ni#ersit.
?D?
HerLberg, 0. (>AGG). *or! and the 1ature of Man. )le#eland+ *orld Publ
)o.
HerLberg, 0., Mausner, B., I Snderman, B.B. (>ABA). 7he Moti#ation to
*or!. 1e. Eor!+ *ile.
HerLberg, 0., Mausner, B., I Snderman, B.B. (>AA?). 7he Moti#ation to
*or!. 1e. Bruns.ic!, 1.9+ 7ransaction Publishers.
Highhouse, S., I Bec!er, 4.S. (>AA?). 0acet measures and global Kob
satisfaction. 9ournal of Business and Pscholog, J, >>D8>$D.
Hill, M.D. (>AJG). 4 theoretical analsis of facult Kob
satisfactionMdissatisfaction. Educational 3esearch 5uarterl, >%, ?G8CC.
Himle, D.P., I 9aaratne, S. (>AA>). Buffering effects of four social support
tpes on burnout among social .or!ers. Social *or! 3esearch and 4bstracts, $D,
$$8$J.
Hirschfeld, 3.3. ($%%%). Does re#ising the intrinsic and e/trinsic subscales of
the Minnesota Satisfaction 5uestionnaire short form ma!e a difference, Educational
and Pschological Measurement, G%, $BB8$D>.
Hoppoc!, 3. (>A?B). 9ob Satisfaction. 1e. Eor!+ Harper.
Ho.ard, 9.6., I 0rin!, D.D. (>AAG). 7he effects of organiLational restructure
on emploee satisfaction. ;roup and (rganiLation Management, $>, $DJ8?%?.
&affaldano, M.7., I Muchins!, P.M. (>AJB). 9ob satisfaction and Kob
performance+ 4 meta8analsis. Human 3elations, CC, $JD8?%D.
?DC
&ronson, ;.H., Smith, P.)., Brannic!, M.7., ;ibson, *.M., I Paul, :.B.
(>AJA). )onstruction of a Kob in general scale+ 4 comparison of global, composite,
and specific measures. 9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog, DC, >A?8$%%.
&#erson, 3.D., I Maguire, ). ($%%%). 7he relationship bet.een Kob and life
satisfaction+ E#idence from a remote mining communit. Human 3elations, B?, J%D8
J>?.
9ansen, P.;.M., :er!stra, 4., 4bud8Saad, H.H., I =an der Fee, 9. (>AAG).
7he effects of Kob characteristics and indi#idual characteristics of Kob satisfaction and
burnout in communit nursing. &nternational 9ournal of 1ursing Studies, ??, C%D8
C$>.
9ohnson, 9.=., I Hall, E.M. (>AJJ). 9ob strain, .or! place social support,
and cardio#ascular disease+ a cross8sectional stud of a random sample of the
S.edish .or!ing population. 4merican 9ournal of Public Health, DJ, >??G8>?C$.
9ohnson, 9.=., I Hall, E.M. (>AAC). Social support in the .or! en#ironment
and cardio#ascular disease. &n S.4. Schuma!er., I S.M. )LaK!o.s!i (Eds.), Social
Support and )ardio#ascular Disease. Plenum Series in Beha#ioral
Pschophsiolog and Medicine. (pp. >CB8>GG.) 1e. Eor!+ Plenum Press.
9ohnson, 9.=., Hall, E.M., I 7heorell, 7. (>AJA). )ombined effects of Kob
strain and social isolation on cardio#ascular disease morbidit and mortalit in a
random sample of the S.edish male .or!ing population. Scandina#ian 9ournal of
*or!, En#ironment and Health, >B, $D>8$DA.
?DB
9ohnson, S.M., Smith, P.)., I 7uc!er, S.M. (>AJ$). 3esponse format of the
9ob Descripti#e &nde/+ 4ssessment of reliabilit and #alidit b the multitrait8
multimethod matri/. 9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog, GD, B%%8B%B.
9udge, 7.4., I Bono, 9.E. ($%%>). 3elationship of core self8e#aluations
traits8 Self8esteem, generalised self8efficac, locus of control and emotional stabilit
.ith Kob satisfaction and Kob performance+ 4 meta8analsis. 9ournal of 4pplied
Pscholog, JG, J%8A?.
9udge, 7.4., Bono, 9.E., I 6oc!e, E.4. ($%%%). Personalit and Kob
satisfaction+ 7he mediating role of Kob characteristics. 9ournal of 4pplied
Pscholog, JB, $?D8$CA.
9udge, 7.4., I 6oc!e, E.4. (>AA?). Effect of dsfunctional thought
processes on subKecti#e .ell8being and Kob satisfaction. 9ournal of 4pplied
Pscholog, DJ, CDB8CA%.
9udge, 7.4., 6oc!e, E.4., Durham, ).)., I :luger, 4.1. (>AAJ).
Dispositional effects on Kob and life satisfaction+ 7he role of cogniti#e e#aluations.
9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog, J?, >D8?C.
9udge, 7.4., I *atanabe, S. (>AAC). &ndi#idual differences in the nature of
the relationship bet.een Kob and life satisfaction. 9ournal of (ccupational and
(rganiLational Pscholog, GD, >%>8>%D.
:andel, D.B., Da#ies, M., I 3a#eis, =.H. (>AJB). 7he stressfulness of dail
social roles for .omen+ Marital, occupational and household roles. 9ournal of Health
and Social Beha#ior, $G, GC8DJ.
?DG
:arase!, 3.4. 9r. (>ADA). 9ob demands, Kob decision latitude, and mental
strain+ &mplications for Kob redesign. 4dministrati#e Science 5uarterl, $C, ??B8?BD.
:arase!, 3.4., Brisson, )., :a.a!ami, 1., Houtman, &., Bongers, P., I
4mic!, B. (>AAJ). 7he 9ob )ontent 5uestionnaire (9)5)+ 4n instrument for
internationall comparati#e assessments of pschosocial Kob characteristics. 9ournal
of (ccupational Health Pscholog, ?, ?$$8?BB.
:arase!, 3.4., I 7heorell, 7. (>AA%). Health .or!+ Stress, producti#it
and the 3econstruction of *or!ing 6ife. 1e. Eor!+ Basic Boo!s.
:arase!, 3.4., 7riantis, :.P., I )haudr, S.S. (>AJ$). )o8.or!er and
super#isor support as moderators of associations bet.een tas! characteristics and
mental strain. 9ournal of (ccupational Beha#iour, ?, >J>8$%%.
:ell, 9. (>AA$). Does Kob re8design theor e/plain Kob re8design outcomes,
Human 3elations, CB, DB?8DDB.
:eppel, ;. (>AA>). Design and analsis+ 4 3esearchers Handboo! (?
rd
ed.) .
1e. 9erse+ Prentice Hall.
:ing, 1. (>AD%). )larification and e#aluation of the t.o factor theor of Kob
satisfaction. Pschological Bulletin, DC, >J8?>.
:lec!er, B.M., I 6oadman, *.E. (>AAA). Male elementar school teachers
ratings of Kob satisfaction b ears of teaching e/perience. Education, >>A, B%C8G%C
:oes!e, ;.0., :ir!, S.4., I :oes!e, 3.D. (>AA?). )oping .ith Kob stress+
*hich strategies .or! best, 9ournal of (ccupational and (rganiLational
Pscholog, GG, ?>A8??B.
?DD
:ohn, P.M., Ha, B.D., I 6egere, 9.9. (>AAC). Hassles, coping stles, and
negati#e .ell8being. Personalit and &ndi#idual Differences, >D, >GA8>DA.
:unin, 7. (>ABB). 7he construction of a ne. tpe of attitude measure.
Personnel Pscholog, J, GB8DD.
6ahe, :.E., I =ihtelic, 9.6. ($%%%). 0inance facult demographics, career
histor, di#ersit, and Kob satisfaction. 0inancial Practice and Education, >%, >>>8
>$?.
6ande.eerd, 9.4., I Boumans, 1.P.;. (>AAC). 7he effect of .or!
dimensions and need for autonom on nurses@ .or! satisfaction and health. 9ournal
of (ccupational and (rganiLational Pscholog, GD, $%D8$>J.
6andr, M.B. ($%%%). 7he effects of life satisfaction and Kob satisfaction on
reference librarians and their .or!. 3eference and user Ser#ices 5uarterl, C%, >GG8
>DJ.
6andsbergis, P.4., Schnall, P.6., DeitL, D., 0riedman, 3., I Pic!ering, 7.
(>AA$). 7he patterning of pschological attributes and distress b XKob strain@ and
social support in a sample of .or!ing men. 9ournal of Beha#ioral Medicine, >B,
?DA8C%B.
6a3occo, 9.M., House, 9.S., I 0rench, 9.3.P. (>AJ%). Social support,
occupational stress, and helath. 9ournal of Health and Social Beha#ior, $>, $%$.
6aschinger, H.:.S., 0inegan, 9., I Shamian, 9. ($%%>). Promoting nurses@
health+ Effect of empo.erment on Kob strain and .or! satisfaction. 1ursing
Economics, >A, C$8B$.
?DJ
6atac!, 9.). (>AJG). )oping .ith Kob stress+ Measures and future direction
for scale de#elopment. 9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog, D>, ?DD8?JB.
6a.ler, E.E., I Suttle, 9.6. (>AD$). 4 causal correlational test of the need
hierarch concept. (rganiLational Beha#ior and Human Performance, D, $GB8$JD.
6aLarus, 3.S., I 0ol!man, S. (>AJC). Stress, 4ppraisal and )oping. 1e.
Eor!+ Springer.
6eong, 0.7.6., I Dollinger, S.9. (>AA>). 1E( Personalit &n#entor. &n D.9.
:eser., I 3.). S.eetland (Eds.), 7est )ritiques, =ol =&&&. (p.B$D8B?A). 7e/as+
ProEd
6eung, :. (>AAD). 3elationships among satisfaction, commitment and
performance+ 4 group le#el analsis. 4pplied Pscholog+ 4n &nternational 3e#ie.,
CG, >AA8$%B.
6eung, 7., Siu, (., I Spector, P.E. ($%%%). 0acult stressors, Kob satisfaction
and pschological distress among uni#ersit teachers in Hong :ong+ 7he role of
locus of control. &nternational 9ournal of Stress Management, D, >$>8>?J
6oc!e, E.4. (>AGA). *hat is Kob satisfaction, (rganiLational Beha#ior and
Human Performance, C, ?%A8??G.
6oc!e, E.4. (>ADG). 1ature and causes of Kob satisfaction. &n M. Dunnette
(Ed.), Handboo! of &ndustrial and (rganiLational Pscholog. (pp. >$AD8>?B%).
)hicago, &6+ 3and Mc1all.
6oher, B.7., 1oe, 3.4., Moeller, 1.6., I 0itLgerald, M.P. (>AJB). 4 meta8
analsis of the relation of Kob characteristics to Kob satisfaction. 9ournal of 4pplied
Pscholog, D%, $J%8$JA.
?DA
6u, 6. (>AAA). *or! moti#ation, Kob stress and emploees@ .ell8being.
9ournal of 4pplied Management Studies, J, G>8GA.
6!!en, D., I 7ellegen, 4. (>AAG). Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon.
Pschological Science, D, >JG8>JA.
Ma, <., I MacMillan, 3.B. (>AAA). &nfluences of .or!place conditions on
teachers Kob satisfaction. 9ournal of Educational 3esearch, A?, ?A8CD.
Maher, E., I )ummins, 3.4. ($%%>). SubKecti#e qualit of life, percei#ed
control, and dispositional optimism among older people. 4ustralasian 9ournal on
4ging, $%, >?A8>CG.
Maher, E., I )ummins, 3.4. ($%%$). Situation Specific Primar and
Secondar )ontrol Scale. Melbourne+ Dea!in "ni#ersit.
Maher, E., MisaKon, 3., Heeps, 6., I )ummins, 3.4. ($%%>). Primar
)ontrol and Secondar )ontrol Scale (C
th
ed.) . Melbourne+ Dea!in "ni#ersit.
Mannheim, B., Baruch, E., I 7al, 9. (>AAD). 4lternati#e models for
antecedents and outcomes of .or! centralit and Kob satisfaction of high8tech
personnel. Human 3elations, B%, >B?D8>BG$.
Marriott, 4., I Se/ton, 6. (>AAC). )omponents of Kob satisfaction in
pschiatric social .or!ers. Health and Social *or!, >A, >AA8$%G.
Maslo., 4.H. (>ABC). Moti#ation and Personalit. 1e. Eor!+ Harper.
Maslo., 4.H. (>AD%). Moti#ation and Personalit. 1e. Eor!+ Harper I
3o..
Mc)onatha, 9.7., I Huba, H.M. (>AAA). Primar, secondar and emotional
control across adulthood. )urrent Pscholog, >J, >GC8>D%.
?J%
Mc)rae, 3.3., I )osta, P.7. (>AA>). 4dding 6iebe und 4rbeit+ 7he full
0i#e80actor Model and .ell8being. Personalit and Social Pscholog Bulletin, >D,
$$D8$?$.
Mc)rae, 3.3., I )osta, P.7. 9r. (>AA$). Discriminant #alidit of 1E(8P&3
0acet Scale. Educational Pschological Measurement, B$, $$A8$?D.
Melamed, S., :ushnir, 7., I Meir, E.&. (>AA>). 4ttentuating the impact of
Kob demands+ 4dditi#e and interacti#e effects of percei#ed control and social
support. 9ournal of =ocational Beha#ior, ?A, C%8B?.
Michalos, 4.). (>AJB). Multiple Discrepancies 7heor (MD7). Social
&ndicators 3esearch, >G, ?CD8C>?.
Miles, E.*., Patric!, S.6., I :ing, *.). (>AAG). 9ob le#el as a sstemic
#ariable in predicting the relationship bet.een super#isor communication and Kob
satisfaction) 9ournal of (ccupational and (rganiLational Pscholog, GA, $DD8$JB
MisaKon, 3. ($%%$). 7he Homeostatic Mechanism+ SubKecti#e 5ualit of 6ife
and )hronic Pain. "npublished Ph.D. 7hesis, Dea!in "ni#ersit, Melbourne.
MisaKon, 3., I )ummins, 3.4. (in press). SubKecti#e qualit of life, control
and the impact of chronic illness. 4rthritis )are and 3esearch.
Mitchell, 7.3. (>ADC). E/pectanc models of Kob satisfaction, occupational
preference and effort. Pschological Bulletin, J>, >%B?8>%DD.
Moorman, 3.H. (>AA?). 7he influence of cogniti#e and affecti#e based Kob
satisfaction measures on the relationship bet.een satisfaction and organiLational
citiLenship beha#ior. Human 3elations, CG, DBA8DDG.
?J>
Munro, 6., 3od.ell, 9., I Harding, 6. (>AAJ). 4ssessing occupational stress
in pschiatric nurses using the full 9ob Strain Model+ 7he #alue of social support to
nurses. &nternational 9ournal of 1ursing Studies, ?B, ??A8?CB.
1araanan, 6., Menon, S., I Spector, P.E. (>AAA). Stress in the .or!place+ a
comparison of gender and occupation. 9ournal of (rganiLational Beha#ior, $%, G?8
D?.
1eher, 4. (>AA>). Maslo.@s theor of moti#ation+ 4 critique. 9ournal of
Humanistic Pscholog, ?>, JA8>>$.
1icolle, P.;. (>AAC). 7he effect of .or! dimensions and need for autonom
on nurses@ .or! satisfaction and health. 9ournal of (ccupational and (rganiLational
Pscholog, GC, $%D8$>J.
1iemann, E.0., I Do#idio, 9.0. (>AAJ). 3elationship of solo status, academic
ran!, and percei#ed distincti#eness to Kob satisfaction of racialMethnic minorities.
9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog, J?, BB8D>.
1orman, P., )ollins, S., )onner, M., Martin, 3., I 3ance, 9. (>AAB).
4ttributions, cognitions, and coping stles+ 7ele.or!ers@ reactions to .or!8related
problems. 9ournal of 4pplied Social Pscholog, $B, >>D8>$J.
(@Driscoll, M.P., I Beehr, 7.4. ($%%%). Moderating effects of percei#ed
control and need for clarit on the relationship bet.een role stressors and emploee
affecti#e reactions. 7he 9ournal of Social Pscholog, >C%, >B>8>BD.
(lsen, D. (>AA?). *or! satisfaction and stress in the first and third ear of
academics appointment. 9ournal of Higher Education, GC, CB?8CG$.
?J$
(sipo., S.H., Dot, 3.E., I Spo!ane, 4.3. (>AJB). (ccupational stress,
strain and coping across the life span. 9ournal of =ocational Beha#ior, $D, AJ8>%J.
(so.iec!i, D., I )ompas, B.E. (>AAJ). Pschological adKustment to cancer+
)ontrol beliefs and coping in adult cancer patients. )ogniti#e 7herap and
3esearch, $$, CJ?8CAA.
(so.iec!i, D.M., I )ompas, B.E. (>AAA). 4 prospecti#e stud of coping,
percei#ed control and pschological adKustment to breast cancer. )ogniti#e 7herap
and 3esearch, $?, >GA8>J%.
Parahoo, :., I Barr, (. (>AAC). 9ob satisfaction of communit nurses
.or!ing .ith people .ith a mental handicap. 9ournal of 4d#anced 1ursing, $%,
>%CG8>%BB.
Par!, ).6., 0ol!man, S., I Bostrom, 4. ($%%>). 4ppraisals of controllabilit
and coping in caregi#ers and H&=U men+ 7esting the goodness8of8fit hpothesis.
9ournal of )onsulting and )linical Pscholog, GA, CJ>8CJJ.
Par!er, S.:., I Sprigg, ).4. (>AAA). Minimising strain and ma/imising
learning+ 7he role of Kob demands, Kob control and proacti#e personalit. 9ournal of
4pplied Pscholog, JC, A$B8A?A.
Par!es, :.3. (>AJC). 6ocus of control, cogniti#e appraisal and coping in
stressful episodes. 9ournal of Personalit and Social Pscholog, CG, GBB8GGJ.
Par!es, :.3. (>AJA). Personal control in an occupational conte/t. &n 4.
Steptoe., I 4. 4ppels (Eds.), Stress, Personal )ontrol, and Health (pp. $>8CD).
)hichester+ *ile.
?J?
Par!es, :.3. (>AA%). )oping, negati#e affecti#it and the .or! en#ironment+
4dditi#e and interacti#e predictors of mental health. 9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog,
DB, ?AA8C%A.
Par!es, :.3. (>AAC). Personalit and coping as moderators of .or! stress
process+ Models, methods and measures. *or! and Stress, J, >>%8>$A.
Par!es, :.3., I #on 3abenau, ). (>AA?). *or! characteristics and .ellbeing
among pschiatric health care staff. 9ournal of )ommunit and 4pplied Social
Pscholog, ?, $C?8$G%.
Parsons, M.B. (>AAJ). 4 re#ie. of procedural acceptabilit in organiLational
beha#ior management. 9ournal of (rganiLational Beha#ior Management, >J, >D?8
>A%.
Pane, 3., I 0letcher, B.). (>AJ?). 9ob demands, supports, and constraints
as predictors of pschological strain among schoolteachers. 9ournal of =ocational
Beha#ior, $$, >?G8>CD.
Pearson, ).4.6., I )hong, 9. (>AAD). )ontribution of Kob content and social
information in organiLational commitment and Kob satisfaction+ an e/ploration in a
Malasian nursing conte/t. 9ournal of (ccupational and (rganiLational Pscholog,
D%, ?BD8
Pelfrene, E., =leric!, P., Ma!, 3.P., De Smets, P., :ornitLers, M., I De
Bac!er, ;. ($%%>). Scale reliabilit and #alidit of the :arase! X9ob Demand
)ontrol Support@ model in the Belstress stud. *or! and Stress, >B, $AD8?>?.
?JC
Perre.e, P.6., I Fellars, :.&. (>AAA). 4n e/amination of attributions and
emotions in the transactional approach to the organiLational stress process. 9ournal
of (rganiLational Beha#ior, $%, D?A8DB$.
Porter, 6.*. (>AG>). 4 stud of percei#ed need satisfaction in bottom and
middle management Kobs. 9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog, CB, >8>%.
Porter, 6.*. (>AG?). 9ob attitudes in management+ &&. Percei#ed importance
of needs as a function of Kob le#el. 9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog, CD, >C>8>CJ.
Pritchard, 3.D., I Sanders, M.S. (>AD?). 7he influence of #alence,
instrumentalit, and e/pectanc on effort and performance. 9ournal of 4pplied
Pscholog, BD, BB8G%.
Pula!os, E.D., I Schmitt, 1. (>AJ?). 4 longitudinal stud of a #alence
model approach for the prediction of Kob satisfaction of ne. emploees. 9ournal of
4pplied Pscholog, GJ, ?%D8?>$.
5uinn, 3.(., I Staines, ;.6. (>ADA). 7he >ADD 5ualit of Emploment
Sur#e+ Descripti#e statistics .ith comparison data from the >AG%8>AD% and the
>AD$8D? sur#es. "ni#ersit of Michigan+ 4nn 4rbor.
3ain, 9.S., 6ane, &.M., I Steiner, D.D. (>AA>). 4 current loo! at the Kob
satisfactionMlife satisfaction relationship+ 3e#ie. and future considerations. Human
3elations, CC, $JD8?%D.
3einharth, 6., I *ahba, 3.4. (>ADG). 4 test of alternati#e models of
e/pectanc theor. Human 3elations, $A, $BD8$D$.
?JB
3enn, 3.*., I =andenberg, 3.9. (>AAB). 7he critical pschological states+
4n underrepresented component on 9ob )haracteristics Model research. 9ournal of
Management, $>, $DA8?%?.
3ice, 3.*., Mc0arlin, D.B., I Bennett, D.,E. (>AJA). Standards of
comparison and Kob satisfaction. 9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog, DC, BA>8BAJ.
3oberts, :.H., I ;lic!, *. (>AJ>). 7he Kob characteristics approach to tas!
design+ 4 critical re#ie.. 9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog, GG, >A?8$>D.
3oberts, :.H., *alter, ;.4., I Miles, 3.E. (>AD>), 4 factor analtic stud of
Kob satisfaction items designed to measure Maslo. need categories. Personnel
Pscholog, $C, $%B8$$%.
3oberts, S.M. (>AAB). 4pplicabilit of the goodness of fit hpothesis to
coping .ith dail hassles. Pschological 3eports, DD, AC?8ABC.
3oberts, 7.B. (>AJ$). ')omments on Mathes@s article-. 9ournal of
Humanistic Pscholog, $$, AD8AJ.
3odrigueL, &., Bra#o, M.9., Peiro, 9.M., I Schaufeli, *. ($%%>). 7he
demands8control8support model, locus of control and Kob dissatisfaction+ a
longitudinal stud. *or! and Stress, >B, AD8>>C.
3othbaum, 0., *eisL, 9.3., I Snder, S.S. (>AJ$). )hanging the .orld and
changing the self+ 4 t.o process model of percei#ed control. 9ournal of Personalit
and Social Pscholog Bulletin, C$, B8?D.
3oLno.s!i, M. (>AJA). E/amination of the measurement properties of the
9ob Descripti#e &nde/ .ith e/perimental items. 9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog, DC,
J%B8J>C.
?JG
3ussell, D.*., 4ltmaier, E., I =an =elLen, D. (>AJD). 9ob8related stress,
social support, and burnout among classroom teachers. 9ournal of 4pplied
Pscholog, D$, $GA8$DC.
3an, E.M., I Deci, E.6. ($%%>). (n happiness and human potentials+ 4
re#ie. of research on hedonic and eudaimonic .ell8being. 4nnual 3e#ie. of
Pscholog, >C>8>BB.
Sa!lofs!e, D.H., I :ell, &.*. (>AAB). )oping and personalit.
Pschological 3eports, DD, CJ>8CJ$.
Salanci!, ;.3., I Pfeffer, 9. (>ADD). 4n e/amination of need satisfaction
models of Kob attitudes. 4dministrati#e Science 5uarterl, $$, C$D8CBG.
Schappe, S.P. (>AAJ). 7he influence of Kob satisfaction, organiLational
commitment, and fairness perceptions on organiLational citiLenship beha#ior. 7he
9ournal of Pscholog, >?$, $DD8$A>.
Schaubroec!, 9., I Merritt, D.E. (>AAD). Di#ergent effects of Kob control on
coping .ith .or! stressors+ 7he !e role of self8efficac. 4cadem of Management
9ournal, C%, D?J8DBC.
Scheier, M.0., *eintraub, 9.:., I )ar#er, ).S. (>AJG). )oping .ith stress+
Di#ergent strategies of optimists and pessimists. 9ournal of Personalit and Social
Pscholog, B>, >$BD8>$GC.
Schmidt, ;.6. (>ADG). 9ob satisfaction among secondar school
administrators. Educational 4dministration 5uarterl, >$, GJ8JG.
?JD
Schonfeld, &.S. ($%%%). 4n updated loo! at depressi#e smptoms and Kob
satisfaction in first ear .omen teachers. 9ournal of (ccupational and
(rganiLational Pscholog, D?, ?G?8?D>.
Sch.ab, D.P., (lian8;ottlieb, 9.D., I Heneman, H.;. (>ADA). Bet.een8
subKects e/pectanc theor research+ 4 statistical re#ie. of studies predicting effort
and performance. Pschological Bulletin, JG, >?A8>CD.
SchulL, 3., I Hec!hausen, 9. (>AAG). 4 life8span model of successful aging.
4merican Pschologist, B>, D%$8D>C.
SchulL, 3., I Hec!hausen, 9. (>AAA). 4ging, culture and control. 9ournal of
;erontolog+ Pschological Sciences, BC, >?A8>CB.
Sch.artL, 9.E., 1eale, 9., Marco, )., Shiffman, S.S., I Stone, 4.4. (>AAA).
Does trait coping help, 4 momentar assessment approach to the e#aluation of
traits. 9ournal of Personalit and Social Pscholog, DD, ?G%8?GA.
Secret, M., I ;reen, 3.;. (>AAJ). (ccupational status differences among
three groups of married mothers. 9ournal of *omen and Social *or!, >?, CD8D%.
Senate Emploment, Education and 7raining 3eferees )ommittee. (>AAJ). 4
)lass 4ct+ &nquir into the Status of the 7eaching Profession. )anberra.
Sergio#anni, 7. (>AGD). 0actors .hich affect satisfaction and dissatisfaction
of teachers. 9ournal of Educational 4dministration, B, GG8J$
Shoura, M.M., I Singh, 4. (>AAA). Moti#ation parameters for engineering
managers using Maslo.@s theor. 9ournal of Management in Engineering, >B, CC8BB.
Sil#er, P.0. (>AJD). 9ob satisfaction and dissatisfaction re#isited. Educational
and Pschological 3esearch, D, >8$%.
?JJ
Smith, ).4., (rgan, D.*., I 1ear, 9.P. (>AJ?). (rganiLational citiLenship
beha#ior+ &ts nature and antecedents. 9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog, GJ, GB?8GG?.
Smith, ).S., 7isa!, 9., Hahn, S.E., I Schmeider, 3.4. (>AAD). 7he
measurement of Kob control. 9ournal of (rganiLational Beha#ior, >J, $$B8$?D.
Smith, P.)., :endall, 6.M., I Hulin, ).6. (>AGA). 7he 9ob Descripti#e
&nde/. Bo.ling ;reen, (H+ Department of Pscholog, Bo.ling ;reen State
"ni#ersit.
Sobel, 3.S. (>AD>). 7ests of preperformance and postperformance models of
satisfaction .ith outcomes. 9ournal of Personalit and Social Pscholog, >A, $>?8
?$>.
Spector, P.E. (>AJG). Percei#ed control b emploees+ 4 meta8analsis of
studies concerning autonom and participation at .or!. Human 3elations, ?A, >%%B8
>%>D.
Spector, P.E. (>AJD). &nteracti#e effects of percei#ed control and Kob
stressors on affecti#e reaction and health outcomes for clerical .or!ers. *or! and
Stress, >, >BB8>G$.
Spector, P.E. (>AAD). 9ob Satisfaction+ 4pplications, 4ssessment, )auses and
)onsequences. 6ondon+ Sage Publications.
Spector, P.E., D.er, D.9., I 9e/, S.M. (>AJJ). 3elation of Kob stressors to
affecti#e, health and performance outcomes+ 4 comparison of multiple data sources.
9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog, D?, >>8>A.
Spector, P.E., I (P)onnell, B.9. (>AAC). 7he contribution of personalit
traits, negati#e affecti#it, locus of control and 7pe 4 to the subsequent reports of
?JA
Kob stressors and Kob strains. 9ournal of (ccupational and (rganiLational
Pscholog, GD, >8>>.
Spo!es, 4. (>AAJ). SubKecti#e qualit of life of people .ith schiLophrenia+
E/amination of percei#ed control and positi#e illusions. "npublished Honours
7hesis, Dea!in "ni#ersit, Melbourne, 4ustralia.
Sta., B.M., Bell, 1.E., I )lausen, 9.4. (>AJG). 7he dispositional approach
to Kob attitudes+ 4 lifetime longitudinal test. 4dministrati#e Science 5uarterl, ?>,
BG8DD.
Sta., B.M., I 3oss, 9. (>AJB). Stabilit in the midst of change+ 4
dispositional approach to Kob attitudes. 9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog, D%, CGA8CJ%.
Stone, 4.4., I 1eale, 9.M. (>AJC). 1e. measure of dail coping+
De#elopment and preliminar results. 9ournal of Personalit and Social Pscholog,
CG, JA$8A%G.
7abachnic!, B.;., I 0idell, 6.S. (>AAG). "sing Multi#ariate Statistics (?
rd

ed.). 1orthridge+ Harper )ollins.
7aber, 7.D., I 7alor, E. (>AA%). 4 re#ie. and e#aluation of the
pschometric properties of 9ob Diagnostic Sur#e. Personnel Pscholog, C?, CGD8
B>$.
7ait, M., Padgett, ME., I Bald.in, 7.7. (>AJA). 9ob and life satisfaction+ 4
ree#aluation of the strength of the relationship and gender effects as a function of the
date of the stud. 9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog, DC, B%$8B%D.
7eacher Stress in =ictoria+ 4 sur#e of teachers@ #ie.s+ 7he 3eport (>AA%).
=ictoria+ Ministr of Education.
?A%
7eas, 3.:. (>AJ>). 4 .ithin8subKect analsis of #alence models of Kob
preference and anticipated satisfaction. 9ournal of (ccupational Pscholog, BC,
>%A8>$C.
7err, D.9., I Hnes, ;.9. (>AAJ). 4dKustment to a lo.8control situation+
3ee/amining the role of coping responses. 9ournal of Personalit and Social
Pscholog, DC, >%DJ8>%A$.
7err, D.9., 1ielsen, M., I Perchard, 6. (>AAA). Effects of .or! stress on
pschological .ell8being and Kob satisfaction+ 7he stress8buffering role of social
support. 4ustralian 9ournal of Pscholog, CB, >GJ8>DB.
7hurstone, 6.6., I 9ones, 6.=. (>ABD). 7he rational origin for measuring
subKecti#e #alues. 9ournal of the 4merican Statistical 4ssociation, B$, CBJ8CD>.
7iegs, 3.B., 7etric! 6.E., I 0ried, E. (>AA$). ;ro.th need strength and
conte/t satisfactions as moderators of the relations of the 9ob )haracteristics Model.
9ournal of Management, >J, BDB8BA?.
7insle, H.E.4. (>AAC). 1E( Personalit &n#entor83e#ised. &n D.9.
:eser., I 3.). S.eetland (Eds.), 7est )ritiques, =ol <. (p. CC?8CBG). 7e/as+
ProEd.
7hompson, S.)., )ollins, M.4., 1e.comb, M.D., I Hunt, *. (>AAG). (n
fighting #ersus accepting stressful circumstances+ Primar and secondar control
among H&=8positi#e men in prison. 9ournal of Personalit and Social Pscholog,
D%, >?%D8>?>D.
?A>
7hompson, S.)., 1anni, )., I 6e#ine, 4. (>AAC). Primar #ersus secondar
and central #ersus consequence8related control in H&=8Positi#e men. 9ournal of
Personalit and Social Pscholog, GD, BC%8BCD.
7hompson, S.)., Sobole.8Shubin, 4., ;albraith, M.E., Sch.an!o#s!, 6., I
)ruLen, D. (>AA?). Maintaining perceptions of control+ 0inding percei#ed control in
lo.8control circumstances. 9ournal of Personalit and Social Pscholog Bulletin,
GC, $A?8?%C.
7hompson, S.)., 7homas, )., 3ic!abaugh, ).4., 7antamKari!, P., (tsu!i, 7.,
Pan, D., ;arcia, B.0., I Sinar, E. (>AAJ). Primar and secondar control o#er age8
related changes in phsical appearance. 9ournal of Personalit, GG, BJ?8G%B.
7hurber, ).4., I *eisL, 9.3. (>AAD). 'Eou can tr or ou can Kust gi#e up-+
7he impact of percei#ed control and coping stle on childhood homesic!ness.
De#elopmental Pscholog, ??, B%J8B>D.
7hurstone, 6.6., I 9ones, 6.=. (>ABD). 7he rational origin for measuring
subKecti#e #alues. 9ournal of the 4merican Statistical 4ssociation, B$, CBJ8CD>.
7o!ar, D.M., I Subich, 6.M. (>AAD). 3elati#e contributions of congruence
and personalit dimensions to Kob satisfaction. 9ournal of =ocational Beha#ior, B%,
CJ$8CA>.
"nden, 4. (>AAG). Social support at .or! and its relationship to absenteeism.
*or! and Stress, >%, CG8G>.
=alentiner, D.P., Holahan, ).9., I Moos, 3.H. (>AAC). Social support,
appraisals of e#ent controllabilit and coping+ 4n integrati#e model. 9ournal of
Personalit and Social Pscholog, GG, >%AC8>>%$.
?A$
=an Der Doef, M., I Maes, S. (>AAA). 7he Kob demand8control (8support)
model and pschological .ell8being+ a re#ie. of $% ears of empirical research.
*or! and Stress, >?, JD8>>C.
=an Eerde, *., I 7hierr, H. (>AAG). =room@s e/pectanc models and
.or!8related criteria+ 4 meta8analsis. 9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog, J>, BDB8BJG.
=italiano, P.P., De*olfe, D., Maiuro, 3.D., 3usso, 9., I :aton, *. (>AA%).
4ppraised changeabilit of a stressor as a modifier of the relationship bet.een
coping and depression+ 4 test of the hpothesis of fit. 9ournal of Personalit and
Social Pscholog, BA, BJ$8BA$.
=italiano, P.P., 3usso, 9., )arr, 9.E., Maiuro, 3.D., I Bec!er, 9. (>AJB). 7he
*as of )oping )hec!list+ 3e#ision and pschometric properties. Multi#ariate
Beha#ioral 3esearch, $%, ?8$G.
=room, =.H. (>AGC). *or! and moti#ation. 1e. Eor!+ *ile.
*ahba, M.4., I House, 3.9. (>ADG). E/pectanc theor in .or! and
moti#ation+ Some logical and methodological issues. Human 3elations, $D, >$>8>CD.
*ahba, M.4., I Brid.ell, 6.;. (>ADG). Maslo. reconsidered+ 4 re#ie. of
the research on the need hierarch theor. (rganiLational Beha#ior and Human
Performance, >B, $>$8$C%.
*all, 7.D., )legg, ).*., I 9ac!son, P.3. (>ADJ). 4n e#aluation of the 9ob
)haracteristics Model. 9ournal of (ccupational Pscholog, B>, >J?8>AG.
*all, 7.D., 9ac!son, P.3., Mullar!e, S., I Par!er, S.:. (>AAG). 7he
demands8control model of Kob strain+ 4 more specific test. 9ournal of (ccupational
and (rganiLational Pscholog, GA, >B?8>GG.
?A?
*anous, 9.P., 3eichers, 4.E., I Hud, M.9. (>AAD). (#erall Kob satisfaction+
Ho. good are single8item measures, 9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog, J$, $CD8$B$.
*arr, P., )oo!, 9., I *all, 7. (>ADA). Scales for the measurement of some
.or! attitudes and aspects of pschological .ell8being. 9ournal of (ccupational
Pscholog, B$, >$A8>CJ.
*arr, P.B. (>AA%). Decision latitude, Kob demands, and emploee .ell8being.
*or! and Stress, C, $JB8$AC.
*aters, 6.:., I *aters, ).*. (>AGA). )orrelates of Kob satisfaction and Kob
dissatisfaction among female clerical .or!ers. 9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog, B?,
?JJ8?A>.
*eiss, D.9., Da.is, 3.=., England,;.*., I 6ofquist, 6.H. (>AGD). Manual
for the Minnesota Satisfaction 5uestionnaire. Minneapolis+ &ndustrial 3elations
)entre, "ni#ersit of Minnesota.
*eiss, H.M., 1icholas, 9.P., I Daus, ).S. (>AAA). 4n e/amination of the
Koint effect of affecti#e e/perienced and Kob beliefs on Kob satisfaction and #ariations
in affecti#e e/periences o#er time. (rganiLational Beha#ior and Human Decision
Processes, DJ, >8$C.
*ernimont, P.0. (>AGG). &ntrinsic and e/trinsic factors in Kob satisfaction.
9ournal of 4pplied Pscholog, B%, C>8B%.
*hite, 3.*. (>ABA). Moti#ation reconsidered+ 7he concept of competence.
Pschological 3e#ie., GG, $AD8???.
*hitsett, D.4., I *inslo., E.:. (>AGD). 4n analsis of studies critical of
the moti#ation8hgiene theor. Personnel Pscholog, ?A>8C>C.
?AC
*ic!er, 0.*., Bro.n, ;., *iehe, 9.4., Hagen, 4.S., I 3eed, 9.6. (>AA?). (n
reconsidering Maslo.+ 4n e/amination of the Depri#ationMDomination proposition.
9ournal of 3esearch in Personalit, $D, >>J8>??.
*ic!er, 0.*., I *iehe, 9.4. (>AAA). 4n e/perimental stud of Maslo.@s
depri#ation8domination proposition. Perceptual and Motor S!ills, JJ, >?BG8>?BJ.
*ilens!, H.6. (>AG%). *or!, careers and social integration. &nternational
Social Science 9ournal, >$, BC?8BG%.
*illiams, S., I )ooper, ).6. (>AAG). (ccupational Stress &ndicator, =ersion
$. Harrogate, 1orth Eor!shire+ 34D.
*inefield, 4.H. ($%%%). Stress in academe+ Some recent research findings.
&n D.7. :enn., I 9.;. )arlson., 0.9. Mc;uigan., 9.6. Sheppard (Eds.), Stress and
Health+ 3esearch and )linical 4pplications. (pp. C?D8CCG). 4msterdam+ Har.ood
4cademic.
*itt, 6.4., 4ndre.s, M.)., I :acmar, :.M. ($%%%). 7he role of
participation in decision8ma!ing in the organisational politics8Kob satisfaction
relationship. Human 3elations, B?, ?C>8 ?B%.
*ong, :.S., I )heu!, *.H., I 3osen, S. ($%%%). 7he influence of Kob stress
and super#isor support on negati#e affects and Kob satisfaction in !indergarten
principals. 9ournal of Social Beha#ior and Personalit, >B, JB8AA.
*right, 7.4., Bennett, :.:., I Dun, 7. (>AAA). 6ife and Kob satisfaction.
Pschological 3eports, JC, >%$B8>%$J.
?AB
*r.ich, :.*., 1ienaber, 1.4., 7ierne, *.M., I *olins!, 0.D. (>AAA).
6in!ing clinical rele#ance and statistical significance in e#aluating indi#idual
changes in health8related qualit of life. Medical )are, ?D, CGA8CDJ.
?AG
1)< ADDendices
?AD
ADDendiI A% "lain &anguage Statement for StudG One
Dear SirMMadam,
M name is Elise Maher, and & am completing m Ph.D. in Pscholog at Dea!in
"ni#ersit. 4s part of m studies, & am underta!ing a research proKect under the
super#ision of Professor 3obert )ummins, a researcher in the School of Pscholog.
7his stud is in#estigating Kob satisfaction and control. 7he stud aims to pro#ide
useful information about ho. the amount of choice that an emploee has influences
Kob satisfaction. 7he results .ill pro#ide information that .ill enhance programs that
increase Kob satisfaction.
Eou are in#ited to participate in this research. &f ou agree, ou .ill be as!ed to
complete the enclosed questionnaire. 4n information ou pro#ide .ill be
anonmous and confidential. (nl group results .ill be reported and no indi#iduals
.ill be identified. "pon completion of the stud, data .ill be secured in a loc!ed
cabinet in the School of Pscholog, Dea!in "ni#ersit, for a minimum period of si/
ears from the date of publication.
7he questionnaire should ta!e around ?% minutes to complete and our participation
.ould be greatl appreciated. E/amples of questions are+ TM .or! is boringT, T&n
m Kob, & can choose the amount & earnT, T& am not a .orrierT and THo. satisfied are
ou .ith our close relationships .ith famil or friendsT. Eou are free to .ithdra.
at an time during the stud in .hich e#ent our participation in the research stud
.ill immediatel cease and an information obtained .ill not be used. Eou are free
to refuse to ans.er an questions.
0ollo.ing the completion of the stud, & .ill pro#ide our emploer .ith a summar
of the results. &f ou .ould li!e a cop of the summar sent directl to ou, please
contact Elise Maher.
&f ou ha#e an further questions regarding the stud, please contact+
Elise 7aher on -*2$ <$2/ or Email: ecmaherQdeakin)edu)au
(r ou can contact Professor 3obert )ummins on A$CC8GJCB or Email+
robert.cumminsYdea!in.edu.au.
'f Gou are haDDG to be involved in this studG@ Dlease comDlete the enclosed
Nuestionnaire and return it in the reDlG%Daid enveloDe suDDlied 8i)e)@ ,O
SA7" ,EEDED;)
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Should ou ha#e an concerns about the conduct of this research proKect, please contact the
Secretar, Dea!in "ni#ersit Ethics )ommittee, 3esearch Ser#ices, Dea!in "ni#ersit, $$>
Bur.ood High.a, B"3*((D, =&), ?>$B, 7el (%?) A$B> D>$?
?AJ
ADDendiI 4% =ob AutonomG Scale used in StudG One 8#evision of 5anster@
$-.-@ cited in DwGer E 5anster@ $--$;
&ndicate our agreement .ith the follo.ing >? statements b tic!ing () a number
ranging from > to >%, .here >N Do not agree at all, and >%N 4gree completel. 4ll
of the statements begin .ith '&n m Kob, & can choose2.-
'n mG Kob@ ' can choose:
$; 'n mG Kob@ ' can choose among a varietG of tasks or DroKects to do)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
*; 'n mG Kob@ ' can choose the order in which ' do mG work)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
/; 'n mG Kob@ ' can choose how NuicklG ' work)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
1; 'n mG Kob@ ' can choose how ' schedule mG rest breaks)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
2; 'n mG Kob@ ' can choose the DhGsical conditions of mG workstation)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
0; 'n mG Kob@ ' can choose when ' interact with others)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
<; 'n mG Kob@ ' can choose the amount ' earn)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
.; 'n mG Kob@ ' can choose the number of times ' am interruDted at work)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
?AA
-; 'n mG Kob@ ' can choose how mG work is evaluated)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
$:; 'n mG Kob@ ' can choose the NualitG of mG work)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
$$; 'n mG Kob@ ' can choose the Dolicies and Drocedures in mG work unit)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
$*; 'n mG Kob@ ' can choose among a varietG of methods to comDlete mG work)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
$/; 'n mG Kob@ ' can choose how much work ' get done)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
$1; 'n general@ how much are Gou able to influence work and work%related
matters?
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
=er 6ittle =er Much
C%%
ADDendiI C% "rimarG and SecondarG Control Scale used in StudG One
8#evision of !eeDs et al)@ *:::;
&ndicate our agreement .ith the follo.ing statements b selecting a number ranging
from > to >%, .here >NDo not agree at all, and >%N 4gree )ompletel
$; When a goal that ' have at work is difficult to reach@ ' think about different waGs to
achieve it)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
*; When ' want something at work to change@ ' think ' can make it haDDen)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
/; When a work task reallG matter to me@ ' think about it a lot)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
1; When ' reallG want to reach a goal at work@ ' believe ' can achieve it)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
2; When faced with a difficult work situation@ ' believe ' can overcome it)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
C%>
&ndicate our agreement .ith the follo.ing statements b selecting a number ranging
from > to >% .here >NDo not agree at all, and >%N4gree completel. 4ll the
statements begin .ith '?hen somethin$ bad happens that : cannot chan$eF>
*hen something bad happens at .or! that & cannot change+
When something bad haDDens at work that ' cannot change
$; ' can see that something good will come of it)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
*; ' remember Gou canBt alwaGs get what Gou want)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
/; ' know things will work out O> in the end)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
1; ' remember ' am better off than manG other DeoDle)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
2; ' remember ' have alreadG accomDlished a lot in life)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
0; ' remember the success of mG familG or friends)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
<; ' think nice thoughts to take mG mind off it)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
C%$
.; ' remind mGself the situation will change if ' am Kust Datient)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
-; ' tell mGself it doesnBt matter)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
$:; ' think about mG success in other areas)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
$$; ' donBt feel disaDDointed because ' knew it might haDDen)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
$*; ' can see it was not mG fault)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
$/; ' ignore it bG thinking about other things)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
$1; ' realise ' didnBt need to control it anGwaG)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
C%?
ADDendiI D% =ob Satisfaction Scale used in StudG One 8#evision of #oHnowski@
$-.-;
&ndicate our agreement .ith the follo.ing >B statements b tic!ing () a number
ranging from > to >%, .here >N Do not agree at all, and >%N 4gree completel.
$; 7G work is boring)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
*; 7G co%workers are stuDid)

% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
/; 7G DaG is bad)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
1; 7G suDervisors know how to suDervise)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
2; here is a good chance for Dromotion in mG Kob)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
0; 7G co%workers are resDonsible)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
<; ' am well%Daid)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
.; 7G work is dull)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
C%C
-; here is a fairlG good chance for Dromotion in mG Kob)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
$:; 7G suDervisors are bad)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
$$; 7G work is interesting)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
$*; 7G DaG is unfair)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
$/; 7G suDervisors are annoGing)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
$1; 7G co%workers are a waste of time)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
$2; here are good oDDortunities for advancement in mG Kob)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
C%B
ADDendiI E% &ife Satisfaction Scale used in StudG One 8Cummins@ $--<;
"lease tick (; the boI that best describes how SA'S3'ED Gou are with each
area) Do not spend too much time on an one question. 7here are no right or .rong
ans.ers.
$; !ow Satisfied are Gou with the !',5S +OU OW, ?
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
)ompletel
dissatisfied
)ompletel
satisfied
*; !ow Satisfied are Gou with Gour !EA&!?
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
)ompletel
dissatisfied
)ompletel
satisfied
/; !ow Satisfied are Gou with what Gou AC!'E(E ', &'3E ?
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
)ompletel
dissatisfied
)ompletel
satisfied
1; !ow Satisfied are Gou with Gour C&OSE #E&A'O,S!'"S with 3A7'&+
or 3#'E,DS ?
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
)ompletel
dissatisfied
)ompletel
satisfied
2; !ow Satisfied are Gou with !OW SA3E +OU 3EE& ?
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
)ompletel
dissatisfied
)ompletel
satisfied
0; !ow Satisfied are Gou with feeling Dart of Gour CO77U,'+?
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
)ompletel
dissatisfied
)ompletel
satisfied
<; !ow Satisfied are Gou with +OU# OW, !A""',ESS ?
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
)ompletel
dissatisfied
)ompletel
satisfied
C%G
ADDendiI 3% "ersonalitG Scale used in StudG One 8Costa E 7cCrae@ $--*;
7his questionnaire contains $C statements. 3ead each statement carefull. 0or each
statement tic! () the bo/ .ith the response that best represents our opinion.
$; ' am not a worrier)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
*; ' like to have a lot of DeoDle around me)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
/; ' often feel inferior to others.
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
1; ' laugh easilG)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
2; When 'Sm under a great deal of stress@ sometimes ' feel like 'Sm going to
Dieces)

% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
0; ' donSt consider mGself esDeciallG light hearted)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
<; ' rarelG feel lonelG or blue)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
.; ' reallG enKoG talking to DeoDle)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
C%D
-; ' often feel tense and KitterG)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
$:; ' like to be where the action is)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
$$; Sometimes ' feel comDletelG worthless)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
$*; ' usuallG Drefer to do things alone)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
$/; ' rarelG feel fearful or anIious)

% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
$1; ' often feel as if ' am bursting with energG)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
$0; ' often get angrG at the waG DeoDle treat me)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
$0; ' am a cheerful@ high%sDirited Derson)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
$<; oo often@ when things go wrong@ ' get discouraged and feel like giving uD)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
$.; ' am not a cheerful oDtimist)
C%J
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
$-; ' am seldom sad or deDressed)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
*:; 7G life is fast%Daced)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
*$; ' often feel helDless and want someone else to solve mG Droblems)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
**; ' am a verG active Derson)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
*/; At times ' have been so ashamed ' Kust want to hide)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
*1; ' would rather go mG own waG than be a leader of others)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
)ompletel
C%A
ADDendiI 5%&evels of =ob Satisfaction reDorted bG various occuDational grouDs
1o 4uthor (ccupation Scale 1 9ob
Satisfaction
(SSM)
> 6eung et al.,
($%%%)
4cademics 9ob Satisfaction
Scale ((S&8$H
*illiams I
)ooper, >AAG)
>%G BD.G
$ 9udge et al.,
(>AAJ)
Phsicians Brafield I 3othe
(>AB>)
>GC D$.GD
? 9udge et al.,
($%%%)
;eneral Brafield I 3othe
(>AB>)
?JC
>%D
GA.G,
DG.B?
C 3enn I
=andenberg
(>AAB)
Management,
counseling,
administration
9ob Diagnostic
Sur#e (Hac!man
I (ldham, >ADB)
>JJ GC.J
B Hac!man I
(ldham
(>ADB)
;eneral 9ob Diagnostic
Sur#e (Hac!man
I (ldham, >ADB)
GBJ G%.?
G Dollard et al.,
($%%%)
Public sector
.elfare
.or!ers
;lobal measure DJG GC
D *all,
9ac!son,
Mullar!e I
Par!er (>AAG)
Manufacturing
emploees
*arr, )oo! I *all
(>ADA) intrinsic
satisfaction
>CB> B>.??
J (@Driscoll I
Beehr ($%%%)
4ccounting
firms
0acet measure (>$
facets)
$?G GJ
A 0letcher I
9ones (>AA?)
Manual and
non8manual
.or!ers
;lobal measure B%>
(manual)
DJJ (non8
manual)
G%
BJ
>% 0o/ et al.,
>AA?
1urses 0aces scale (:unin,
>ABB)
>?G DG.??
>> Mannheim,
Baruch I 7al
(>AAD)
Managerial
personnel
9ob Diagnostic
Sur#e (Hac!man
I (ldham, >ADB)
?A D%
>$ Beutell I
*ittig8
Berman
(>AAA)
MB4 students ;lobal measure (C
items)
>DD B$.B
>? 4gho, Price
I Mueller
(>AA$)
Emploees of
medical centre
Brafield I 3othe
(>AB>)
BB% G$.%C
>C 0isher ($%%%) ;eneral 0aces scale (:unin, >$C JD.%
C>%
>ABB)
>B
Ho.ard I
0rin! (>AAG)
Managers,
administrators
police,
firefighters,
labourers
9ob Diagnostic
Sur#e (Hac!man
I (ldham, >ADB)
$CJ GB.J?
>G 9ansen,
:er!stra,
4bud8Saad I
=an der Fee
(>AAG)
1urses 0acet measure
(4lgera, >AJ%)
?BB
nurses, A$
nurse
au/iliaries
G?.DB
(nurses) I
GJ.% (nurse
au/iliaries)
>D 6aschinger et
al., ($%%>)
1urses 9ob Diagnostic
Sur#e (Hac!man
I (ldham, >ADB)
G%% CC.DB
>J Schonfeld
($%%%)
;raduate
teachers
5uinnes I Staines
(>ADA)8;lobal
>JC J%
>A 0inla,
Martin,
3omas I
Blum (>AAB)
4dministrators Hoppoc! (>A?B) >GA DJ.B
$% Ma I
Macmillan
(>AAA)
7eachers ;lobal items (C) $,$%$ J%.$B
$> ;eer I
Dal (>AAJ)
Pri#ate sector
organisation
;lobal items (?) >DC BD
$$ Schappe
(>AAJ)
&nsurance
compan
.or!ers
Minnesota
Satisfaction
5uestionnaire
(*eiss et al., >AGD)
>B% D>.B%
$? Parsons
(>AAJ)
1urses Brafield I 3othe
(>AB>)
CD D>.?G
$C Pearson I
)hong (>AAD)
1urses 9ob Diagnostic
Sur#e (Hac!man
I (ldham, >ADB)
$JG GJ.JJ
$B Miles, Patric!
I :ing
(>AAG)
Manufacturing
emploees
9ob perception
scale (Hatfield,
3obinson I
Huseman, >AJB)
D>? BD.B
$G *itt,
4ndre.s I
:acmar
($%%%)
Public sector
organisation
Hoppoc! (>A?B) >$B> G?.DB
$D Bogg I
)opper
(>AAB)
)i#il ser#ants,
e/ecuti#es
(S& ()ooper, Sloan
I *illiams, >AJJ)
>%B>
>%BG
BB.G
G$.%
C>>
$J *eiss,
1icholas I
Daus (>AAA)
Managers 0aces Scale (:unin,
>ABB), and global
scale
$C J$
$A Moorman
(>AA?)
Manufacturers Brafield I 3othe
(>AB>)
G$.$B
D>
?% Parahoo I
Barr (>AAC)
1urses ;lobal measure (>
item)
?B DB
?> Spector,
D.er I 9e/
(>AJJ)
Secretaries Michigan
(rgniLational
4ssessment
()ammann,
0ichman, 9en!ins I
:lesh, >ADA)
>BB DJ
?$ Spector I
(@)onnell
(>AAC)
"ni#ersit
;raduates
Michigan
(rgniLational
4ssessment
()ammann et al.,
>ADA)
GG.GG
?? *ong et al.,
($%%%)
:indergarten
principles
;lobal item >%J BC
?C :lec!er I
6oadman
(>AAA)
7eachers 1ational follo.8up
sur#e of teachers
education
graduates8 D facets
>JDC GJ.>G
?B Marriott I
Se/ton
(>AAC)
Social .or!ers ;lobal measure8 >
item
>JJ GG.A
?G 0rone,
3ussell I
)ooper
(>AAC)
3andom ;lobal Scale
(:andel, Da#ies I
3a#eis, >AJB)
G?> D?.??
ME41
(1N C>)
GG.DB
C>$
ADDendiI !% "rimarG and SecondarG Control Scale for StudG wo 87aher et
al)@ *::$;
he following items assess the difficulties that Gou have at work)
Please tic! ( ) the areas in .hich ou e/perience difficulties in our .or!.
7ime management (ma!ing time to do e#erthing)
Moti#ation
&nterpersonal relationships (colleagues, or super#isors)
1ature of the *or!
Promotions
Pa
(ther
b; !ow often do Gou have difficultG doing something at work? (ie., thin! of the
e/amples gi#en abo#e, or other difficulties ou ma ha#e had at .or!)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1e#er 4ll the time
C>?
!ere are waGs DeoDle deal with difficult situations at work)
!ow often have Gou had these thoughts when facing a difficultG at work O(E#
!E "AS WEE>?
& thought222
$; 't will work out okaG in the end.
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1e#er E#er time
*; ' knew it would haDDen)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1e#er E#er time
/; ' canSt alwaGs get what ' want)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1e#er E#er time
1; 't doesnBt matter)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1e#er E#er time
2; ' am better off than manG other DeoDle)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1e#er E#er time
0; 't was not mG fault)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1e#er E#er time
C>C
!ere are other waGs DeoDle deal with difficult situations at work)
!ow often have Gou done these things when facing a difficultG at work
O(E# !E "AS WEE>?
<; ' looked for different waGs to overcome it)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1e#er E#er time
.; ' keDt trGing)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1e#er E#er time
-; ' told someone about it)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1e#er E#er time
$:; ' worked to overcome it)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1e#er E#er time
$$; ' thought of the success of mG familG or friends)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1e#er E#er time
$*; ' thought about mG success in other areas)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1e#er E#er time
$/; ' did something different@ like going for a walk)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1e#er E#er time
$1; ' ignored it)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1e#er E#er time
$2; ' worked out how to remove obstacles)
C>B
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1e#er E#er time
$0; ' looked for something else that was Dositive in the situation)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1e#er E#er time
C>G
ADDendiI '% "lain &anguage Statement for StudG wo
Dear SirMMadam,
M name is Elise Maher, and & am completing m Ph.D. in Pscholog at Dea!in
"ni#ersit. 4s part of m studies, & am underta!ing a research proKect under the
super#ision of Professor 3obert )ummins, a researcher in the School of Pscholog.
7his stud is in#estigating Kob satisfaction and control. 7he stud aims to pro#ide
useful information about ho. the amount of choice that an emploee has influences
Kob satisfaction. 7he results .ill pro#ide information that .ill enhance programs that
Eou are in#ited to participate in this research. &f ou agree, ou .ill be as!ed to
complete the enclosed questionnaire. 4n information ou pro#ide .ill be
7he questionnaire should ta!e around ?% minutes to complete and our participation
.ould be greatl appreciated. E/amples of questions are+ T& am satisfied .ith the
praise & get for doing a good KobT, THo. much can ou choose the amount that ou
earnT, T& am not a .orrierT, THo. satisfied are ou .ith our close relationships .ith
famil or friendsT, and '*hich management stle do ou prefer-. Eou are free to
.ithdra. at an time during the stud in .hich e#ent our participation in the
research stud .ill immediatel cease and an information obtained .ill not be used.
Eou are free to refuse to ans.er an questions.
0ollo.ing the completion of the stud, & .ill pro#ide our emploer .ith a summar
of the best coping strategies. &f ou .ould li!e a cop of the summar sent directl
to ou, please contact Elise Maher. &f ou ha#e an further questions regarding the
stud, please contact+ Elise 7aher on -*2$ <$2/ or Email:
elisemQdeakin)edu)au@ or ou can contact Professor 3obert )ummins on A$CC8
GJCB or Email+ cumminsYdea!in.edu.au
&f ou are happ to be in#ol#ed in this stud, please complete the enclosed
questionnaire and return it in the repl8paid en#elope supplied (i.e., 1( S74MP
1EEDED).
hank Gou verG much for Gour time)
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Should ou ha#e an concerns about the conduct of this research proKect, please contact the Secretar,
Dea!in "ni#ersit Ethics )ommittee, 3esearch Ser#ices, Dea!in "ni#ersit, $$> Bur.ood High.a,
B"3*((D, =&), ?>$B, 7el (%?) A$B> D>$?
ADDendiI =% =ob AutonomG Scale for StudG wo 8!ackman E Oldham@ $-<2;
C>D
7he follo.ing ? items assess ho. much freedom ou ha#e at our .or!. 0or each
item, please tic! () a number ranging from > to >%, .here >N Do not agree at all,
and >%N 4gree completel.
$; 'n mG Kob@ ' can decide on mG own how to go about doing mG work)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
completel
*; 'n mG Kob@ ' have the chance to use mG Dersonal initiative and Kudgement in
carrGing out the work)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
completel
/; 'n mG Kob@ ' have considerable oDDortunitG for indeDendence and freedom)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
completel
C>J
ADDendiI >% ,eed for AutonomG Scale for StudG wo 8de #iKk et al)@ $--.;
7he follo.ing C items assess ho. important it is for ou to do certain things at .or!.
Please tic! a bo/ ranging from >N1ot important at all to >%N)ould not be more
important.
$; !ow imDortant is it for Gou to set the Dace of Gour tasks at work?
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1ot
important
at all
)ould not
be more
important
*; !ow imDortant is it for Gou to have control over what Gou do at work and the
waG that Gou do it?

% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1ot
important
at all
)ould not
be more
important
/; !ow imDortant is it for Gou to do Gour own Dlanning at work?
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1ot
important
at all
)ould not
be more
important
1; !ow imDortant is it for Gou to give orders at work instead of receiving them?
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1ot
important
at all
)ould not
be more
important
C>A
ADDendiI &% =ob Satisfaction Scale for StudG wo 8Weiss et al)@ $-0<;
Please indicate ho. satisfied ou are .ith the follo.ing aspects of our .or!.
Please tic! a bo/ ranging from (>) =er dissatisfied to (>%) =er satisfied.
(n m present Kob, this is ho. & feel about2..
$; 4eing able to keeD busG all the time)

% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
=er
dissatisfied
=er
satisfied
*; he chance to work alone on the Kob.
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
=er
dissatisfied
=er
satisfied
/; he chance to do different things from time to time)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
=er
dissatisfied
=er
satisfied
1; he chance to be OsomebodGT in the communitG)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
=er
dissatisfied
=er
satisfied
2; he waG mG boss handles his6her work)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
=er
dissatisfied
=er
satisfied
0; he comDetence of mG suDervisor in making decisions)

% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
=er
dissatisfied
=er
satisfied
<; 4eing able to do things that donBt go against mG conscience)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
=er
dissatisfied
=er
satisfied
C$%
.; he waG mG Kob Drovides for steadG emDloGment)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
=er
dissatisfied
=er
satisfied
-; he chance to do things for other DeoDle)

% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
=er
dissatisfied
=er
satisfied
$:; he chance to tell DeoDle what to do)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
=er
dissatisfied
=er
satisfied
$$; he chance to do something that makes use of mG abilities)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
=er
dissatisfied
=er
satisfied
$*; he waG comDanG Dolitics are Dut into Dractice)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
=er
dissatisfied
=er
satisfied
$/; 7G DaG and the amount of work ' do)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
=er
dissatisfied
=er
satisfied
$1; he chances for advancement on mG Kob)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
=er
dissatisfied
=er
satisfied
$2; he freedom to use mG own Kudgement)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
=er
dissatisfied
=er
satisfied
$0; he chance to trG mG own methods of doing the Kob)

% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
=er
dissatisfied
=er
satisfied
C$>
$<; he working conditions)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
=er
dissatisfied
=er
satisfied
$.; he waG mG co%workers get along with each other)

% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
=er
dissatisfied
=er
satisfied
$-; he Draise ' get for doing a good Kob)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
=er
dissatisfied
=er
satisfied
*:; he feeling of accomDlishment ' get from the Kob)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
=er
dissatisfied
=er
satisfied
C$$
ADDendiI 7% Social SuDDort Scale for StudG wo 8#evision of >arasek E
heorell@ $--:;
7he follo.ing J questions as! about our super#isor and our co8.or!ers. Please
circle a number >N 1ot true at all to >%N )ould not be more true.
$; 7G suDervisor shows concern for me)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1ot true at
all
)ould not
be more true
*; 7G suDervisor DaGs attention to me)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1ot true at
all
)ould not
be more true
/; 7G suDervisor is helDful getting work done)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1ot true at
all
)ould not
be more true
1; 7G suDervisor creates a good teamwork environment for me)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1ot true at
all
)ould not
be more true
2; 7G co%workers are friendlG to me)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1ot true at
all
)ould not
be more true
0; 7G co%workers are helDful to me)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1ot true at
all
)ould not
be more true
<; 7G co%workers are DersonallG interested in me)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1ot true at
all
)ould not
be more true
.; 7G co%workers are comDetent)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
1ot true at
all
)ould not
be more true
C$?
ADDendiI ,%"lain &anguage Statement used in StudG hree
Dear SirMMadam,
M name is Elise Maher, and & am completing m Ph.D. in Pscholog at
Dea!in "ni#ersit. 4s part of m studies, & am underta!ing a research proKect under
the super#ision of Professor 3obert )ummins, a researcher in the School of
Pscholog. 7his stud is in#estigating Kob satisfaction and coping. 7he stud aims
to pro#ide useful information about the best tpe of coping strategies that .or!ers
should use. 7he results .ill pro#ide information that .ill enhance programs that
Eou are in#ited to participate in this research. &f ou agree, ou .ill be as!ed
to complete the enclosed questionnaire. 4n information ou pro#ide .ill be
7he questionnaire should ta!e around $% minutes to complete and our
participation .ould be greatl appreciated. E/amples of questions are+ T& can decide
on m o.n about ho. to go about doing m .or!T, TEour co8.or!ers reall care
about ouT, T*hat tpe of difficulties do ou face at .or!,T and THo. satisfied are
ou .ith our close relationships .ith famil or friends.T Eou are free to .ithdra.
up until ou ha#e returned the sur#e, in .hich e#ent our participation in the
research stud .ill immediatel cease and an information obtained .ill not be used.
Eou are free to refuse to ans.er an questions.
0ollo.ing the completion of the stud, & am happ to pro#ide ou a summar
of the best coping strategies. &f ou .ould li!e a cop of the summar or if ou ha#e
an further questions regarding the stud, please contact+
Elise 7aher on 8:/; -*2$ <$2/ or Email: ecmaherQdeakin)edu)au@ or
Professor 3obert )ummins on (%?) A$CC8GJCB or Email+ cumminsYdea!in.edu.au.
:f !o0 are happ! to be involved in this st0d!+ please complete the enclosed
F0estionnaire and ret0rn it in the repl!1paid envelope s0pplied 'i.e.+ N. ST"$P
NEEDED-.
7han! ou #er much for our time.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Should ou ha#e an concerns about the conduct of this research proKect, please contact the Secretar,
Dea!in "ni#ersit Ethics )ommittee, 3esearch Ser#ices, Dea!in "ni#ersit, $$> Bur.ood High.a,
B"3*((D, =&), ?>$B, 7el (%?) A$B> D>$?
C$C
ADDendiI O% "rimarG and SecondarG Control Scale for StudG hree 87aher E
Cummins@ *::*;
People ma e/perience se#eral !inds of difficulties in their .or!. 7he can control
some of them, but not others.
3or e6ample+ ?orBer G#'+ a teacher+ can control diffic1lties involvin$ st1dents+
parents and time mana$ement. The! cannot ho&ever control diffic1lties involvin$
school policies and &orB times.
#nother e6ample+ ?orBer GD' a s1permarBet operator+ can control diffic1lties
involvin$ c1stomers and co2&orBers. The! cannot control diffic1lties involvin$ pa!+
promotion and holida! leave.
$; ick the difficulties Gou eIDerience at work that Gou CA, CO,#O&)
Difficulties .ith S1pervisor(s-
Difficulties .ith Promotion
Difficulties .ith 0o2&orBer(s-
Difficulties .ith Time %ana$ement
Difficulties .ith 7ind of &orB !o1 do
Difficulties .ith %otivation
Difficulties .ith Pa!
Difficulties .ith ?orB Times
Difficulties .ith ?orB2place r1les
Difficulties .ith #mo1nt of ?orB
(ther222222222222222222222222222
*; Consider the difficultG that Gou eIDerience 7OS O3E,@ and which Gou
CA, CO,#O&)
!ow often do Gou eIDerience this difficultG?
> $ ? C
3arel Sometimes (ften 4l.as
C$B
/; When Gou face this difficultG that Gou CA, CO,#O&@ how often do Gou
do the following?

a; Discuss solutions with the DeoDle involved
% > $ ? C
1e#er 3arel Sometimes (ften 4l.as
b; hink that the difficultG doesnBt matter
% > $ ? C
c; hink that this difficultG will work out okaG in the end
% > $ ? C
d; Choose a solution and act on it

% > $ ? C

e; hink that ' knew this difficultG would haDDen

% > $ ? C

f; hink that ' canBt alwaGs get what ' want

% > $ ? C

g; Work harder
% > $ ? C
h; hink that ' am better off than manG other DeoDle

% > $ ? C

i; hink that this difficultG is not mG fault
% > $ ? C

K; >eeD trGing
C$G
% > $ ? C

k; ell someone about this difficultG to make me feel better

% > $ ? C
l; hink of the success of mG familG6friends
% > $ ? C

m; hink about mG success in other areas
% > $ ? C

n; Do something different@ like going for a walk

% > $ ? C

o; 'gnore this difficultG

% > $ ? C

D; &ook for something else that is Dositive in the situation

% > $ ? C
N; Other UUUUUUUUUU))8Dlease sDecifG;
% > $ ? C
C$D
he following Nuestions eIamine difficulties that Gou CA,,O CO,#O&
1; ick the difficulties Gou eIDerience at work that Gou CA,,O CO,#O&)
Difficulties .ith S1pervisor(s-
Difficulties .ith Promotion
Difficulties .ith 0o2&orBer(s-
Difficulties .ith Time %ana$ement
Difficulties .ith 7ind of &orB !o1 do
Difficulties .ith %otivation
Difficulties .ith Pa!
Difficulties .ith ?orB Times
Difficulties .ith ?orB2place r1les
Difficulties .ith #mo1nt of ?orB
(ther222222222222222222222222222
2; Consider the difficultG that Gou eIDerience 7OS O3E,@ and which Gou
CA,,O CO,#O&) !ow often do Gou eIDerience this difficultG?

> $ ? C
3arel Sometimes (ften 4l.as
0; When Gou face this difficultG that Gou CA,,O CO,#O&@ how often do
Gou do the following?
a; Discuss solutions with the DeoDle involved

% > $ ? C

b; hink that the difficultG doesnBt matter
% > $ ? C
c; hink that this difficultG will work out okaG in the end
% > $ ? C
d; Choose a solution and act on it
C$J
% > $ ? C

e; hink that ' knew this difficultG would haDDen
% > $ ? C

f; hink that ' canBt alwaGs get what ' want
% > $ ? C

g; Work harder
% > $ ? C
h; hink that ' am better off than manG other DeoDle
% > $ ? C

i; hink that this difficultG is not mG fault

% > $ ? C

K; >eeD trGing
% > $ ? C

k; ell someone about this difficultG to make me feel better

% > $ ? C
l; hink of the success of mG familG6friends

% > $ ? C

m; hink about mG success in other areas

% > $ ? C

n; Do something different@ like going for a walk

% > $ ? C
C$A

o; 'gnore this difficultG

% > $ ? C

D; &ook for something else that is Dositive in the situation
% > $ ? C
N; Other UUUUUU8Dlease sDecifG;
% > $ ? C
C?%
ADDendiI "% &ife Satisfaction Scale for StudG / 8Cummins et al)@ *::$;
$; !ow satisfied are Gou with Gour standard of living?
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
)ompletel
dissatisfied
)ompletel
satisfied
*; !ow satisfied are Gou with Gour health?
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
)ompletel
dissatisfied
)ompletel
satisfied
/; !ow satisfied are Gou with what Gou achieve in life?
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
)ompletel
dissatisfied
)ompletel
satisfied
1; !ow satisfied are Gou with Gour Dersonal relationshiDs?
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
)ompletel
dissatisfied
)ompletel
satisfied
2; !ow satisfied are Gou with how safe Gou feel?
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
)ompletel
dissatisfied
)ompletel
satisfied
0; !ow satisfied are Gou with feeling Dart of Gour communitG?
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
)ompletel
dissatisfied
)ompletel
satisfied
<; !ow satisfied are Gou with Gour future securitG?
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
)ompletel
dissatisfied
)ompletel
satisfied
C?>
ADDendiI A% Social SuDDort Scale for StudG / 8Ducharme E 7artin@ *:::;
7he follo.ing G questions as! about our co8.or!ers. Please circle a number
ranging from % to >%, .here %N Do not agree at all and >%N 4gree completel.
$; 7G co%workers reallG care about me)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
completel
*; ' feel close to mG co%workers)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
completel
/; 7G co%workers take a Dersonal interest in me)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
completel
1; 7G co%workers assist with unusual work Droblems)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
completel
2; 7G co%workers are helDful in getting the Kob done)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
completel
0; 7G co%workers give useful advice on Kob Droblems)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
completel
C?$
7he follo.ing G questions as! about our super#isor(s). 0or each item, please circle
a number ranging from % to >%, .here %N Do not agree at all, and >%N 4gree
completel
$; 7G suDervisor reallG cares about me)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
completel
*; ' feel close to mG suDervisor)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
completel
/; 7G suDervisor takes a Dersonal interest in me)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
completel
1; 7G suDervisor assists with unusual work Droblems)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
completel
2; 7G suDervisor is helDful in getting the Kob done)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
completel
0; 7G suDervisor gives useful advice on Kob Droblems)
% > $ ? C B G D J A >%
Do not
agree at all
4gree
completel
C??

Thesis Maher e 2

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Thesis Maher e 2

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Overcoming Controllable and Uncontrollable Work

Difficulties: Change Environment or Self?

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi