The Effect of Emotional Stabil PDF

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning

300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
THE EFFECT OF EM OTIONAL S T A B IL IT Y ON JOB SATISFACTION:
A M ETA-AN ALYSIS
by
Crissie Marie Frye
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillm ent o f the

requirements for the Doctor o f Philosophy
degree in Business Administration
in the Graduate College o f
The University o f Iowa
December 2000
Thesis supervisor: Professor Frank L. Schmidt
UMI Number. 9996092
__ ®
UMI
UMI Microform 9996092
Copyright 2001 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Graduate College
The University o f Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
PH.D. THESIS
This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesis o f
Crissie Marie Frye
has been approved by the Examining Committee for the

thesis requirement for the Doctor o f Philosophy degree in
Business Administration at the December 2000 graduation.
Thesis committee:
Thesis supervisor
Member
(t .
Member
Member
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I thank God from whom all blessings flow. To my parents
Clara V. Usher and the late John W. Usher who taught me the importance and value o f
learning. Thanks mom and dad for teaching me at an early age that knowledge can never
be taken away from you. To "“my girls” K elli Marie and Shannon Renee. You have been
understanding, helpful, responsible and independent far beyond your years. Thanks for
the comic relief you provided with your creative songs, skits, drawings and "“top ten lists"
to ensure that I had those much needed “ mental health breaks” . Thanks also to my fam ily
and other “ kinfolks” especially my brothers and sisters in the KPMG PhD Project; your
spiritual support throughout this process was invaluable.
Many thanks also to my committee members, Drs. Rebecca Bennett, Terry Boles.
Michael Mount and James L. Price who provided me with invaluable and timely
feedback. I w ill be eternally grateful to my Committee Chair, Dr. Frank L. Schmidt for
having confidence in me and guiding me through many obstacles with patience and
understanding.
Last but not certainly not least, thanks to my guardian angels. Ms. Gay Mikelson
and Mrs. Shirley Lively. Your technical expertise and support helped tremendously in
completing this (and other!) research.
May God continue to bless and keep each o f you!
ii
ABSTRACT
Research using dispositional approaches to investigate the personality-job
satisfaction relationship typically examine the correlation between a single trait and job
satisfaction; self- esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus o f control and emotional
stability have been studied most frequently. Measures o f these traits have been found to
correlate positively with job satisfaction, however, no causal relationships have been
reported nor has the latent construct that underlies these measures been clearly identified.
In the present research, emotional stability, Factor IV o f the Big Five personality
dimensions, is posited to be the construct that underlies these four trait measures. More
importantly, emotional stability is the construct posited to have both direct and indirect
(mediated through perceived job characteristics) causal effects on job satisfaction.
A psychometric meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the tme correlation
among measures o f self-esteem, generalized self-efficacv, locus o f control and emotional
stability and between the four personality constructs, perceived job characteristics and
self-reports o f job satisfaction. Forty-five separate meta-analyses were conducted.
Sample weighted mean observed correlations were corrected for sampling error and
specific factor measurement error using generalizability theory reliability estimates. A
meta-analytically derived matrix o f the intercorrelations between traits, perceived job
characteristics and job satisfaction was constructed and factor analyzed. Confirmatory
factor analyses showed that measures o f self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus o f
iii
control, and emotional stability loaded on one factor which suggests that they are
indicators o f a single latent personality construct. Personality theory dating back to 1935
is used to argue that emotional stability is the latent construct that underlies the four trait
measures.
Path analysis and structural equations modeiing were applied to the meta-analyiic
data to assess the fit o f a causal model depicting both direct and indirect relationships
between emotional stability and job satisfaction. Contrary to previous research, the
result . this study shows that emotional stability has both direct and indirect causal
effects on job satisfaction with the indirect effect being slightly higher than the direct
effect. The implications o f these findings for human resource programs, organizational
change initiatives and organizational development interventions are discussed.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 14
Approaches to studying job satisfaction 15

The evolution o f the dispositional approach to the study
o f job satisfaction IS
Weitz(1952) 19
Pulakos & Schmitt (1983) 20
Staw & Ross (1985) 22
Staw, Bell & Clausen (1986) 24
Levin & Stokes (1989) 26
Watson & Slack (1993) 30
Brief, Butcher & Roberson (1995) 34
Presentation and critique o f the dispositional theory
o f job satisfaction 37
Research findings from the Judge et al. (1997)
dispositional theory o f job satisfaction 45
Critique o f the dispositional theory o f job satisfaction 51
Research questions and hypotheses 55
III. METHODS 66
Overview o f methodology 66
Analysis I - meta-analysis o f the trait-job satisfaction
relationship 67
Psychometric meta-analysis on sample weighted means 69
Measurement error corrections using generalizability
theory reliability estimates 72
Analysis II - confirmatory factor analysis 81
Analysis III - path analysis and covariance structural
analysis 82
IV. RESULTS 84
Results o f analysts I - meta-analysis o f the trait-job
satisfaction relationship 84
Results o f analysis II - confirmatory factor analysis 89
Results o f analysis III - path analyses and covariance
structural analysis 91
Path analysis results 91
Covariance structural analysis results 92
V. DISCUSSION 95
Implications and future research 101
APPENDIX A. ROSENBERG SELF ESTEEM SCALE 130
APPENDIX B. SHERER, M A D D U X , MERCANDANTE. PRENTICE-

DUNN, JACOBS, & ROGERS GENERALIZED SELF-
EFFICACY SCALE 131
.APPENDIX C. ROTTER LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE 133
APPENDIX D. WATSON, C LA R K AND TELLEGEN PANAS

SCALE 136
APPENDIX E. THE N O R M A L TAXO N O M Y OF 1431 TR A IT -

DESCRIPTIVE ADJECTIVES 137
APPENDIX F. STUDIES INCLUDED IN M ETA -A N A LY S IS 138
REFERENCES 146
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Relationship between affective disposition and job satisfaction 104
2. Studies included m the mcta-analysis by trait subgroup 105
3. Meta-analvtically derived intercorrelation matrix o f trait, perceived

job characteristics, and job satisfaction measures (uncorrected mean
correlations and true score correlations) 106
4. Summary o f the 45 separate meta-analyses conducted to derive

the intercorrelation matrix o f trait, perceived job characteristics.
and job satisfaction measures presented in Table 2 107
5. Trait scales used in primary studies 10S
6. Mean values o f Classical Measurement Theory reliability estimate

(Cronbach alpha) and Generalizability Theory reliability estimate
(r,j) ’ 110
7. Intercorrelations among personality trait measures - matrix o f

sample weighted mean observed correlations (uncorrected*) 111
8. M atrix o f trait - job satisfaction true score correlations (fu lly

corrected) 112
9. Trait/Construct correlations: (uncorrected and fully corrected

correlations reported) 113
10. Results o f confirmatory factor analysis: factor loadings 114
11. Factor correlation matrix: results from path analysis 115
12. Results o f LISREL analysis 116
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Judge, Locke and Durham Direct effects - Model I 117
2. Judge, Locke and Durham Mediated effects - Model II (Appraisals) 118
3. Judge, Locke and Durham Direct Mediated effects - Model III

(Actions) 119
4. Judge, Locke and Durham Moderator effects - Model IV 120
5. Measurement model for emotional stability construct 121
6. Causal model o f the emotional stability - job satisfaction relationship 122
7. Measurement model for locus o f control construct 123
8. Measurement model for generalized self-efficacy construct 124
9. Measurement model for self-esteem construct 125
10. Measurement model for emotional stability construct 126
11. Model o f hypotheses - causal model o f the emotional stability -

job satisfaction relationship 127
12. Results o f path analysis: causal model I o f emotional stability -

job satisfaction relationship 128
13. Results o f LISREL analysis: causal model o f ES - job satisfaction

relationship 129
v iii
1
CHAPTER I
[NTRODUCTION
Job satisfaction is one o f the most studied constructs in the field o f
Industrial/Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior (Locke, 1976;
Roznovvski and Hulin, 1991, Judge, Hanisch & Drankovvski. 1995). Judge et al (1995)
contend that employee attitudes (i.e., job satisfaction) have “ bottom-line” consequences
for organizations. Investigations o f the impact o f job satisfaction on important
organizational outcomes have centered on organizational citizenship behaviors (Organ &
Ryan, 1995), absenteeism (Harrison & Martocchio, 199S) and turnover (Agho. Mueller
and Price. 1993; Tett & Mayer, 1993; Horn. Caranikas-Walker, Prussia & Griffeth, 1992)
and job performance (Locke. 1976; laffaldano & Muchinsky. 19S5; Judge, Thoreson.
Bono & Patton, 1998). Thus it is reasonable to conclude that it is in the best interest o f
organizations and employees for human resource managers to be sensitive to and aware
o f individual differences and factors in the organization that may influence employees’
job satisfaction.
Some early research aimed at identifying factors that influence employees' job
satisfaction investigated both dispositional and situational variables as potential
antecedents, correlates, and outcomes o f job satisfaction. Individual differences in
perceptions o fjo b characteristics (Hackman & Oldham, 1975, 1976; Fried & Ferris,
1987; Frye, 1996) and individual differences in affect (Judge, 1992; Watson & Slack,
1993; Brief, Butcher & Roberson, 1995; Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000) have been
examined as antecedents o f job satisfaction. Two theories o f job satisfaction, the Job
Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1975; 1976) and Social Information
Processing theory (Salancik& Pfeffer, 1978) focus on differences in individuals’
perceptions o f situational factors such as job dimensions and sociai cues, respectively, in
the work environment as antecedents o f job satisfaction. These theories provide a
theoretical framework for identifying and understanding situational antecedents o f job
satisfaction. The search for correlates o f job satisfaction has centered on a number o f
different dispositional traits as well as o f job involvement (Tett & Meyer, 1993),
organizational commitment (Smith. Organ & Near, 1983; Mathiev & Zajac, 1990) and
job performance (Locke. 1976; Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 19S5; Judge, Thoreson, Bono &
Patton, 1998). Investigations o f the impact o f job satisfaction on important
organizational outcomes have centered on organizational citizenship behaviors (Organ &
Ryan, 1995), absenteeism (Harrison & Martocchio, 1998) and turnover (Agho. Mueller
and Price, 1993; Tett & Mayer, 1993; Horn, Caranikas-Walker, Prussia & Griffeth.
1992).
A fruitful stream o f research exploring dispositional antecedents o f job
satisfaction and the nature and magnitude o f their causal relationship with job satisfaction
has emerged over the past seventeen years (a review o f the literature is provided in
Chapter II). A review o f the literature however reveals that the search for dispositional
antecedents o f job satisfaction has been conducted in the absence o f a dispositional
theory o f job satisfaction. The purpose o f the present study is to extend this stream o f
3
research by identifying an important theory-based dispositional antecedent o f job
satisfaction and providing empirical evidence o f the causal relationship between this
disposition and job satisfaction.
Although the relationship between dispositions and job satisfaction can be traced
lo the 1930s (Hoppock, 1935), oniy recentiv has research attention turned to developing a
dispositional theory o fjo b satisfaction, which identifies different traits that may be
causally related to job satisfaction. Previous research that examined the relationship
between different dispositional traits and job satisfaction report dispositions to have
correlations w ith job satisfaction ranging from .01 (Rosman & Burke, 19S0) to .47
(Carmel, 1997) for self-esteem, from -.42 (Spector, 1988) to .27 (Greenberger. 1989) for
locus o f control, from -.56 (Jex & Gudanowski. 1992) to -.18 (Jones, 19S0) for
generalized self-efficacy and from -.25 (Terry, Nielsen and Perchard, 1993) to -.10
(Perone, Dewaard & Baron, 1980) for neuroticism (reverse scored as emotional stability).
House, Shane & Herold (1996) attribute the wide variation in correlations between
different traits and job satisfaction to the atheoretical manner in which the search for
dispositional determinants o fjo b satisfaction has been conducted. A review o f the
literature reveals that the relation between various traits and job satisfaction has been
examined, however, previous studies typically investigated only one or at most two traits
in a single, small sample study. The recent research o f Judge, Locke & Durham (1997) is
the exception to this trend.
In an effort to advance the progress o fjo b satisfaction research using the
dispositional approach. Judge et al. (1997) developed a dispositional theory o fjo b
4
satisfaction based on what they contend is a “ new” personality construct: core self
evaluations. Core self evaluations (CSE) are defined by Judge et al. as the fundamental
evaluations people make o f themselves. In brief. Judge et al. integrate concepts from
eight different literatures (clinical psychology research, clinical psychology practice,
philosophy, job satisfaction research, stress research, sociai psychology, child
development theory, and personality theory) as the basis for what they identify as a
"new” personality construct. CSE is posited to be comprised o f self-esteem (SE),
generalized self-efficacy (GSE), locus o f control (LOC) and neuroticism (reverse scored
as emotional stability, ES). The causal influence o f CSE on job satisfaction is posited by
Judge et al. to be both direct and indirect (mediated) through perceived job
characteristics.
Judge et al. (1997) report that the four different traits, SE, GSE. LOC and GSE
are highly intercorrelated, however, they contend that CSE is more than a linear
composite o f the four different traits o f which it is comprised. The research conducted to
date, however, has not made it clear as to whether CSE is itself a latent construct or a
composite o f measures ofSE, GSE, LOC and ES. The empirical evidence generated from
this line o f research shows that the four different traits intercorrelate and load on one
common factor, which Judge and his colleagues label CSE. According to these
researchers, CSE has both direct and indirect effects on job satisfaction (Judge et al.,
1997; Judge, Bono & Locke, 2000; Judge & Bono, 1999). It is my hypothesis that what
Judge and his associates label as a “ new” personality construct, CSE, is not new at all.
Instead o f labeling the common factor shared by measures o f SE, GSE, LOC and ES as a
“ new” personality construct, it is more fruitful to use personality theory as a guide to
labeling the latent construct that underlies these trait measures. Specifically, it is possible
that measures o f SE, GSE, LOC, and ES are indicators o f the latent construct, ES, Factor
IV o f the Big Five personality model. Accurately identifying the latent construct within
the nomoiogicai net o f personaiity constructs that underlies the specific traits found to
correlate w ith job satisfaction advances the development o f scientifically parsimonious
dispositional theories o fjo b satisfaction. Theory testing can then be conducted to
increase understanding o f dispositional sources o fjo b satisfaction.
In the present study, meta-analvses. and confirmatory factor analyses were
conducted to identify the latent construct that underlies measures o f SE, GSE. LOC and
ES and path analyses and structural equations modeling were used to test the nature
(direct or mediated) and magnitude o f the relationship between this latent construct and
measures o fjo b satisfaction. The following research questions were addressed:
1. Is CSE old wine in a new bottle? That is. is CSE really emotional stability (ES
reverse scored as neuroticism)?
2. To what extent does the ES construct cause variance in job satisfaction?
3. To what extent do perceived job characteristics mediate the causal relationship
between the ES construct and job satisfaction?
These questions are particularly relevant in determining i f it is worthwhile to
search for dispositional sources o fjo b satisfaction. The research conducted by Judge and
his colleagues using the CSE-based dispositional theory o fjo b satisfaction has found
evidence o f causal relations between disposition and job satisfaction (discussed in detail
6
in Chapter II). However, those findings are d iffic u lt to interpret due to inconsistencies in
the conceptualization and measurement o f CSE.
The Judge et al. (1997) dispositional theory provides a framework for testing
causal relations between dispositions and job satisfaction. An investigation o f
dispositional sources ot job satislaction is vvununicd bused on the cmpiricui evidence that
show traits to be consistent (Staw & Ross. 1985), stable over time and across different
work settings (Staw, Bell & Clausen, 1986), and correlated with job satisfaction
(Hoppock, 1935; Weitz, 1952; Pulakos & Schmitt, 1983; Levin & Stokes. 1989; Judge,
1990; Agho, Mueller & Price, 1993; Watson & Slack, 1993; Brief, Butcher & Roberson.
1995; Judge et al, 1997; Judge, Locke. Durham & Kluger, 1998; Judge & Bono, 1999;
Judge, Bono & Locke. 2000; Erez & Judge, 1998; Tokar, Fischer & Subich, 199S).
Empirical evidence from tests o f the Judge et al. dispositional theory o fjo b satisfaction
shows direct and indirect causal relationships between CSE and job satisfaction (Judge.
Locke, Durham & Kluger. 199S; Judge. Locke & Bono, 1998; Judge & Bono. 1999).
However, these findings do little to increase our understanding o f the effect o f disposition
on job satisfaction since CSE is not a well defined “ construct” . Further empirical
research is needed to examine the effect o f a theoretically based personality construct.
ES, Factor IV o f the Big Five personality dimensions, on job satisfaction (The Big Five
personality dimensions is discussed in Chapter II).
The present empirical investigation is focused on identifying the latent personality
construct that underlies measures o f the four theory-based traits shown in previous
research to be linked to job satisfaction; namely, SE, GSE, LOC and ES, and on
7
determining the extent to which this construct is causally related to job satisfaction. The
present research summarizes the extant literature on dispositional correlates o fjo b
satisfaction and provides the first meta-analytic evidence to support the existence o f a
causal relationship between the ES construct and job satisfaction. Meta-analyses were
conducted to estimate the true score correlations among personality measures and
between measures o f personality and job satisfaction measures for use in making
corrections for specific factor measurement error as defined in generalizability theory (to
be discussed in Chapter III, the Methods section). The empirical evidence provided in the
present research advances understanding o f the role, nature and causal effect o f ES on job
satisfaction and is likely to be useful in developing more scientifically parsimonious
dispositional theories o fjo b satisfaction.
Psychometric meta-analyses (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990; Viswesveran & Ones.
1995), confirmatory factor analyses, path analyses (Schmidt, Hunter & Outerbridge,
1986; Hunter & Hamilton, 1992) and structural equations modeling (Joreskog & Sorbom,
1993) were used to analyze the data in this study to test the follow ing hypotheses:
H -l: (a) Measures o f SE, GSE, LOC and ES intercorrelate approximately 1.00
with measures o f ES at the construct level; and
(b) Measures o f SE GSE, LOC and ES load on a common factor.
H-2: The F.S construct has a direct causal effect on jo b satisfaction.
H-3: The ES construct has an indirect (mediated) causal effect on job
satisfaction through perceived job characteristics.
8
H-4: The indirect causal effect o f the ES construct on job satisfaction is o f
higher magnitude than the direct causal effect o f the ES construct on job
satisfaction.
Viswesveran & Ones (1995) advocate the use o f psychometric meta-analyses (to
be discussed in Chapter III) to lest theories in fieids such as job satisfaction where the
relationship between several different constructs have been em pirically tested with no
single study (or only a few) containing all o f the constructs o f interest. The literature
examining the effect o f dispositions on job satisfaction is ideal for the application o f
psychometric meta-analyses since the relationship between a variety o f different traits
and job satisfaction has been reported in this field. The meta-analyticallv derived true
score correlations between measures o f each trait and measures o fjo b satisfaction serve
as input for confirmatory factor analyses, path analyses and covariance structure analysis
to test the hypothesized causal relationships.
Direct and indirect (mediated) causal relationships were hypothesized; the latent
variable perceived job characteristics, as defined in Job Characteristics Theory (Hackman
& Oldham, 1975; 1976). was posited to mediate the ES job satisfaction relation. A
careful meta-analytic study o f the interrelationships between measures o f SE, GSE, LOC
and ES and measures o fjo b satisfaction was conducted to obtain accurate estimates o f the
relationship that exist between each o f these constructs and job satisfaction. The meta-
analytic data were used in a confirmatory factor analysis to provide empirical evidence to
support the hypothesis that a single underlying factor is shared by measures o f SE, GSE.
LOC and ES. The findings were expected to be consistent w ith the findings o f Judge and
9
his associates; that is measures o f SE, GSE, LOC and ES were expected to load on one
common factor. However, in contrast to Judge, et al., I provide evidence o f the unusually
high intercorrelations among the four trait measures to demonstrate that they serve as
indicators o f one latent construct, ES. I refer to the literature and over seventy years o f
personality research and personality theories 10 argue that me common factor that
underlies these trait measures is the construct ES, Factor IV o f the Big Five personality
dimensions, rather than a “ new” construct.
The first hypothesis was designed to generate evidence to show that a single latent
construct underlies measures o f SE. GSE. LOC and ES. I hypothesize that ES is the
construct that underlies these measures. Personality theories dating back to the research
* w
o f Allport (1935) have identified the ES construct as one dimension o f personality. ES
(reverse scored as neuroticism) is a broad, stable, theoretically based personality
construct that is an integral component (Factor IV) o f the dominant Big Five personality
model used by researchers in the field o f Industrial/Organizational Psychology; traits
associated with this factor o f personality include low levels o f nervousness, moodiness,
depression and anxiety. ES has been consistently identified and included in taxonomies
and theories o f personality by researchers for almost seventy years (A llport, 1935;
Allport & Odbert, 1936; Cattell, 1965; Norman, 1965; Eysenck, 1967; Costa & McCrae.
1980; Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990). Furthermore, previous empirical research shows
that ES and components o f ES, namely negative affect (NA), consistently correlate with
job satisfaction; however, the correlations vary widely (see literature review in Chapter
II). Confirmatory factor-analytic evidence was expected to support H - l, that measures o f
10
SE, GSE, LOC and ES correlate approximately 1.00 w ith measures o f ES and load on a
single factor.
The ES construct in the Big Five model o f personality is defined broadly.
However, each Big Five based inventory has its own "narrow" measure o f ES. The sum
across several o f these narrow ES measures would be a more construct valid measure o f
ES. I hypothesize that SE, GSE, and LOC are narrow measures o f ES, just as different
ES scales are.
The second, and third hypotheses were designed to test two causal models
presented in the Judge et al. (1997) dispositional theory o fjo b satisfaction; the Direct
Effects and Indirect (mediated) Effects models (see Figures I - 4). In the present study a
causal model depicting both direct and indirect causal relationships between ES and job
satisfaction was hypothesized. A direct causal relationship between ES and job
satisfaction was posited as w'ell as an indirect (mediated) causal relationship through the
latent variable (factor) underlying perceived job characteristics as defined in the
Hackman & Oldham (1975, 1976) Job Characteristics Model theory. The Job
Characteristics Model theory (Hackman & Oldham, 1975; 1976) identifies five subjective
characteristics o f a job, namely, task identity, task significance, skill variety, autonomy
and feedback, that influence three psychological states, experienced meaningfulness o f
work, responsibility for the outcomes o f the work and knowledge o f the results o f work
activities. These three psychological states are then posited to influence job satisfaction.
Job Characteristics Theory clearly focuses on individuals' perceptions o f objective job
attributes, thus self-reports o fjo b characteristics are inherently subjective. Growth need
11
strength, an individual difference characteristic, was initially included in the theory as a
moderator variable; however, it was later excluded as the model was refined (Hackman &
Oldham, 1976). In the present research a simpler model was tested; ES was hypothesized
to have both a direct and an indirect (mediated) causal effect on job satisfaction;
perceived job characteristics were posited to mediate the US-job satislaeiion relationship
(see Figure 1.2).
The Mediated Effects Model, could be viewed as being based on an approach to
the study o fjo b satisfaction which combines both dispositional and situational variables
to predict and explain variance in job satisfaction. However, the extent to which
perceived job characteristics reflect situational variables, over and above the effects o f ES
on perceptions o f the job. is unknown. In this study I investigate the impact o f the
personality construct ES on one’s perceptions o f the job. The ES construct is viewed as
an individual difference that influences one’s perceptions which in turn influences one’s
self-reported job satisfaction.
A series o f meta-analyses were conducted to obtain estimates o f the relationship
between measures o f four dispositional traits, SE, GSE. LOC, ES. perceived job
characteristics and job satisfaction. Numerous primary studies have been conducted
examining the relationship between measures o f a single disposition, and measures o fjo b
satisfaction; however, these studies utilized a variety o f different measures to assess the
disposition o f interest. The equivalence o f the different dispositional measures used to
assess a single dispositional trait is unknown therefore it is not surprising that this stream
o f research has yielded equivocal results. Each dispositional measure contains an
12
undetermined amount o f specific factor measurement error which causes a downward
bias in the observed correlation between measures o f SE, GSE, LOC, ES and measures o f
job satisfaction. In this research, the generalizability theory reliability estimate for each
type o f scale was calculated and used to make corrections for specific factor
measurement error contained in each aisposiiionai scaie to obtain the best estimate o f the
true score correlation among trait scales and between those measures and measures o fjo b
satisfaction. The true score estimates obtained from the meta-analyses were then input in
confirmatory factor analysis, path analyses and covariance structural analysis to test the
hypothesized causal model.
In summary, the evidence presented in this research identifies the latent construct
that underlies measures o f SE, GSE, LOC and ES and provides interpretable empirical
evidence o f the causal relationships that exists between the personality construct ES and
job satisfaction. Data are consistent with a model in which the construct ES is a causal
determinant o fjo b satisfaction with both direct and indirect causal effects on job
satisfaction. The true score estimates obtained from these meta-analyses also provide a
quantitative summary o f the relationships that exist between narrow (SE, GSE, LOC and
ES) and broad (ES) trait measures and measures o fjo b satisfaction. These relationships
have not been reported in the published literature. Furthermore, the evidence provided in
the present research may be useful in future research that examines the effect o f the ES
construct on work outcomes such as job performance, organizational citizenship
behaviors, organizational commitment, absenteeism, career success and employee
turnover since models o fjo b satisfaction are often embedded in theories in these different
13
fields o f research. Thus, these findings may aid researchers in the development o f more
scientifically parsimonious theories in other research domains that study the effect o f the
ES construct on important work attitudes and work outcomes.
14
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The review o f the job satisfaction literature is divided into five sections. In the
first section, a brief overview o f the different approaches used to study job satisfaction is
presented along with a summary o f the seminal research that provides the basis for
current investigations o f the effect o f dispositions on job satisfaction. The major findings
o f recent (conducted within the past fifteen years) empirical research using the
dispositional approach are also reported. The Judge et al. (1997) dispositional theory o f
job satisfaction based on core evaluations o f the self is presented and critiqued in the
second section. A definition o f CSE and the theoretical conceptualization and rationale
provided by Judge et al. for combining SE, GSE, LOC and ES (reverse scored as
neuroticism) to examine the relation o f these traits with job satisfaction is also provided
in the second section. An overview o f the studies and a summary o f the empirical
evidence accumulated to date based on tests o f the Judge et al. dispositional theory are
reported and reviewed in the third section. Section four provides a brief review o f the
personality literature relevant to the hypothesized relationships between emotional
stability and jo b satisfaction and the hypotheses that w ill be tested. Finally, the
implications for theory development and programs involving organizational change and
organizational development are discussed in section five. This research was expected to
provide empirical evidence for use in refining the Judge et al. (1997) dispositional theory
15
o f job satisfaction and thereby advance knowledge and increase our ability to explain and
understand dispositional sources o f job satisfaction.
Approaches to studying job satisfaction
Locke (1969) defines job satisfaction in terms o f emotional states one
experiences. According to Locke (1969), “ By introspection, man can observe that he
experiences different degrees o f pleasure or displeasure on different aspects o f the same
job. Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are, then, complex emotional reactions to the
jo b ” (p.318, Locke, 1969). This definition focuses on how aspects o f the job itself or
situational aspects o f the job impact the work attitudes o f individuals. The three major
approaches used to study job satisfaction over the past seventy years reflects the focus on
the job and job situation articulated in Locke’s (1969) definition. The situational,
dispositional and interactional approaches investigate the relation that exists between job
satisfaction and different types o f variables specific to jobs or job settings.
Two well known situational theories o fjo b satisfaction are the Job Characteristics
Model (JCM) (Hackman & Oldham, 1975, 1976) and Social Information Processing
(SIP) theory (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978). Both o f these theories are based on the
assumption that there are various aspects o f the job itself and the work environment that
can be changed systematically to increase the level o fjo b satisfaction experienced by
individuals. As noted earlier, the JCM theory (Hackman & Oldham 1975, 1976)
identifies five objective characteristics o f a job: task identity, task significance, skill
variety, feedback and autonomy. According to JCM theory, these five characteristics
influence three psychological states: experienced meaningfulness o f work, responsibility
16
for the outcomes o f the work, and knowledge o f the results o f w ork activities, which in
turn influence job satisfaction. Thus, JCM theory suggests that the five job
characteristics can be systematically changed to cause changes in individuals’
psychological states thereby causing changes in individuals’ experienced job satisfaction.
The focus o f the JCM is strictly on individuals' perceptions o f five job attributes; the
influence o f personality traits on individuals’ perceptions o fjo b characteristics was not
considered. However, the initial conceptualization o f JCM theory included growth need
strength, an individual difference characteristic (Hackman & Oldham, 1975, 1976).
Strangely, growth need strength was dropped from JCM theory without any explanation
by Hackman and Oldham. In this research, I hypothesize that the personality trait o f ES
is the major determinant o f how positively or negatively individuals perceive their jobs,
independent o f the objective characteristics o f the job.
Social Information Processing theory focuses on how individuals perceive cues
from relevant others in the work environment to develop socially constructed realities o f
their job. According to SIP theory, individuals develop perceptions about their job in
terms o f worker roles and norms. Thus, different individuals w ith the same job may
perceive the job differently. Individual differences in perceptions may also influence
people to develop and report different levels o fjo b satisfaction. This situational approach
to studying job satisfaction does not view job characteristics as objective as JCM theory
does. Instead, in SIP theory, job characteristics are viewed to be purely subjective based
on individuals’ perceptions o f the job. Hence, this theory is more consistent with the
hypotheses in the present research than JCM theory.
17
The dispositional approach examines the relation between individual differences
in personality traits and job satisfaction in an attempt to identify and explain dispositional
sources o fjo b satisfaction. The dispositional approach to job satisfaction has been
investigated by researchers in the field o f industrial and organizational psychology for
aimost seventy years, yet oniy recently has progress in terms o f theory development
occurred. A review o f the literature reveals that research in this field has evolved in an
atheortetical manner (House, et al, 1996). In some research, dispositions appeared to be
added to the empirical investigation as an afterthought with minimal or no theoretical
basis for including them in the study. Conclusions about the causal effect o f dispositional
traits on job satisfaction were often drawn even though dispositions were not measured or
included as a central part o f the empirical investigation (e.g., Pulakos & Schmitt, 1983).
Even when dispositions were included as a central part o f an empirical study, researchers
simply assessed the extent to which those dispositions correlated with job satisfaction
(Weitz, 1952; Staw & Ross, 19S3; Staw, Bell & Clausen. 1986; Levin & Stokes, 1989;
Judge, 1990). The lack o f a dispositional theory o fjo b satisfaction hindered researchers’
ability to identify dispositional sources o fjo b satisfaction and to meaningfully interpret
findings that were obtained.
The interactional approach to studying job satisfaction combines aspects o f the
situational and dispositional approaches. That is. the relation between the different
individual needs or wants and perceptions o f specific attributes o f the job and/or job
setting are examined to determine how they interact to influence or cause jo b satisfaction
(Porter, 1962; Vroom, 1964; Smith, Kendall & Hulin, 1969; Locke, 1976; Dawis &
18
Lofquist, 1984). Interactional theories o fjo b satisfaction also consider the relationship
between personality traits and different aspects o f the job or job environment (Holland,
1985; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Weiss & Cropanzano (1996) developed Affective
Events Theory, an interactional approach, that combines individual differences in
emotionaiity with aspects o f SIP (Saiancik & Pfeffer, ty78). According to Affective
Events Theory, affective experiences influence reported job satisfaction; that is, events at
work are viewed as proximal causes o f affective reactions. As events occur at work, they
cumulate and individuals react emotionally to those events. In Affective Events Theory
job satisfaction is based on the match between individuals' affective experiences at work,
their perceptions o f the job and the job setting and their expectations o f the job, thus the
influence o f both individual difference and situational variables are corsidered as
possible determinants o fjo b satisfaction (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).
The evolution o f the dispositional approach to the study o f job satisfaction
A review o f the literature reveals that the study o fjo b satisfaction research using a
dispositional approach has been conducted without any theoretical underpinning.
Researchers using the dispositional approach typically investigated the relationship
between a single trait and job satisfaction. The correlation between the trait o f interest
and job satisfaction was reported and the researchers made subjective judgments about
the practical significance o f the correlation and its importance in explaining or predicting
variance in job satisfaction. Research conducted in this manner yielded evidence
supporting relationships between various traits and job satisfaction that are difficult to
interpret. The recent research conducted by Judge and his colleagues is an exception to
19
the pattern o f atheoretical research and simple methodologies that dominated job
satisfaction research in the past. The following review o f the job satisfaction literature
reports the seminal research and major findings o f empirical investigations o f the
relationship between dispositional traits and job satisfaction.
vV c h z ( t i
Weitz (1952) is credited with being the first to provide empirical evidence o f the
relationship between dispositions and job satisfaction. He contended that some people
simply gripe or complain more than others about almost anything. According to Weitz
(1952), the job satisfaction o f workers should be interpreted in the light o f an overall
general “ gripe” index. In essence, Weitz suggested that individuals possess stable
affective traits (dispositions) that are pervasive in shaping the way they view aspects o f
both their personal and work lives.
In order to measure individuals’ overall affective disposition, Weitz (1952)
developed the forty four item Test o f General Dissatisfaction (TGD) survey which
consists o f items common to everyday life (e.g., your telephone number, the way local
traffic is handled, local newspapers). A sample o f 168 subjects were instructed to rate
their level o f satisfaction or dissatisfaction with each o f the forty-four items listed on the
survey. Subjects also reported their job satisfaction. Survey scores were correlated with
subjects’ job satisfaction scores to obtain a measure o f the relationship between subjects’
satisfaction w ith neutral factors common to everyday life and their job satisfaction. A
correlation o f .39 was obtained.
20
Weitz (1952) concluded that the data provided evidence o f a dispositional affect
on job satisfaction. In light o f the dispositional affect found, Weitz warned that
inferences made about the job cannot and should not be inferred from workers’
perceptions o fjob satisfaction alone. Instead, he argued that reports o f workers’ job
satisfaction are more meaningful i f we interpret the data in iight o f how satisfied workers
are in daily life.
The research conducted by Weitz (1952) provides initial support for the existence
o f a relationship between dispositional traits and job satisfaction. One limitation o f
Weitz’s (1952) research is that some o f the items included in the TGD scale were found
to be not purely neutral (Judge, 1990). It was W eitz’s (1952) intention to use purely
neutral items to assess individuals’ propensity to gripe, however, some items on the TGD
scale were differentially related to satisfaction at work while other items were found to be
confounded with socioeconomic variables. An example o f the former are items that
inquire about the level o f satisfaction one had with his or her last job. An example o f the
latter are items about the level o f satisfaction one had with the city and housing in which
one lives. (Weitz, 1952).
In spite o f the limitations noted here, W eitz’s work directed the attention o fjo b
satisfaction researchers to investigate the affect o f dispositional traits, thus this research
made a valuable contribution to the study o fjo b satisfaction.
Pulakos & Schmitt (1983)
A study conducted by Pulakos and Schmitt (1983) prompted industrial and
organizational psychologists to begin investigating dispositional variables in their
21
research o fjo b satisfaction. Pulakos and Schmitt (1983) examined the extent to which
job satisfaction could be predicted for individuals with a predisposition and expectation
to be satisfied. A longitudinal study designed on a valence model that included a theory
o f need structure was developed to determine i f subsequent job satisfaction could be
predicted from data collected prior to the start o f work. Measures o f valence (need
importance), instrumentality, and job satisfaction were collected over a two-year period
after subjects were hired. The correlations between expectancy constructs and
subsequent intrinsic job satisfaction ranged from .08 to .2S while the correlation between
expectancy constructs and extrinsic constructs ranged from .04 to .27. Pulakos and
Schmitt (19S3) interpreted these findings as suggesting that satisfaction is predictable at
the time individuals are hired by knowing what job related outcomes they believe they
w ill receive at work. These researchers acknowledge that they did not explore the
potential o f dispositional effects on job satisfaction, however they encouraged research
aimed at investigating dispositional sources o fjo b satisfaction. They stated: “ Although
the particular characteristics that may incline an individual to be predisposed to
satisfaction have not been specified previously, it may be that certain traits operate in the
service o f self-fulfilling prophecies that lead high expectations to result in need
fulfillment. Thus, i f workers who expect their jobs to be fu lfillin g are also characterized
by traits such as activity (rather than passivity), high self efficacy, internal locus o f
control, and/or high levels o fjo b related self-esteem, for example, these individuals may
engage in behaviors that have the effect o f dispositional sources o fjo b satisfaction”
(Pulakos & Schmitt, 1983, p.366).
One limitation o f the Pulakos & Schmitt research is that measures o f dispositions
were not included in their study. Although they did not explicitly measure or investigate
the role o f dispositions in influencing job satisfaction, they concluded that their results
suggest a dispositional effect. Pulakos and Schmitt (1983) went so far as to identify
different dispositions to investigate in future dispositional research: se lf efficacy, internal
locus o f control, and task specific self efficacy were identified for future study, however,
no theoretical rationale for investigating these different dispositional traits was offered.
Staw & Ross (1985)
Staw & Ross (1985) extended the research on possible dispositional sources o f
job satisfaction by providing evidence o f the stability o f work attitudes (such as job
satisfaction) over time and across different situations. These authors argue that the effect
o f dispositions on job satisfaction could be supported by providing evidence o f the
temporal and cross-situational stability o fjo b satisfaction. That is, i f jo b satisfaction
remains stable over a specified period o f time and across different job situations, the
hypothesis that stable dispositional traits affect job satisfaction would be supported.
These researchers noted that the existence o f dispositional sources o fjo b satisfaction does
not negate the role o f situational influence, but rather suggests that the source o f work
attitudes be investigated using both situational and dispositional approaches.
Longitudinal data on job attitudes (job satisfaction) and situational variables from
a national sample o f over 5,000 men aged 45-59 included in the Longitudinal Survey o f
Mature Men, were analyzed. Data were collected in multiple waves spanning a total o f
five years: three years between 1966 and 1969, and two years between 1969 and 1971.
Self-reports o f satisfaction for each time period were collected from subjects and
correlated to obtain evidence o f the stability o f individual job satisfaction over time.
Since attitudinal measures were not the focus o f research when the data were collected,
job satisfaction was measured with a single global satisfaction measure. Staw & Ross
( 19Sd) tested three hypotheses. The hrst hypothesis loeuscd on the strength and
significance o f individual work attitudes over time while the second hypothesis
concerned the strength o f individual attitudes across different work situations. Prior
individual attitudes were posited to be as strong o f a predictor o f subsequent attitudes as
important situational changes (e.g., changes in pay and status) at work.
In support o f hypothesis 1, Staw & Ross (1985) found that all temporal
relationships in attitudes over time were significant, however, the correlation was not
high due to the low reliability o f the single global job satisfaction measure. The
correlation between job satisfaction in the 1966 and 1969 studies was .32; the correlation
between job satisfaction in the 1966 and 1971 study was .29; and the correlation between
job satisfaction in the 1969 and 1971 studies was .42. Additionally, the data partially
supported hypothesis 2, the correlation o f attitudes w ith job satisfaction across situations
was found to be important even for conditions o f maximal change (where subjects
experienced change in both their occupation and employer). However, as expected,
attitudinal consistency declined as both job and occupational changes occurred. Finally,
the data in this study also provided support for hypothesis 3. Prior satisfaction was found
to be a strong predictor o f subsequent satisfaction as situational changes in pay and status
occurred. These results show that work attitudes are consistent over time and across
24
situations although the correlations are attenuated under conditions o f situational change.
Staw & Ross concluded that these data provide evidence for the existence and influence
o f both dispositional and contextual effects on job satisfaction. These authors went on to
note that given the consistency o f attitudes over time and across different situations, job
redesign programs may be ineffective because such programs do not take workers'
attitudes into consideration nor do they change the dispositions o f workers.
The broad conclusion regarding the potential ineffectiveness o fjo b redesign
programs should be viewed with skepticism for two reasons. First, the researchers did
not measure job redesign or its effects on workers' attitudes, thus there us no empirical
basis for making such a broad claim o f program ineffectiveness. Second, the
generalizabilitv o f their research is limited because the sample included only middle-aged
men; middle-aged men are not representative o f the general workforce.
In spite o f the limitations noted, the research o f Staw & Ross (1985) provides
vital information regarding the temporal stability and attitudinal consistency o f work
attitudes (such as job satisfaction). Staw. Bell & Clausen (1986) built upon this evidence
with research that supported the long term temporal stability o f work attitudes and the
effect o f individual dispositions on work attitudes.
Staw. Bell & Clausen (1986)
Staw et al (1986) investigated the stability o f work attitudes over time and the
effect o f individual dispositions on job satisfaction. Using an aggregation o f three
longitudinal data sets containing measures o f various psychological and personality traits,
Staw et al (1986) explicitly investigated the influence o f affective disposition on job
25
satisfaction. These authors tested the hypothesis that affective disposition measured in
adolescence would predict job satisfaction in later life. Affective disposition was posited
to influence a person’s interpretation o fjo b information which in turn would influence
the person’s job satisfaction. According to Staw, et al. “ People may bring a positive or
negative disposition to the work setting, process information about the job in a way that is
consistent with this disposition, and then experience job satisfaction or job dissatisfaction
as a result” (p. 61).
Affective disposition was defined as the general tendencies o f people toward
positive or negative evaluation o f life stimuli. A measure o f affective disposition was
constructed post hoc based on the psychological data available in the data set. A Q-sort
was applied to 83 personality descriptors. Descriptors that appeared to assess affect were
factor analyzed. Seventeen items were found to form a coherent stable bipolar dimension
o f affective disposition. This 17-item measure was used to collect data from the sample
in early adolescence, late adolescence, and at different time periods in adulthood.
Measures o f facet and overall job satisfaction were used to collect data from subjects
during the Adult 1 and Adult 2 time periods.
Subjects were white males who ranged in age from 30-38. 40-48, and 54-62 years
o f age when job satisfaction measures were collected for A dult 1, Adult 2, and Adult 3
time periods, respectively. The correlations between affective disposition in adolescence
and job satisfaction in later life are reported in Table 1.
The data shown in Table 1 reveal a consistent trend in the relation between
affective disposition and jo b satisfaction over a substantial period o f time. That is,
26
affective disposition is shown to be stable and a valid predictor o fjo b satisfaction over
time.
The conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence provided are limited due to
the small sample sizes (sample sizes ranged from 52 to 70) and the narrow group o f
subjects, white males, included ui this study.
The Staw et al. (1986) study provides sufficient evidence o f a stable link between
individual dispositional traits and work attitudes to support further investigations o f these
relationships aimed at identifying other traits that may display a similar relationship with
job satisfaction.
Levin & Stokes (1989)
Research aimed at identifying the link between a specific personality trait and job
satisfaction was conducted by Levin & Stokes ( 19S9). Levin & Stokes (1989) examined
the relation between job satisfaction and trait negative affectivity (NA). Trait NA is
defined by Watson & Clark (1984) as an individual difference characterized by the
tendency to experience negative aversive emotional states and be agitated, pessimistic,
distressed and dissatisfied regardless o f the situation. These researchers investigated the
role o f NA on job satisfaction in two samples: a lab study and a field study. In Study 1,
the lab study, it was hypothesized that people high in N A would be relatively dissatisfied
w ith a task or job. Study 2 was a field study in which N A was posited to be a significant
independent predictor o fjo b satisfaction that would account for variance in job
satisfaction beyond variance accounted for by situational aspects o f the job.
27
Study I employed a factorial design with task design (enriched, unenriched) and
the level o f subjects’ NA (high - top quartile, low-bottom quartile) as the independent
variables. Manipulation o f task design consisted o f maximizing and minim izing the five
job characteristics identified in the Hackman & Oldham (1975, 1976) Job Characteristics
Model, namely: task identity, skill variety, task significance, autonomy and feedback, to
create enriched and unenriched tasks. Subjects in the enriched task were instructed to
read and evaluate two authentic graduate student application files and make decisions
regarding applicants’ potential for success in graduate school. Each file contained the
applicant’ s grades, undergraduate transcript, GRE scores, personal essays and letters o f
recommendation. Subjects in the unenriched task were instructed to copy information
from 25 undergraduate transcripts and GRE test dates and scores to a separate
standardized summary' form. The researcher provided detailed instructions on the task
and informed subjects that there was a “ strong likelihood” that the summaries would not
be used. Groups o f 8-10 subjects met w ith the researcher and were randomly assigned to
the enriched or unenriched task. The researcher gave instructions on each task to the
entire group o f subjects.
After completing the assigned task, subjects completed three measures to assess
their task satisfaction, perceptions o f task characteristics, and trait NA. The Job
Diagnostic Survey was used to measure subjects’ perceptions o f each o f the five task
characteristics and general task satisfaction (computed by summing across five
satisfaction subscales. Additionally, task characteristics and overall task satisfaction
were assessed w ith the JDI. Trait N A was measured with the Negative A ffe ctivity Scale
28
(NAS), a self-report measure designed by Levin & Stokes (1989) to assess the global
disposition o f trait negative affectivity.
A 2x2 analysis o f variance (AN O VA) with N A level (high, low) and task design
(enriched, unenriched) as the independent variables and task satisfaction as the dependent
variable showed a main effect for NA, but the interactive effect was not significant.
Subjects engaged in the performance o f the enriched task reported higher overall
satisfaction (M=53.72) than their counterparts who performed the unenriched task
(M=30.35). Lower levels o f overall satisfaction were reported by high NA subjects
(Mean =39.24) as compared to low NA subjects (Mean = 44.84). N A level was found to
account for 4% o f the variance in overall task satisfaction; that is, the correlation between
NA level and task satisfaction was .20. Study 1 also found that high N A subjects’
reported less overall satisfaction than low NA subjects regardless o f the task condition
(enriched, unenriched).
The purpose o f Study 2 was to investigate the ability o f N A to predict job
satisfaction. This field study was conducted with a sample o f 315 professional employees
from a variety o f hierarchical levels (staff, managers, senior staff) o f a large professional
services firm. Subjects completed measures o fjo b characteristics, job satisfaction, and
negative affect. Correlational analysis o f the data was conducted to determine the ability
o f N A to predict variance in job satisfaction above and beyond variance accounted for by
job characteristics. The “ Satisfaction with the Work Its e lf’ subscale from the JDI was
used as one o f the criterion variables. A composite index o fjo b satisfaction computed
(JDS Composite Index) based on data collected from subjects’ scores on the JDS was the
29
second criterion. The third criterion was NA. Subjects’ N A scores ranged from 21-122
(Mean= 64.6); SD=16.4). Coefficient alpha for the JD1 Satisfaction with the Work Itself
subscale, JDS and N A measures were .90, .83, and .88, respectively.
Hierarchical regression was applied to the data collected to determine i f trait NA
made a unique contribution Lo the prediction o fjob satisfaction. The resuits o f the
hierarchical regression analysis in which jo b characteristics were entered first showed
that all job characteristics, except feedback from the job. predicted each o f the two job
satisfaction measures. N A was also found to significantly increase variance accounted
for in each o f the two job satisfaction measures when it was added to the regression
model. N A accounted for 3.9% and 4.5% o f the variance in the JDS Composite Index
and the Satisfaction with the Work Itself subscale, respectively.
In contrast to Staw & Ross (1983) and Staw et al. (1986). Levin & Stokes argue
that their data show the success o f organizational interventions involving job redesign
may not depend on workers’ dispositions. Study 1 shows that the difference between
satisfaction with enriched and unenriched tasks was comparable for both high and low
trait NA subjects; that is, changes (increases) in task characteristics to produce enriched
tasks improved the satisfaction levels o f both high trait N A and low trait N A subjects.
Thus, Levin & Stokes conclude that personnel programs may not be as inhibited by
attitudinal consistency as previously reported (Staw & Ross, 1983; Staw et al., 1986).
By providing empirical evidence that trait NA (an individual difference variable)
accounted for variance in job satisfaction above and beyond that accounted for by widely
accepted situational variables (perceived job characteristics), Levin & Stokes (1989) laid
30
the groundwork for researchers to use dispositional and interactional approaches (those
that include both individual difference and situational variables) to explain variance in
job satisfaction.
Watson & Slack (1993)
** aioott (X oiacrv { l y o J ) u u x i vtu uiai juu aausiawuuu iCacaicit tuiiuucii'u uuiu a
dispositional perspective typically included only one personality trait; that is, primary
studies focused on the relationship between a single personality trait and job satisfaction
(Weitz, 1952; Pulakos & Schmitt, 1983; Staw & Ross, 1985; Staw et al, 1986; Levin &
Stokes, 1989). These researchers were interested in examining the relationship between
two dispositions and job satisfaction over a period o f time. Thus, Watson & Slack used a
longitudinal design to simultaneously examine the relationship between trait positive
affect (PA) and trait negative affect (NA), and job satisfaction over time.
PA and NA can be measured as a state (i.e.. short term mood fluctuations) or a
trait (i.e., stable and consistent differences in affect). Instructions given to subjects at the
time the scale is administered regarding the timeframe to call to mind when responding to
items on the scale determines whether state or trait PA and N A is assessed. For example,
state PA and state NA are measured when subjects are asked to consider how they feel
now or today whereas trait PA and trait NA are assessed when subjects are directed to
consider how they feel generally or how they have felt over the past year. Trait PA is
defined as the general disposition to be enthusiastic, energetic, active, sociable, and alert
(Watson & Clark, 1984; Watson & Tellegen, 1985). Individuals who are high on trait PA
are characterized as displaying high levels o f energy and capable o f concentrating fully,
31
holding positive views about oneself, others and different situation, and capable o f
becoming pleasurably engaged in a variety o f different activities (Watson & Clark, 1984;
Watson & Tellegen, 1985). Conversely, those who have low PA are described as being
lethargic and sad (Watson & Clark, 1984; Watson & Tellegen, 1985). High trait NA,
predisposes one to be distressed, upset, omcu unu ^cncitiny noid negative views aouui
oneself and situations even in the absence o f overt, external stress (Watson & Clark,
1984; Watson & Tellegen, 1985).
The purpose o f the Watson & Slack study was to examine dispositional
antecedents o fjo b satisfaction; more specifically, trait PA and trait NA were
hypothesized to predict future job satisfaction. Measures o f dispositional, occupational
(i.e., substantive complexity, motor skills and physical demands) and job events (i.e.,
perceived job changes) variables were collected (Watson & Slack, 1993). Trait PA and
trait NA measures were completed by eightv-two volunteers all o f whom were fulltime
university employees enrolled in a university sponsored Wellness Program - a program
that promotes physical fitness, healthy eating habits and better psychological well-being
(Watson & Slack, 1993). The sample was comprised o f secretaries, library staff, clerical
workers, maintenance staff, health center staff, academic advisors, accountants, faculty,
administrators and office managers were included in the sample. Trait PA and trait NA
scales were completed at two different times, Time 1 and Time 2, using the Positive
Emotionality (Pern) and Negative Emotionality (Nem) scales from the Multidimensional
Personality Questionnaire (Tellegen , 1993). There were at least nine months between
each time period; the average period o f time between Time 1 and Time 2 was
32
approximately twenty-seven months. A t Time 2, facet and overall job satisfaction were
assessed with the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969) and the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) (Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist,
1967), respectively (Watson & Slack, 1993).
Results indicate that Nent and Pern scores were stable Irom Time i 10 Time 2;
Nem and Pern retest correlations were .63 and .74. respectively (Watson & Slack. 1993).
Both Nem and Pern were related to overall job satisfaction (as measured by the MSQ)
and Pern was related to some facets o fjo b satisfaction as well (as measured by the JDI).
The zero order correlation between Nem at Time I and overall job satisfaction was -.09
while the zero order correlation between Nem at Time 2 and job satisfaction was -.18
(Watson & Slack. 1993). An increase in the correlation between Time 1 and Time 2 also
occurred with the Pern; that is. the correlation between Pern at Time I and job satisfaction
was .29 whereas the correlation between Pern at Time 2 and job satisfaction was .33
(Watson & Slack, 1993). Both the Pern and the Nem at Time 1 and Time 2 correlated
with the Satisfaction w ith the Work Itself facet o f the JDI; the former correlated .42 and
.36, respectively, while the latter correlated -.32 and -.38, respectively (Watson & Slack,
1993). The Pern also correlated .26 and .33 with the JDI Promotion subscale during Time
I and Time 2, respectively (Watson & Slack, 1993). These data therefore lend further
support for the stability o f personality traits over time (Staw & Ross, 1985; Staw, Bell &
Clausen, 19S6) and the relationship between N A and job satisfaction.
Watson & Slack ( ’ 93) also conducted two hierarchical multiple regressions to
determine the relative contribution o f trait PA and trait N A to the prediction o fjo b
33
satisfaction; the first regression analysis predicted job satisfaction from data collected
during Time 1 and the second regression analysis predicted job satisfaction from
occupational and job events data. Collectively, Pern and Nem predicted from 4% (on the
JDI Pay facet) to 20.4% (on the JDI Work Itself facet) o f the variance in facet and overall
job saiisfaciion; Nem and Pern combined to account for 8.8% o f the variance in overall
job satisfaction as measured by the MSQ.
The second regression analysis predicted job satisfaction from all three categories
o f variables: occupational, job events, and dispositional (Pern and Nem combined)
(Watson & Slack, 1993). Scores on occupational variables were entered in Step 1 and
job change scores were entered in Step 2. Pern and Nem scores were combined and
entered in Step 3. Trait PA and trait NA as measured by the Pern and Nem. respectively,
contributed less than 2% to the prediction o f satisfaction with JDI Pay and Promotion.
However, the Pern and Nem combined contributed 9.5 % and 11.4% to the prediction o f
the variance in the JDI Co-Workers and the JDI Work subscales, respectively, above and
beyond the variance predicted by the occupational and job events variables.
Occupational variables alone predicted as much as 21.9% o f the variance in the JDI Co-
Workers subscale while job events predicted 14.8% o f the variance in the JDI Promotions
subscale.
The findings reported by Watson & Slack (1993) indicate that trait PA and trait
NA, each contribute uniquely to the prediction o f different facets o fjo b satisfaction (e.g.
pay, supervision) and overall job satisfaction and that more variance in both facet and
overall job satisfaction is predicted when both dispositional and environmental variables
34
are included in the prediction model. As noted previously, Pem and Nem collectively
predicted 8.8% o f the variance in overall job satisfaction (as measured by the MSQ), but
when these two traits were included with environmental variables (i.e., occupational and
job events variables), 23.2% o f the variance in overall job satisfaction was predicted.
The generaiizabiiity o f these findings is somewhat limited given that the sample
size was small (N=82) and restricted basically to white-collar/semi-professional workers.
Nonetheless, this investigation o f the relation between two dispositional traits and job
satisfaction in a single study made a valuable contribution to job satisfaction research
conducted from a dispositional perspective (Watson and Slack, 1993). The results
reported by these researchers show that the prediction o f variance in some facets ofjob
satisfaction and in overall job satisfaction can be increased substantially by using an
interactive model that includes at least two dispositional traits (trait PA and trait NA) and
environmental or situational variables.
Brief. Butcher & Roberson (1995)
Building on past research examining the effect o f individual differences in
disposition on job satisfaction. B rie f et al (1995) investigated the effect o f positive mood-
inducing effects on job satisfaction. Working under the premise that transient events
could lead to m ildly positive or negative feelings, B rief et al conducted a field experiment
to assess the relationship between N A and JS when a positive mood-inducing event (e.g.,
giving a cookie to subjects) occurred. Three hypotheses were tested. First. N A was
posited to have a negative correlation with job satisfaction. Second, jo b satisfaction was
expected to increase when a positive mood-inducing event occurred; that is, workers who
were exposed to a positive mood-inducing event would experience and report higher
levels o fjo b satisfaction than their counterparts who were not exposed to such events.
Finally, an interaction between N A and positive mood-inducing events was posited which
would lead to positive events having a relatively weaker effect on the reported job
satisfaction levels of'nigh NA individuals as compared to iow N A individuals.
Subjects (N = 57) were employees in four different departments o f a medium
sized hospital; 45 women and 12 men, average age 37 years with an average tenure at the
hospital o f 3 Vi years. A ll subjects responded to a request to volunteer to participate in a
study regarding job attitudes. Each subject was randomly assigned to either a positive
mood induction group or the control (no mood induction) group for the data collection
session. A total o f four data collection sessions (two per day) were conducted on two
different dates. A three-week time span lapsed between the first and second data
collection sessions. Subjects in the mood-induction group were offered cookies and soft
drinks upon their arrival and were given a gift-wrapped box with a small toy - a wind up
toy monkey that walked - before being given the questionnaire. Subjects in the control
group were given the questionnaire upon arrival to the data collection session and nothing
else. The control group sessions were conducted first on each o f the data collection dates
to prevent the control group from hearing about the cookies, drinks, and gifts given to
their counterparts. Subjects in both groups completed the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale
(TMAS) to assess their N A level.
The data collected were analyzed using hierarchical multiple regression w ith N A
entered in Step 1, the treatment group (positive mood-induction or control group) entered
36
second, and the interaction group (high or low N A x treatment or control group) was
entered third. Results show support for all three hypotheses. A negative correlation was
found between N A and job satisfaction. As expected, there was a main effect o f positive
mood-inducing events on job satisfaction after controlling for N A - subjects in the
positive mood-induction group reported higher ieveis o fjo b satisfaction than their
counterparts in the control group. Finally, evidence shows that there was an interaction
between N A and positive mood-induction such that high N A individuals in both the
mood-inducing group and the control group reported lower levels o fjo b satisfaction than
low N A subjects.
The results reported by B rie f et al (1995) lend additional support to the NA-job
satisfaction relation reported in the literature; that is, N A was found to be negatively
associated with job satisfaction. These findings also report the differential effect o f
positive mood-inducing events on high versus low NA individuals. Evidence in this
study shows that positive mood-inducing events had relatively less impact on the reported
job satisfaction level o f high NA individuals as compared to low NA individuals. High
NA subjects in the positive mood-inducement group reported a mean job satisfaction
level o f 61.42 (compared to the high N A control group mean o f 59.50) and low N A
subjects in the positive mood-inducement group reported a mean job satisfaction level o f
71.88 (compared to the low N A control group mean o f 62.29). The difference between
the reported job satisfaction level o f high N A subjects in the mood-inducing and control
groups, 1.92, is substantially smaller than the difference between the job satisfaction
levels o f low N A subjects in the mood-inducing and control groups, 9.59. These data
37
suggest that low N A individuals were more responsive (influenced by) positive mood
inducements than high N A individuals.
An obvious criticism o f this study is the limited generalizability o f the findings
due to small sample size (N=57), however these results should not be discounted or
dismissed. B rie f et ai. (1995) were the first to investigate and report the interaction
between NA, positive mood inducements and job satisfaction in a field experiment.
Their results are consistent with previous research on the NA-job satisfaction relation, but
more importantly this research contributes new evidence to the job satisfaction literature:
high NA individuals are affected differently by situational job factors (e.g., positive mood
inducements) than low N A individuals.
The studies cited above initiated a fruitful stream o f research that includes
investigations o f the relationship between various dispositions and job satisfaction.
However, this stream o f research has not been guided by theory nor has the evidence
reported in the literature been quantitatively summarized or adequately utilized to
develop theories that explain the effect o f dispositions on job satisfaction. The Judge et
al. (1997) dispositional theory o fjo b satisfaction attempts to identify and explain
dispositional sources o fjo b satisfaction. The Judge model is presented, described, and
critiqued in the next section.
Presentation and critique o f the dispositional theory o fjo b satisfaction
As stated previously, the dispositional theory o fjo b satisfaction introduced by
Judge et al. (1997) based on core self evaluations (CSE) integrates concepts and ideas
from eight diverse literatures (clinical psychology research, clinical psychology practice,
38
philosophy, job satisfaction research, stress research, social psychology, child
development theory, and personality theory) to provide a framework for testing causal
models o f the effects o f dispositional traits on job satisfaction. CSE is the focal trait in
the Judge et al. (1997) theory. According to Judge et al. (1997), CSE is a “ new”
personality construct that represents fundamental "bottom-line" evaluations that
individuals subconsciously make about themselves, others and the world. This concept o f
core evaluations is rooted in Appraisal Theory (Rokeach, 1972; Packer, 1985, 1986)
which states that it is through emotional generalization that individuals experience
subconscious appraisals o f other people or events in relation to their perceived values or
needs (Judge et al., 1997). Judge and his associates, refer to Packer ( 19S5, 1986) who
asserts that meta-physical appraisals or "core evaluations" serv e as the basis for all other
appraisals. To explicate the concept o f core evaluations, Judge et al. refer to an analogy
used by Packer (1985):
An individual’s core evaluations comprise the trunk o f the tree, while the
branches and leaves o f the tree are the situationally specific evaluations. Just as
the nature o f the tree determines the kinds o f leaves and branches it w ill grow, the
nature o f individual’s core evaluations affects all their other, lesser evaluations (p.
157, Judge et al., 1997).
Judge and his colleagues refer to evaluations o f self as core self-evaluations (CSE).
These authors argue that the "new” personality trait, CSE, which they posit to be
comprised o f four different dispositional traits namely, self esteem (SE), generalized self-
efficacy (GSE), locus o f control (LOC) and emotional stability (ES), is not merely a
linear composite o f these four traits. According to Judge et al. (1997), even though SE,
GSE, ES and LOC are highly correlated, they are four separate constructs and CSE is the
39
sum o f the measures o f each construct. This conceptualization implies that CSE is a
composite o f four traits and not itself a trait. This inconsistency in the conceptualization
and operationalization o f CSE in empirical research led Schmidt (1999) to criticize the
Judge et al. (1997) dispositional theory o f job satisfaction and point out apparent
inconsistencies involving the use o f CSE in empirical research. According to Schmidt
(1999) CSE cannot be considered to simultaneously be: (a) the general factor underlying
these measures (the latent variable), and (b) a composite o f four separate constructs (in
which variance specific to each o f the four constructs is true variance). Yet in this theory,
as described for example in Judge. Locke & Durham (1997), the major article presenting
this theory, this is what is attempted. Clearly, additional empirical evidence is needed to
support CSE as a "new” personality construct. Moreover, discriminant validity evidence
is needed to determine i f CSE is a “ new” construct or i f it is simply a different label for
Factor IV o f the Big Five personality dimensions, ES.
The basic premise o f the Judge et al. (1997) dispositional theory o f job
satisfaction is that the fundamental core evaluations that individuals make o f themselves,
CSE, influence the level o f job satisfaction that individuals experience and report. Judge
et al. note the absence o f dispositional theories that identify specific traits that may be
causally related to job satisfaction. These researchers also note the absence o f criteria for
selecting different traits that have the greatest likelihood o f being related to job
satisfaction. Thus, Judge and his associates suggest three criteria for selecting the specific
traits to investigate based on their potential to influence or cause job satisfaction,
however their use o f terminology in defining these criteria is conceptually unclear.
40
According to Judge and his colleagues SE, GSE, LOC, and ES were selected to
comprise the CSE concept based on three attributes that they share in common:
evaluation focus, fundamentally, and breadth (or scope). Judge at al (1997) suggest that
these attributes serve as criteria for selecting other traits in job satisfaction research.
Meeting these three criteria qualifies the four trails as core evaiuaiions o f seif and thereby
enable them to operate as indicators o f CSE. Since each trait is said to have an evaluation
focus and is fundamental and broad in scope thus these dispositional traits are posited to
have the greatest likelihood o f influencing or causing job satisfaction (Judge et al.). The
four traits do not follow any hierarchical order. However, Judge et al. (1997) posit
differences to exist in the magnitude o f the relation between each o f the four traits and
job satisfaction. SE is posited to be the trait most strongly related to job satisfaction.
In establishing the first criterion Judge et al. (1997) make a distinction between
traits that are evaluative (for example SE) and those that are descriptive (such as
assertiveness). The term "evaluation focus” refers to the extent to which a trait is an
appraisal o f oneself, others, or the world as opposed to a description; evaluative traits are
posited to influence job satisfaction to a greater extent and more directly than descriptive
traits (Judge et al.). Creating a difference between traits based on whether they are
evaluative or descriptive is illusory since all traits by definition are descriptive. Schmidt
(personal correspondence, 1999) notes that the manner in which the term evaluative is
used by Judge et al (1997) suggests that traits have “ a desirability dimension— more o f
the trait is viewed by people as better than less (or vice versa).” This implies that people
evaluate the trait itself rather than evaluating themselves on the trait (Schmidt, personal
41
correspondence, 1999). Thus there is a need to clarify the evaluation focus criterion for
selecting traits to include in the CSE concept.
Fundamentality and scope are two additional criteria recommended by Judge et al.
(1997) for selecting traits to investigate in regard to their relation with job satisfaction.
Judge el ai refer 10 fne research o f Catteii (1965) and Rokeach (1 y 72) to note that
fundamental traits are defined as basic source (central) traits that underlie more narrow
surface (peripheral) traits. Basic source (central) traits are believed to have more
connections to other traits, beliefs, and evaluations than surface (peripheral) ones. Thus,
fundamentality in the Judge et al. theory refers to the extent to which a trait is o f central
importance in an individual’s life. Breadth (or scope) is defined in a similar manner by
Judge and his colleagues. It is the extent to which a trait is global - wide in scope- and
generalizes to encompass different aspects o f an individual’s life (e.g.. both work and
personal life). Judge and his colleagues-cite the research o f A llport (1961) who made a
distinction between cardinal and secondary traits (the former are broader in scope than
the latter) to propose that cardinal traits are more likely to be related to other traits and
attitudes than secondary traits.
It appears that both o f these criteria, fundamentality and breadth, address the same
trait attributes- the broad nature o f traits and their connection to other traits - using
different terminology (Cattell’s source traits versus A llp o rt’ s cardinal traits) thus, the
distinction between these two criteria as set forth bv Judge et al is nebulous.

* w
Although the criteria for selecting dispositional traits to examine with respect to
their relationship w ith job satisfaction suggested by Judge et al (1997) requires
42
conceptual clarification, the efforts o f these researchers are to be commended; it is the
first attempt to provide an organizing framework to guide research and develop a
dispositional theory o f job satisfaction. The four dispositional traits identified by Judge
and his associates namely, SE, GSE, LOC and ES, merit more thorough examination as
dispositional sources o f job satisfaction given the empirical evidence reported in the
literature that shows each o f these four traits to be correlated, albeit variably, with job
satisfaction.
SE is the first trait discussed by Judge et al (1997). Self esteem is considered by
Judge and his colleagues to be a relatively stable trait that is the broadest and most
fundamental evaluation o f self. The authors cite research on SE and note that it is the
more evaluative component o f self-concept that allows individuals’ to evaluate
themselves and place value on themselves as people (Tharenou, 1979; Locke, McClear &
Knight, 1996; Harter, 1990). Judge et al. (1997) suggest that individual's SE w ill
influence perceptions o f the world around them and their job. Research has shown SE to
be positively correlated with job satisfaction (Korman, 1970; Tharenou, 1979) and to
influence the occupational choices made by people (Tharenou, 1979). Individuals with
low SE are more likely to choose occupations that are not consistent w ith their self
perceived traits and personalities than their high SE counterparts (Tharenou, 1979).
Generalized self-efficacy (GSE), the second trait discussed by Judge et al (1997),
is the belief in one’s ability to perform a variety o f tasks (Sherer, Maddux, Prentice-
Dunn, Mercandante, Jacobs. 1986). According to Judge et al. (1997), individuals
evaluate themselves on their ability to perform a variety o f different tasks in a variety o f
43
different situations that thereby qualifies GSE as a component o f CSE. A distinction,
based on breadth (scope), is made by Judge et al. between self-efficacy and GSE; the
former is task specific whereas the latter is broader (covers a variety o f different tasks)
and is therefore, more trait-like. Judge et al. expect GSE and SE to be highly interrelated
since GSE is conceptualized as the competency aspect o f SE. Thus, Judge et ai posit that
GSE w ill positively influence job satisfaction.
Locus o f control (LOC) is another personality trait that Judge and his associates
identify as meeting the criteria to be included in the CSE concept. LOC is the extent to
which one believes one has control over outcomes; internal LOC refers to one's ability to
control outcomes, external LOC refers to one who does not believe in one's ability to
control outcomes (Rotter, 1966). LOC is a stable trait (Rotter, 1966) that is similar to SE
in its origin; that is. Judge et al. (1997) state that LOC beliefs are subconsciously
developed early in life. According to Judge and his colleagues, these subconscious
beliefs concerning one's ability to control outcomes generalize to become CSE that affect
job satisfaction directly. Thus. Judge et al. hypothesize internal LOC to have a positive
relationship and influence on job satisfaction however, they expect the magnitude o f the
relation between the two constructs to be smaller than the effect o f GSE on job
satisfaction.
Judge et al. (1997) include emotional stability (ES) one o f the Big Five
personality traits (Goldberg, 1990; Digman, 1990) as one o f the personality traits that
comprises the CSE concept Judge et al. state that low ES (reverse scored as neuroticism)
is considered to be the opposite o f SE; that is, descriptors such as anxiousness,
44
nervousness, worry and self-doubt are typically used to refer to individuals w ith low self
esteem and low ES (high neuroticism). The authors also note that a negative relationship
is generally reported in the literature on the relationship between job satisfaction and
neuroticism (low ES) (Furham & Zacheral, 1986) and job satisfaction and negative affect,
a construct w ith its genesis in neuroticism (Watson Sc Teiiegen, 1985). Thus, Judge and
his colleagues propose that neuroticism (low ES) w ill have a negative relation and w ill
negatively influence job satisfaction.
The Judge et al. (1997) dispositional theory o f job satisfaction depicts four
mechanisms by which CSE could affect job satisfaction (see Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4). In
Model I, the Direct (main) effects Model, CSE is posited to have a direct causal effect on
job satisfaction (see Figure 1.1). Models II (see Figures 2) and III (see Figures 3) posit
CSE to have both direct and indirect (or mediated) effects on job satisfaction through
situational appraisals (e.g., job perceptions) and actions that people take as a result o f
their core evaluations (e.g., job choice and occupational selection), respectively. A
Moderator (interactive) effect is depicted in Model IV (see Figure 4) with CSE operating
as a moderator o f the relation between job characteristics and job satisfaction. According
to Judge et al., these models are not mutually exclusive since it is possible to obtain
evidence for all four models. The researchers acknowledge that Model I would be
contradicted i f empirical evidence is obtained only for the Moderator effects Model,
Model IV (Figure 4). The relations o f interest in this dissertation are depicted in the
Direct and Mediated effects (through situational appraisals) models, as shown in Model I
and Model II (see Figures 1 and 2).
45
Research findings from the Judge et al. (1997) dispositional theory o f job satisfaction
Judge, Locke, Durham & BCluger (1998) investigated the relationship between
CSE and job satisfaction in three independent samples in two different countries. CSE
was posited to have both direct and indirect (mediated) effects on job satisfaction. A dual
source methodology was employed in which data were coiiected from a sampie o f
physicians (N= 1S3), college graduates (N=158) and Israeli college students (N=132) and
their respective significant others to minimize the effect o f common method bias.
Participants completed self-report measures o f self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy,
neuroticism, locus o f control, and overall job satisfaction. The researchers developed
shorter instruments that were completed by participants’ significant other to measure .
each o f the four different traits as well as overall job satisfaction. Participants also
completed self-report measures o f their perceptions o f the extent to which their jobs
consists o f different job characteristics (there was no corresponding measure o f job
characteristics for significant others to complete).
First, Judge et al. (1998) found evidence to support the hypothesis that all four
traits load on one factor, which was referred to as CSE. Additional tests were conducted
to determine the nature o f the relationship between CSE and job satisfaction.
CSE was hypothesized to be positively correlated with jo b satisfaction and to have a
direct effect on job satisfaction as well as an indirect effect, through perceived job
characteristics, on job satisfaction. In order to estimate the true correlation o f
dispositional variables with job satisfaction and perceived job characteristics, Judge et al.
(1998) used meta-analytic techniques to average the correlations across the three samples
46
and make corrections for sampling error and unreliability. SE was found to display the
strongest correlation with job satisfaction. Almost all o f the variance across studies was
due to sampling error. The correlations between self-report data and job satisfaction were
higher than the correlation between significant other reports and job satisfaction. Results
show that self-reports o f CSE were more predictive o f seif-reports o f job satisfaction in
the physician and college graduate samples than in the Israeli sample.
Covariance structural analysis (LISREL) was used to test the factor structure o f
CSE and the hypothesized relationships (Judge et al., 1998). Three structural models
were tested: self-report to significant other reports; significant other report to self-report;
and self-report to self-report. The self-report model demonstrated the best fit to the data
in all three samples. The results o f the test o f the Direct Effects model. Model I, found
CSE to have a direct effect on job satisfaction in all three samples; .49, .28, and .15 in the
physician, college graduate and Israeli samples, respectively (Judge et al., 1998).
However, the stronger relation was found in the indirect relationship (as mediated by
perceived job characteristics) between CSE and job satisfaction for the college graduate
and Israeli samples. Estimates o f the size o f the indirect effect were found to be .51, and
.44 in the in the college graduate, and Israeli samples, respectively (Judge et al., 1998).
The strongest direct relation (.34) in Model II was found to exist between CSE and job
satisfaction for the physician sample. It is possible that this finding for the physician
sample is due to a minimal amount o f variance in the perceived job characteristics
reported by physicians. There was no support found for the moderator model (Judge et
al., 1998).
47
Judge et al. (1998) argue that the most important finding o f this study is that core
evaluations o f the se lf in the form o f CSE have consistent effects on job satisfaction
independent o f perceived characteristics o f the job. Furthermore, they identify SE and
GSE as the most critical self-evaluations since these two traits were shown through
confirmatory factor analysis to be the largest contributors to CSE. LOC, although higniy
correlated with GSE, and ES was found to contribute the least to CSE. The evidence
support the hypothesized relationship between CSE and job satisfaction; that is, both
direct and indirect effects, mediated by perceptions o f job characteristics, were found to
exist between CSE and job satisfaction. The data also show that individuals with positive
self-evaluations rated their work higher on all five job characteristics and on job
satisfaction.
The researchers use o f independent samples from two different cultures and the
use o f a dual source methodology to investigate dispositional sources o f job satisfaction
make this study unique. The effect o f common method bias in artificially inflating
correlations is reduced as a result o f using the dual source methodology. The
generalizability o f the results may be expanded since this research by Judge et al. (l99Sa)
represents the first time dispositional research has been conducted simultaneously in two
different cultures.
One noticeable limitation o f this study is the authors’ failure to report
discriminant validity evidence for CSE. Simply conducting analyses to show that
measures o f the four different traits load on one factor is not sufficient evidence to claim
that a new personality construct has been discovered. Convergent and discriminant
48
validity evidence is needed to identify the latent construct that underlies measures o f the
four trait, namely SE, GSE, LOC and ES posited to comprise CSE and to determine
CSE’ s place in the nomological net o f personality constructs. The personality construct
that underlies measures o f these four traits must be accurately identified in order to
facilitate theory development and theory testing to increase understanding o f
dispositional sources o f variance in job satisfaction.
Judge, Bono & Locke (2000) further explored the CSE-job characteristics-job
satisfaction relation. Two separate studies were conducted to examine the nature o f the
relationship (direct and indirect) between CSE, objective job characteristics (job
complexity), subjective (perceived) job characteristics, and job satisfaction. In Study 1,
SE, GSE, LOC, and ES were assessed via self-report and significant others report.
Subjects also reported their perceptions o f five job characteristics, overall job
satisfaction, and current job title. To obtain an objective assessment o f job complexity, a
three-digit occupational code was assigned to each job title reported by subjects and those
codes were subsequently converted to job complexity scores based on the fourth edition
o f the Dictionary o f Occupational Titles.
A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test the CSE measurement model
and show covariance structure analysis was performed to estimate the fit o f the self-
report and significant others’ report models (Judge et al., 2000). Covariance structure
analysis estimated using LISREL 8.12 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993) for the self-report
model show that CSE had direct effects on perceived job characteristics (.41), job
complexity (.26) and job satisfaction (.22) (Judge et al., 2000). Perceived job
49
characteristics had a direct effect on job satisfaction, however, there was no direct
relationship between job complexity and job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2000). Job
complexity was found to have an indirect relationship with job satisfaction (Judge et al.,
2000). CSE also had an indirect effect on job satisfaction through perceived job
characteristics, but not through job complexity.
The covariance structure analysis estimated using LISREL 8.12 (Joreskog &
Sorbom, 1993) for the mixed model which related significant others’ reports o f CSE to
self-reports o f job characteristics, job complexity and job satisfaction show a moderate
relationship between CSE (as reported by significant others) and job complexity (.28). A
moderate relationship was also found between CSE and perceived job characteristics; the
CSE-job satisfaction relationship was weaker in this model as compared to the self-
report model (Judge et al., 2000).
The focus o f Study 2 was to assess the CSE-job characteristics-job satisfaction
relationship longitudinally; data collection spanned a thirty year time period. A post hoc
measure o f CSE was constructed based on eight items that met the CSE selection criteria
set forth by Judge and his colleagues. The post hoc CSE measure was used to collect
data to derive a childhood CSE score based on data collected when subjects were 13 and
16 years o f age and an adulthood CSE score based on data collected when subjects were
38 years old. Job satisfaction was measured once during adulthood (between the ages o f
41 and 50 years old) and at that time subjects also reported their job title. These job titles
were used to obtain a job complexity score based on the Dictionary o f Occupational
Titles ratings.
50
Once again, LISREL 8 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993) estimates were used to assess
the fit o f the hypothesized models. CSE had a direct effect on job satisfaction in the
Early A dult model, but in not the Childhood model (Judge et al., 2000). However, CSE
did have a direct effect on job complexity in both models (Judge et al., 2000).
The authors conclude dial die evidence presented in these two studies iend
additional support to their CSE-based dispositional theory o f job satisfaction; that is. the
data presented in Study 1 and, to a lesser extent, the findings o f Study 2, generally
support the direct and indirect (mediated) effect o f CSE on job characteristics.
Judge and his associates have recently changed their initial conceptualization o f
CSE (personal communication, 1999). Judge & Bono (1998) now argue that CSE is a
"meta-trait” - a broad personality trait that encapsulates more specific traits- that merits
inclusion in the nomological network o f personality constructs as part o f the Big Five
Personality Dimensions as a replacement for Factor IV, ES (reverse scored as
neuroticism). According to Judge & Bono (1998), CSE fits into the five-factor model
because it is the trait that causes all o f the other traits to be positively correlated. Thus
they argue that self-esteem, locus o f control, and generalized self-efficacy are alternative
measures o f emotional stability (Factor IV in the Five Factor Model). Judge & Bono
(1998) contend that CSE is a broader construct than emotional stability in the same way
that conscientiousness, one o f the Big Five personality dimensions, is broader than
achievement or dependability.
Since a shift in the conceptualization o f CSE was made by Judge and his
colleagues, they have accumulated evidence that they interpret as suggesting that CSE is
51
broader than emotional stability and that measures o f SE, GSE, LOC and ES are
indicators o f the latent construct, CSE (Judge, personal communications, 1999).
However, their focus was on the narrow measures o f ES used in individual personality
inventories. In the Big Five model, the construct o f ES is defined broadly (Digman,
1990; Goldberg, 1990). Individual scales measuring ES may be Loo narrow to be
construct valid measures o f ES. The sum o f several such measures would be a more
construct valid measure. I hypothesize that SE. GSE, and LOC are such additional
measures. The research in this dissertation w ill provide meta-analytic evidence to
support my contention that CSE is the construct ES under a different label. The present
research provides meta-analytic evidence o f the interrelatedness among measures o f SE,
GSE. LOC and ES thereby showing that they are indicators o f one underlying construct,
ES. Additionally meta-analytic evidence o f the causal relationship(s) that exists between
ES and satisfaction is presented. The empirical evidence generated from this dissertation
contributes new information to the literature on job satisfaction and w ill be useful in
refining the Judge et al. dispositional theory o f job satisfaction.
Critique o f the dispositional theory o f job satisfaction
As noted previously. Judge and his colleagues have developed a stream o f
empirical research that tests causal relationships between CSE and job satisfaction.
However, their research conclusions are questionable given the possibility that CSE is not
really a new construct but rather ES under a different label. Problems with the
conceptualization o f CSE as a construct or a composite o f four specific traits and
52
inaccuracy in the initial definition o f the measurement model contribute to making this
line o f research difficult to interpret.
Studies conducted to date on the Judge et ai (1997) dispositional theory o f job
satisfaction have variously referred to CSE as a construct (Judge et al, 1998) a “ concept”
(Judge, Bono & Locke, 2000), a “ taxonomy” (Erez & Judge, ivvS j, "core traits" (Judge,
Bono & Locke, 2000; Erez & Judge, 1998) and a “ meta-trait” (Erez & Judge, 1998). The
looseness in the use o f the term “ CSE” makes it appear that Judge and his associates are
unclear about how they conceptualize CSE (is it a construct, concept, taxonomy or meta
trait. Judge et al. contend that CSE is not a composite o f the four different traits o f which
it is comprised, namely SE. GSE, LOC and ES. However, the most feasible explanation
concerning CSE based on the empirical research provided to date is that it is a composite
o f SE, GSE, LOC, and ES measures. This can be seen in the measurement model
initia lly specified for CSE. The measurement model presented by Judge et al. clearly
shows each o f the four specific traits as separate constructs and CSE as the sum o f the
four constructs, thus, the measurement model does not specify CSE as a construct itself.
Summing measures o f four separate constructs in this manner means that each trait
accounts for unique variance that is not accounted for by the other three measures which
in turn means that CSE is a composite and not a construct.
It is important to make a distinction between conceptualizing CSE as a construct
or a composite o f four different personality traits due to the implications for theory
development, testing theory and the computation o f appropriate reliability estimates for
use in making corrections for measurement error. I f CSE is conceptualized as a construct
53
measured by combining scores from SE, GSE, LOC and ES scales, then the appropriate
reliability model for making corrections for specific factor measurement error is
Cronbach’ s Generalizability Theory (Cronbach. et al 1972). Under generalizability
theory unique variance associated with a specific scale is appropriately assigned to error
variance, this is so because the unique variance does not measure the same underlying
construct that the other scales measure. In accordance with generalizability theory, each
different scale is treated as a single item on a multiple item test and a standardized alpha
based on the correlations among the different measures o f the construct being assessed is
computed. A ll scale specific variance is assigned to error variance.
Conversely, i f CSE is conceptualized as a composite, then it would be appropriate
to use the Mosier reliability model, which appropriately includes specific factor
measurement variance in true variance (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). That is, variance
unique to the specific instruments used to measure a trait is counted as true variance (a
measure o f the construct being investigated) when the Mosier (1943) reliability model is
used.
In spite o f the problems in conceptualization, definition and measurement o f CSE.
the Judge et al. (1997) dispositional theory o f job satisfaction provides a useful
framework for investigating the effects o f specific dispositional traits namely, SE, GSE,
LOC and ES, on job satisfaction. The review o f the personality-job satisfaction literature
presented here and in House et al (1996) show that each trait posited to comprise CSE has
been em pirically linked to job satisfaction. Hence further investigations o f these
relationships are needed to identify what these traits share in common. Moreover,
54
additional examinations o f trait-job satisfaction relationships provide opportunities to
assess the nature and magnitude o f causal relationships that exist between these
constructs.
The research o f Judge and his colleagues addresses the need for a dispositional
theory o f job satisfaction. I he causal models presented in the Judge et al (1997) theory
depict different mechanisms that describe how traits may effect job satisfaction. This is a
major contribution to the personality-job satisfaction literature. These models show that
traits may have a direct (main), indirect (mediated) or interactive (moderator) effect on
job satisfaction. The theory integrates the dispositional approach and the more traditional
situational approach to investigate causal determinants o f job satisfaction. The integration
o f these different approaches creates a relatively comprehensive framework for testing
hypotheses that include both dispositional and situational variables
A t the center o f the Judge et al. dispositional theory o f job satisfaction is the
'“new” construct” , CSE. As reported previously, although Judge et al. (1997) argue that
CSE is a construct, they themselves have treated CSE as a composite rather than as a
construct in empirical research (Judge, et al, 1998; Judge & Bono, 1999; Erez & Judge,
1998). Proposing new personality constructs stands in conflict with developing
scientifically parsimonious theories. In fact. Ozer & Reise (1994) discourage the
proliferation o f “ new” personality constructs that tend to be "bloated” specific measures
with a narrow focus. According to these authors, “ Bloated” specific [personality]
measures often lack theoretical utility, have an extremely circumscribed range o f
prediction, and are typically not linked to broader and more established personality
variables... no bloated specific contributes to our larger understanding o f personality
structure” (p. 362, Ozer & Reise, 1994).
Research question and hypotheses
Consistent w ith the advice o f Ozer & Reise (1994), I chose to explore the
relationship between measures ofSE, GSE, LOC, ES, perceptions o f the five job
characteristics and job satisfaction w ithin a meta-analytic framework making corrections
for scale specific measurement error based on the Cronbach, et al (1972) generalizability
theory to identify the latent personality construct that underlies these measures. This
reliability model was selected to make corrections for unreliability in the various scales
used to measure traits because it allows the common variance shared by different trait
scales designed to measure the same construct to be accurately measured. That is, the
measurement error inherent in each different scale (specific factor measurement error) is
assigned to measurement error leaving only the common variance shared by all scales.
My contention is that measures o f SE, GSE, LOC and ES are indicators o f the latent
construct, ES.
I gathered meta-analytic evidence to show that CSE is ES and not a new
construct. I used the framework presented in the Judge et al. (1997) dispositional theory
o f job satisfaction w ith ES (see Figure 6) instead o f CSE as the construct o f interest in
testing the causal relations hypothesized in the Direct Effects (see Figure 1) and Indirect
Effects (see Figure 2) models, respectively. ES, Factor IV in the dominant Big Five
personality dimensions, is the trait o f interest in the proposed research for several
reasons. First, it is an important, broad and well-established personality construct.
56
Second, ES and components o f ES (e.g., negative affect) have been consistently linked to
job satisfaction empirically (Perone, DeWarrd & Baron, 1979; Smith, Organ &Near,
1983; Terry, Nielsen & Perchard, 1993; Nelson, Cooper & Jackson, 1995; Tokar &
Subich, 1997).
The prevalence o f research on ES in ihe personality literature is an indicator o f its
importance in shaping the attitudes o f individuals. Personality researchers as early as the
1930s (A llp o rt & Odbert, 1936; Cattell, 1957) have consistently identified multiple
dimensions o f personality that include ES. These researchers identified approximately
18,000 personality relevant terms from Webster's New International Dictionary• that
described distinctive personal behavior and eventually classified them on conceptual
grounds into the four categories, one o f which was "personal traits" (John & Robins.
1993). The early research o f A llport & Odbert was extended by Cattell (1943. 1945),
who used semantic and empirical clustering procedures to reduce the aforementioned
number o f personality trait terms to thirty-five. A reanalysis o f Cattell’ s data sets by
Tupes and Christal (1961) produced empirical evidence that supported five factors.
Several other researchers also consistently found five "relatively strong factors” to
emerge in Cattell’s data sets as well as in new data sets (Tupes & Christal, 1961;
Norman, 1967; Goldberg, 1981, 1982). These factors form the Big Five personality
dimensions (or Five Factor Model o f personality): Factor I - extraversion. Factor II -
agreeableness, Factor III - conscientiousness, Factor IV - emotional stability (reverse
scored as neuroticism), and Factor V - openness to experience (Goldberg, 1981, 1982;
Costa & McCrae, 1984, 1986, and Digman, 1990). Each factor is bipolar.
57
The robustness and generality o f the Big Five personality dimensions is well
supported w ith empirical evidence and accepted widely by I/O Psychologists. Goldberg
(1990) presented compelling evidence supporting the structure o f the Big Five by using a
variety o f factor analytic techniques to analyze Norman’s Taxonomy (1967) that consists
o f i,43 i trait-descriptive adjectives grouped into seventy-five clusters. The five-factor
structure emerged regardless o f the type o f factor procedures used to analyze the data.
Factor IV o f the Big Five, ES, includes trait descriptors such as confidence, poise, and
self-reliance to describe individuals at the positive pole w ith high ES scores. The
negative pole o f ES includes the trait-adjectives self-pity, anxiety, insecurity, self-
criticism and fearfulness in reference to individuals with low ES scores. These trait
descriptors display the broad range and nature o f the ES construct.
Some o f the trait-adjectives used to describe ES also apply to other dispositional
traits, namely, SE, GSE and LOC that have been linked to job satisfaction. A comparison
o f items included in SE, GSE, and LOC scales reveals items that fit well into one or more
Factor IV trait-adjective cluster (see Appendix A, B, and C for samples o f SE, GSE and
LOC scales, respectively). For example, two clusters under Factor IV, self-pity and
insecurity, are associated with low SE. SE scales include items such as "a ll in all, I am
inclined to feel that I am a failure” and “ I wish I could have more respect for m yse lf’
(Rosenberg, 1965). These items reflect an overall attitude o f self-pity and lack o f self-
respect included in Factor IV. Items from the Factor IV cluster "confidence” are found
on GSE (Sherer, Maddux, Mercandante, Prentice-Dunn, Jacobs & Rogers, 1982) and
LOC ” (Rotter, 1966) scales. The GSE and LOC items " I feel insecure about my ability
58
to do things” and “ when I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them work” ,
respectively, assess the amount o f confidence an individual has as well as one’s belief in
one’s ability to control outcomes. Agreement with the former item reflects low GSE
while agreement w ith the latter displays an internal locus o f control. It is very likely that
such overlap between trait descriptors and across different SE, GSE, LOC and ES scales
exist. This implies that to some extent these scales although purported to assess different
traits actually measure a single, broad latent personality construct, namely ES.
Furthermore, it is possible that these trait scales vary in the extent to which each captures
(measures) the ES construct.
As noted previously, SE, GSE, LOC and ES, are traits commonly studied to
determine their relationship with job satisfaction. Each trait has been found to correlate
with job satisfaction, however there is substantial variability in the correlations across
studies. A closer examination o f the theory upon which each trait is based provides an
insight into how these traits might be interrelated.
The SE construct is defined as the evaluative component o f the broader construct
self concept (Rosenberg, 1965; Wylie, 19S9). Research on SE shows it to be a
multidimensional construct that has an influence on individuals’ perceptions and the way
individuals perceive themselves (assess their self-worth) and interpret environmental
stimuli (Hattie, 1992). According to Hattie (1992), “ self-esteem relates to the salience o f
[different] dimensions and is entwined w ith our sense o f self-worth” (pp.55). Based on
the premise that SE is multidimensional, SE should be viewed as the sum o f evaluations a
person makes across salient attributes o f one’s self or personality (Blascovich & Tomaka,
59
1991). Rosenberg (1965) argues that global measures o f SE hold more predictive and
explanatory power than narrow facet measures o f SE. This view is consistent with the
definition o f SE as a trait with the power to influence individuals’ perceptions in different
work and life arenas (Hattie, 1992).
A closely related construct, GSE, is based in seif-efftcacy theory. GSE has aiso
been linked to job satisfaction. Bandura (1989) defines self-efficacy as “ people’s beliefs
about their capabilities to exercise control over events that affect their lives and their
capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses o f action needed
to exercise control over task demands” (pp. 1175). Self-efficacy is typically defined and
measured within a particular context and concerns specific behaviors. On the other hand.
GSE refers to individuals’ beliefs in their general competence and effectiveness in a
variety o f situations. Thus GSE is an extension o f self-efficacy theory that focuses on
one’s beliefs about one’s personal effectiveness - which is an important aspect o f self
esteem (Maddux, 1995). To illustrate the link between GSE and SE, Maddux (1995)
argues “ i f one's sense o f competence is high for an ability one values, then this w ill
contribute to high self-esteem (or low self-esteem i f perceived competence for the valued
skill is low). Judgments o f inefficacy in unvalued areas o f competence are unlikely to
influence significantly self-concept and self-esteem” (pp. 9). Thus, there is conceptual
similarity between SE and GSE.
The genesis o f the LOC construct lies in Rotter’s social learning theory (Rotter,
1966; Rotter, Chance & Phares, 1972). According to Lefcourt (1991), LOC refers to
“ assumed states that explain why certain people actively, resiliently, and w illin g ly try to
60
deal with d ifficu lt circumstances, while others succumb to a range o f negative
emotions.. .a generalized expectancy pertaining to the connection between personal
characteristics and/or actions and experienced outcomes” (pp. 413-414). LOC and GSE,
are similar in some aspects; both constructs deal w ith beliefs held by individuals about
the impact o f their behaviors on outcomes, but they are different. The former is focused
on one’ s beliefs about the extent to which one’s behavior can control outcomes, while the
latter is concerned with the amount o f confidence one has in one’s ability to perform
certain behaviors across a wide spectrum o f situations to achieve desired outcomes
(Bandura, 19S6; Maddux, 1995). Since LOC does not deal with the issue o f confidence,
it is distinct from GSE.
ES. one o f the Big Five Personality dimensions, has been consistently linked to
job satisfaction in empirical research (Perone, DeWarrd & Baron, 1979; Smith, Organ &
Near, 1983; Terry, Nielsen & Perchard, 1993; Agho et al., 1993; Nelson et al., 1995;
Tokar & Subich, 1997). Perone, et al. conducted both a field study and a laboratory study
to determine the correlation between personality variables (neuroticism and extroversion)
and satisfaction with real and simulated jobs. Self-report data were collected from a
sample o f 98 young adult male industrial workers who were observed in their real (field
study) and in a simulated (lab study) job setting. The observed correlations between
neuroticism (reverse scored as ES) and job satisfaction in both studies were similar. The
correlation between neuroticism and job satisfaction in the real job was -.10 while the
observed correlation in between neuroticism and job satisfaction in the simulated job was
-.11.
61
Terry et al. (1993) investigated the effects o f work stress on psychological w ell
being and job satisfaction. The authors posited work stress (i.e., role ambiguity, work
overload) to have a negative effect on job satisfaction. Terry et al. were aware o f the
negative relation reported to exist between neuroticism and job satisfaction, therefore, the
researchers used neuroticism as a control variabie in their study in order to minimize the
confounding effects o f neuroticism. The observed correlation between neuroticism and
job satisfaction was reported to be -.25.
A particularly interesting relation between neuroticism and job satisfaction was
found by Tokar and Subich (1997). These authors compared the contributions o f all o f
the Big Five Personality dimensions in predicting self-reported job satisfaction.
Hierarchical regression models with job satisfaction as the criterion variable were
conducted to determine the relative contribution o f personality variables in predicting job
satisfaction. The set o f five personality dimensions contributed to predicting job
satisfaction. However, neuroticism and extroversion were found to contribute uniquely
to the prediction o f job satisfaction; correlations o f -.18 and .16 were reported between
neuroticism and extroversion, respectively, and job satisfaction. The beta weight for
neuroticism, -.14 had an inverse relationship with job satisfaction. Tokar and Subich
(1997) concluded that personality variables are useful in predicting self-reports o f job
satisfaction.
Watson and Clark (1984) presented negative affectivity (N A) as a unitary mood-
disposition that includes negative cognitions and low self-esteem. Measures o f trait-N A
are highly correlated w ith measures o f neuroticism (Costa & Me Crae, 1984; Tellegen,
62
1985; Watson & Clark, 1984; Connolley and Viswesvaran, 1998), thus NA can be
viewed as one indicator variable for neuroticism. A variety o f different measures have
been developed to assess NA. In a recent empirical investigation o f the equivalence
between 18 different measures o f N A , Connolly and Viswesvaran (1998) applied the
principle o f tetrad differences to an incomplete matrix o f correlations (87 or 153
correlations) and found evidence to support the equivalence o f all 18 measures in
assessing NA. The results o f a confirmatory factor analysis o f a complete matrix for four
o f the 18 scales provide additional empirical evidence that one common trait underlies
the different NA scales.
Research on the NA-job satisfaction relation reveals a consistent pattern o f an
inverse relationship between the two variables. Correlational analyses in empirical
research have allowed this pattern to be detected. However, minimal research has been
conducted to explicate the causal link between NA (or neuroticism) and job satisfaction.
The research o f Agho, et al. (1993) is the exception to the correlational studies typically
reported in the literature on job satisfaction. Agho et al. tested the causal model o f job
satisfaction embedded within the Price-Mueiler Turnover Model (1986). The Price-
Mueller Turnover Model (1986) consists o f environmental, situational (perceived job
characteristics more comprehensive than those included in the Hackman & Oldham
(1975) Job Characteristics Theory), and personality variables. N A (a more narrow
measure o f ES) and PA (a more focused measure o f extraversion) are the two personality
variables included in the model. A direct causal link between each o f these variables and
job satisfaction was posited to exist. The hypothesis regarding the relation between PA
63
and job satisfaction was supported however, the N A-job satisfaction relation was not
supported by the data. Although N A correlated -.265 with job satisfaction a stronger
relation was found between PA and job satisfaction (.442) and a direct causal relation
was found to exist between PA and job satisfaction. The findings concerning the effect
o f PA on job satisfuwlion in this study are consistent with patterns discovered in previous
research. Additionally, two job characteristics, skill variety (referred to as routinization)
and autonomy were found to have a direct causal effect on job satisfaction. These
findings led Agho et al. (1993) to conclude, “ ...satisfaction depends partly on various
personality dimensions that are brought into the organization rather than being created
just by job characteristics o f the organization. Those who exhibit positive affect are more
likely to be satisfied with their jobs, even after numerous job characteristics and
environmental variables are held constant” (pp. 1022). Thus, the study provides
additional support that individual differences in dispositions effect employees’ self-
reported job satisfaction and that ES plays an important role in predicting and explaining
variance in job satisfaction.
The four constructs discussed in the preceding paragraphs are linked conceptually
in at least two ways. First, each construct as defined has the potential to influence
individuals’ self-perceptions. Perceptions o f self-worth and self-confidence to perfomi in
a variety o f situations are reflected in SE and GSE, respectively, while individuals’ belief
in their ability to behave in ways to control outcomes is reflected in LOC. Second, it
appears that each o f these constructs overlap to some extent; that is, each construct is
defined in relation to the other. For example, GSE is defined in relation to SE; the
64
personal effectiveness and competence components o f GSE are important in how one
values oneself (develops perceptions o f SE). Similarly, LOC and GSE are linked
conceptually since both constructs deal w ith individuals’ beliefs about how their
behaviors influence outcomes, yet these constructs differ in their focus. As stated
previous*); iccuscs on one s coniiucncc in one s auuuy io porionii cerium
behaviors to obtain desired outcomes whereas LOC is not concerned with confidence.
Finally, trait scales designed to measure SE, GSE, LOC and ES contain common trait
descriptive adjectives which implies that SE, GSE and LOC may be components o f the
broad ES personality construct. Factor IV in Norman’s Taxonomy (1967) is comprised
o f eleven trait-descriptive clusters. A total o f ninety-three trait-descriptive adjectives are
listed in five clusters at the positive pole o f Factor IV and one hundred and twenty four
trait-descriptive adjectives are included in six clusters at the negative pole o f Factor IV
(see Appendix E).
Given the conceptual linkages among these constructs and empirical evidence that
each is correlated w ith job satisfaction the question that arises is: what is the source o f
commonality among SE, GSE, LOC and ES constructs?
The premise o f this dissertation is straightforward. CSE, considered as a
construct, is actually a new label for the construct ES, thus ES is the latent construct that
underlies measures o f SE, GSE. LOC and ES (see measurement model in Figure 2).
Additionally, ES is the personality trait that has both a direct and in indirect (mediated
through job characteristics) effect on job satisfaction.
The hypotheses tested in this dissertation are:
65
H I: (a) Measures o f SE, GSE, LOC and ES w ill correlate approximately 1.00
with measures o f ES (see Figure 5) and
(b) Measures o f SE, GSE, LOC and ES w ill load on one common factor.
H2: The ES construct has a direct causal effect on job satisfaction (see Figure
U/.
H3: The ES construct has an indirect (mediated) causal effect on job
satisfaction through job characteristics (see Figure 6).
H4: The ES construct has both direct and indirect (mediated) causal effects on
job satisfaction and indirect effect is o f higher magnitude than the direct
causal effect.
66
CHAPTER III
METHODS
Overview o f methodology
Psychometric meta-analytic techniques (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990; Viswesvaran &
Ones, 1995) were used to cumulate the findings o f previous research examining the
relationship between measures o f SE, GSE, LOC and ES and measures o f job
satisfaction. Confirmatory factor analysis (Hunter & Hamilton, 1992) path analyses
(Hunter & Hamilton, 1992) and covariance structure analysis (LISREL 8, Jdreskog &
Sorbom, 1993) were used to generate empirical evidence to show the nature o f the causal
relationship between ES and job satisfaction. Two separate analyses were conducted to
provide evidence to support the hypothesized relationships. In Analysis I. meta-analytic
procedures were used to obtain the true score correlations among measures o f the four
traits (SE, GSE, LOC and ES). High intercorrelations among the measures suggest that
the different trait scales measure the same underlying construct rather than different
constructs. The sample weighted mean observed correlations between trait measures and
job satisfaction measures across studies were corrected for measurement error using
Cronbach’s generalizability theory reliability estimates (to be discussed in the next
section), to obtain the true relationships between variables at the construct level.
An indicator approach was conducted in Analysis II to generate additional
empirical evidence o f one underlying construct. The data generated in Analysis I (the
67
meta-analyticallv derived uncorrected intercorrelations among SE, GSE, LOC and ES
scales) were used as input to a confirmatory factor analysis to determine the extent to
which measures o f the four traits loaded on a single factor. High loadings on a single
factor provide empirical evidence that measures o f the four traits serve as indicators o f a
single latent construct. Results obtained from the confirmatory factor anaiysis (i.e., the
factor intercorrelation matrix) were subsequently used in path analyses to test the fit o f
two hypothesized causal models; a direct effects model and an indirect effects model.
Analysis 1 - meta-analvsis o f the trait-iob satisfaction relationship
A review o f the personality-job satisfaction literature shows wide variability in
the range o f correlations across studies between measures o f personality traits and
measures o f job satisfaction. For example, correlations between measures o f ES and
LOC, the most commonly investigated personality traits, and measures o f job satisfaction
range between .10 and .25 and .27 to .42, respectively (Terry, Nielsen & Perchard, 1993;
Perone, Dewaard & Baron, 1980). SE measures were reported to correlate between .01
and .47 with measures o f job satisfaction while the correlation between GSE and job
satisfaction were reported to be between .18 and .56 (Jones, 1980; Jex & Gudanowski,
1992). The variability in observed correlations between traits and job satisfaction across
studies may be due, in part, to sampling error and measurement error. Psychometric
meta-analysis is a method used to simultaneously correct observed correlations for both
sampling error and measurement error in independent and dependent variables (Hunter &
Schmidt, 1990). Correcting observed correlations for the effects o f different types o f
artifacts using meta-analytic techniques allows ambiguous research findings such as those
68
in the personality-job satisfaction literature to be accurately interpreted. Theory
development and theory testing can be conducted once accurate estimates o f the true
relationship(s) between and among constructs are available.
Viswesvaran and Ones (1995) recommend the use o f psychometric meta-analyses
and structural equations models (or path analyses) to test theories in areas such as job
satisfaction in which the relationship between several different constructs have been
empirically tested with no single study (or only a few) containing all o f the constructs o f
interest. They note that more complex and interrelated theories can be tested using these
techniques. According to Viswesvaran & Ones (1995):
a major advantage o f combining psychometric meta-analysis and structural

equations modeling in theory testing is that not all relationships specified by a
theory need to be included in each primary study. For example, 10 studies might
report the relationship between two constructs A and B; 10 other studies could
report the relationship between B and C; and 5 other studies could report the
correlation between A, B, C, and D. The true score correlations between A, B, C.
and D, can be meta-analytically estimated and used to test a theory involving all
four constructs, although no individual study has included all fo u r constructs
(Viswesvaran & Ones, p.866).
The steps for conducting a psychometric meta-analysis outlined by Viswesvaran
& Ones (1995) were followed in the present study. First, the constructs and relationships
o f interest were identified as SE, GSE, LOC, ES, perceptions o f jo b characteristics, and
job satisfaction. Second, the main relationships o f interest were defined to be between
measures o f each o f the four traits, measures o f each o f the five perceived job
characteristics defined in the Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1975;
1976), namely, task identity, task significance, skill variety, feedback, and autonomy, and
measures o f job satisfaction. Finally, artifact information (i.e., scale reliability estimates)
69
on the various operational measures o f each o f the four traits, perceptions o f job
characteristics and job satisfaction were collected and recorded on separate coding forms.
These data served as input to the interactive meta-analysis program (Hunter & Schmidt,
1990) to obtain estimates o f both the sample weighted mean observed correlations and
the true score conclations between these constructs.
Psychometric meta-analvsis on sample weighted means
The first step in this study was to establish criteria to select studies for inclusion
in the meta-analysis. Studies that met the following criteria were included in the meta
analysis:
( I ) studies that reported a zero-order correlation between one or more measures o f SE,
GSE. LOC. ES and measures o f overall job satisfaction; (2) studies that reported a zero-
order correlation between measures o f perceived job characteristics as assessed by the
Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) or JDS-like measures (i.e., the Job Characteristics Index -
Sims, Szilagyi, & Keller. 1975) and measures o f SE, GSE, LOC, ES or measures o f
overall jo b satisfaction; (3) studies that reported the zero-order correlation between
measures o f negative affect (reverse scored as positive affect or ES) and measures o f job
satisfaction; and (4) data sets that reported zero-order correlations between measures o f
each o f the four traits, perceived job characteristics and overall job satisfaction. A total
o f 71 studies met the selection criteria for the meta-analyses (see Table 2).
A thorough search o f Psychological Abstracts electronic databases (PsychLit and
PscyhFirst) that contain abstracts o f research in the areas o f psychology, industrial-
organizational psychology, human resource management, organizational behavior, and
70
social psychology was conducted to identify empirical studies that met the established
selection criteria. Additional data were obtained from six data sets collected by Dr.
Timothy Judge and his associates.
Data that included the sample size, the scale(s) used to measure personality traits,
perceived job eharaeicrisiics and job satisfaction, seaie reiiabiiities fw'nen reported], and
zero-order correlations between measures o f the four traits, five perceived job
characteristics and job satisfaction were recorded and coded. Primary studies that met the
selection criteria were subgrouped for meta-analyses based on the trait, SE, GSE, LOC or
ES or perceived job characteristic that was investigated in the study. Subgroups were
formed and the intercorrelations among measures o f SE, GSE, LOC, ES, task identity
(TI), task significance (TS), skill variety (SV), autonomy (AC T), and feedback (FBK)
were recorded. In a few cases, the relationship between more than one trait and job
satisfaction was investigated in a single primary study. The data from those studies were
recorded on separate coding sheets and included in all applicable trait subgroups. For
example, a structural model tested by Schmitt and Bedeian (1982) included measures o f
perceived job characteristics, two dispositional traits (SE, LOC), and job satisfaction.
The intercorrelations among the eight variables (SE, LOC, task identity, task
significance, skill variety, feedback, autonomy, and job satisfaction) relevant to the
present research were first recorded and coded on separate coding forms. The coding
forms were then assigned to each applicable trait and job characteristics subgroup (SE,
LOC, TI, TS, SV, FBK, or AUT) for inclusion in the meta-analyses. Similarly, data on
the intercorrelation among trait, perceived job characteristics and job satisfaction
71
measures from six data sets obtained from Judge and his associates were recorded and
coded on separate forms, then assigned to all applicable trait and job characteristic
subgroups.
A series o f meta-analyses were conducted to make corrections to the observed
correlations for sampling error and measurement error. Corrections for measurement
error in both measures were made since the focus o f the present research is on
relationships at the construct (theoretical) level. (A detailed discussion o f corrections for
specific factor measurement error is presented in the next section). The Hunter and
Schmidt (1990) interactive meta-analytic technique was applied to all o f the distributions
(i.e.. r, N files) to obtain estimates o f the sample weighted mean observed correlation
between measures o f each trait and measures o f perceived job characteristics and job
satisfaction. The sample weighted mean observed correlations (uncorrected for
measurement error) obtained from the meta-analvses were used to construct a 10x10
matrix o f the intercorrelations among measures o f all variables namely, SE, GSE, LOC.
ES, TI, TS, SV. FBK, AUT and job satisfaction included in the meta-analysis (see Table
3). Each cell in the matrix represents a separate meta-analysis; a total o f 45 separate
meta-analyses were conducted (see Table 3). The uncorrected sample weighted mean
observed correlation between measures o f all study variables is shown in each cell o f the
matrix in Table 3 and the number o f correlations and the corresponding sample size
included in that particular meta-analysis are reported in Table 3.1.
72
Measurement error corrections using generalizabilitv theory reliability estimates
In the present meta-analysis, corrections for sampling error and measurement
error in all relationships were made to obtain accurate estimates o f the true relationships
between and among the four personality constructs (SE, GSE, LOC and ES). It is
important to select ihe appropriate reliability model when making corrections for
measurement error to avoid undercorrection. Schmidt and Le (1999) state that
researchers who conduct studies involving the psychological measurement o f individual
differences often overlook or ignore three types o f measurement error which cause a
downward bias in observed correlations: random response error, transient error, and
specific factor measurement error. Techniques such as the coefficient o f equivalence,
Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951) and Kuder-Richardson - 20, are used to make
corrections for random response measurement error and specific factor error as defined
by Classical Measurement Theory. However, other types o f error (i.e., transient error and
specific factor error as defined in generalizabilitv theory, Cronbach et al., 1972) go
uncorrected due to researchers’ failure to understand the psychological processes that
produce different types o f measurement error (Schmidt & Le, 1999; Schmidt & Hunter.
1999). Researchers should take these different types o f error into consideration in order
to obtain accurate estimates o f hypothesized relations between constructs and to ensure
that research results are accurately interpreted (Schmidt & Le, 1999; Schmidt & Hunter,
1999). Making the appropriate corrections for measurement error provides more accurate
estimates o f the true relationship between constructs and increases our understanding o f
those relationships.
73
Different types o f reliability estimates can be used to control for specific types o f
measurement error (Schmidt & Le, 1999; Schmidt & Hunter, 1999). For example,
random response error, which is caused by unpredictable variation in attention or mental
efficiency from moment to moment on a single occasion, is assessed by all types o f
reliability estimates (Schmidt &. Le, i 999; Schmidt & Hunter, ly y y y It is controlled by
averaging the error across all items within occasions (Schmidt & Le, 1999; Schmidt &
Hunter, 1999). In contrast, transient error is caused by unpredictable variation in
individual’ s mood, feelings and general mental state across different occasions.
Transient error is estimated by correlating responses across two (or more) different
occasions. Therefore, transient error can only be assessed when a measure is
administered on more than one occasion (Schmidt & Le, 1999; Schmidt & Hunter, 1999).
Unlike random response error and transient error, specific factor measurement error is
stable across time, however it is not a component o f the trait or construct being assessed,
therefore, it is treated as error variance. Specific factor measurement error is generated
by the interaction o f individuals with items or scales (Schmidt & Le, 1999; Schmidt &
Hunter, 1999). An excellent example illustrating how specific factor measurement error
operates is provided by Schmidt & Le (1999):
...specific factor error is produced by the interaction o f people with items (or
scales), and these interactions are psychological processes. Consider the specific
factor in the vocabulary word ‘capon’ . A capon is a castrated rooster and hence
the specific factor in this item probably measures the extent to which the
respondent has an agricultural background. This factor is irrelevant to verbal
74
ability but it does reflect a real psychological or experiential process (Schmidt &
Le, 1999).
The specific factor error associated with this item w ill replicate across different
occasions when the same item is administered in a measure. However these types o f
error w ill cancel out across different items (Schmidt & Hunter, 1999). Thus, specific
factor error at the item level can be controlled by averaging across the items in a measure
(Nunnally, 1978; Schmidt & Hunter, 1999). Similarly, the specific factor measurement
error in parallel, randomly parallel or more loosely parallel scales is controlled by
averaging across other scales designed to measure the same construct (Cronbach. Gleser,
Nanda & Rajaratnam, 1972; Schmidt & Hunter, 1999). Cronbach et al define the
generalizabilitv reliability coefficient o f any single measure as the average correlation o f
that measure with all other measures designed to assess the same construct. Each
different scale designed to measure the same construct is treated as a single item on a
multiple item test. Cronbach’s alpha (1951) is computed on that population o f scales to
obtain the generalizability reliability coefficient for a measure that is the sum o f the
scales designed to measure that particular construct. This generalizability reliability
estimate can be used in future research in which measures designed to assess a particular
construct are used to make corrections for specific factor measurement error as defined in
generalizability theory as w ell as other forms o f measurement error. Note that the
amount o f random response error and specific factor measurement error inherent in items
and scales is reduced as the number o f items and the number o f scales increase.
75
Since the goal o f the present research is to identify what measures o f SE, GSE,
LOC and ES share in common, corrections for random response error and specific factor
measurement error as defined in generalizability theory were made to reduce the
downward bias created by these types o f measurement error. There were sufficient
reiiabiiity data reported in the studies inciuded in the present meta-analyses (except for
studies o f perceived job characteristics) to make corrections for these two types o f
measurement error. There were insufficient data to make corrections for specific factor
measurement error as defined in generalizability theory in measures o f perceived job
characteristics. For these measures, coefficient alpha was used in the corrections. Hence
random response error and specific factor error as defined in classical measurement
theory were corrected, but not specific factor error as defined by generalizability theory.
(This statement only applies to the observed correlations corrected in the meta-analyses
and not the confirmatory factor analysis. Communalities were used in the confirmatory
factor analysis.)
Various scales were used to measure SE, GSE. LOC, ES and job satisfaction in
the primary studies included in the present meta-analyses (see Table 5). Although these
different scales were designed to measure the same construct they were not designed to
be parallel forms, as defined in classical measurement theory. Parallel forms consist o f
items from a specific content domain that have the same general and group factor
structure, scoring and interpretation (Pedhazur & Pedhazur-Schmelkin, 1991). According
to classical measurement theory parallelism means that two forms designed to measure
the same trait are equivalent in every way except for the actual items on each form; that
76
is, the item true score means, standard deviations and item correlations are equal
(Cronbach, 1947; Pedhazur & Pedhazur-Schmelkin, 1991). Parallelism is further
explained by Stanley (1971) who states “ where two parallel forms o f a test are available,
the definition o f parallel forms reliability...is the product-moment correlation between
the two terms. Parallel forms in this situation are defined as tests that overlap completely
in their true score distributions, and that have for each form the same proportion o f true-
score variance to total-score variance” (pp. 370).
The best way to ensure that two forms are parallel is to develop and follow a
detailed set o f instructions before constructing the forms. Instructions should provide
details about the types o f items to select, the level o f d ifficu lty o f the items and the
content to be covered (Stanley, 1971). Table 5 lists the specific scales used to measure
SE, GSE, LOC and ES in the studies included in the present meta-analysis. These scales
were developed at different times by different researchers to measure the same construct;
hence multiple scales were designed to measure each o f the four traits (see Table 5). It is
possible that each researcher conceptualized the construct underlying the scale in a
slightly different way and thereby created variance that is unique to each specific scale
(specific factor measurement error). It is unlikely that researchers collaborated to the
extent necessary to construct their scales as classically parallel forms. A t best the forms
are randomly parallel which implies that each scale inherently contains specific factor
measurement error.
An example o f how trait scales are affected by divergence in construct
conceptualization can be seen w ith the LOC construct. Rotter (1966) conceptualized
77
LOC as a two-dimensional construct and developed a 24-item dichotomous scale to
assess those two dimensions, intemality and externality; scores on the scale range from 0
(indicating intemality) to 23 (indicating externality). In contrast to Rotter’ s view,
Levenson (1981) constructed the Intemality, Powerful Others, and Chances Scales based
on his conceptualization o f LOC as a three dimensionai construct to assess the extent to
which people believe that they have control over their lives (I - intem ality) or whether
they believe powerful others (P - powerful others) or chance (C - chance) have control
over their lives. The Intemality, Powerful Others, and Chances Scales is comprised o f
24-items (eight items in each o f three subscales) based on a seven point Likert scale
ranging from -3 (strongly disagree) to +3 (strongly agree). The factor structure, scoring
and interpretation o f the Rotter and Levenson scales differ, and thus they fail to meet the
classical measurement theory definition o f being parallel forms o f each other, yet both are
used extensively in research in the LOC domain. Although these scales are purported to
measure the same construct, it is likely given the differences in these scales that each
contains unique variance that is not related to the underlying construct (specific factor
error).
Specific factor measurement error causes a downward bias in observed score
correlations obtained from empirical research in which they are used. The
generalizability theory reliability model (Cronbach et al.. 1972) which appropriately
assigns the specific factor error inherent in non-parallel forms to measurement error can
be used to correct for the attenuating effects o f specific factor measurement error
78
contained in scales. Thus, the Cronbach et al. generalizability reliability model was used
in the present meta-analysis to make corrections for measurement unreliability.
Corrections for specific factor measurement error were made to obtain the most
accurate estimates o f the true relationships between constructs and to address the findings
o f recent research documenting the effects o f bias due to this type o f measurement error
in the personality domain. More precisely, recent research reveals the downward bias
caused by specific factor measurement error to be quite high in non-cognitive domains
that include the personality domain Schmidt & Le, 1999; Schmidt & Hunter, 1999).
Specific factor measurement error was found to be as high as 51% o f total variance in
LOC research and as high as 22% in self-efficacy and emotional stability research
(Schmidt & Le, 1999; Schmidt & Hunter. 1999).
A generalizability reliability estimate was calculated for each type o f personality
scale, namely SE, GSE, LOC, ES, and the job satisfaction scales included in the present
study (see Table 6). These reliability estimates were used in the interactive meta-analysis
program to make corrections for measurement error in predictor and criterion measures in
order to compute accurate estimates o f the true score correlations between and among all
constructs investigated in this study (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). The procedure for
calculating the generalizability theory reliability estimate for the different trait scales is
illustrated here using the population o f SE scales used most frequently in the literature.
A total o f six different SE scales were used in the primary studies included in the
present meta-analyses. These SE scales were not designed to be parallel forms as defined
in classical measurement theory. Thus they contain unique variance (specific factor
79
measurement error) that is not shared by other SE scales. The specific factors (unique
variance) in SE scales should be treated as measurement error since they are not
correlated with variance in other SE scales and do not assess the SE construct.
A review o f the literature shows that SE is most often measured by six different
SE scales; Rosenberg S eif Esteem Scaie (.Rosenberg, i965), Adjective Checklist (Gough
& Heilbrun, 1965), Self Esteem Inventory (Coopersmith. 1981), Self Descriptive
Inventory (Ghiselli, 1971), Ziller Social Self-esteem (Ziller, Hagey. Smith & Long,
1969), and the Tennessee Self Concept Scale (Fitts, 1965). (Similarly, GSE, LOC, ES
and job satisfaction are measured by a variety o f different scales - see Table 5).
The reliability o f each SE scale was reported in the literature by researchers in the
primary studies based on classical measurement theory estimates o f reliability;
coefficients o f equivalence, Cronbach's alpha (Cronbach, 1951) or Kuder-Richardson-20
(1937), ranging from .78 to .88 were reported in the SE - job satisfaction literature.
These reliability estimates do not correct for specific factor measurement error as defined
in generalizability theory.
Specific factor measurement error unique to each different SE scale is corrected
for in the present study by making corrections using the Cronbach et al. (1972)
generalizability theory reliability estimates. As noted previously, the generalizability
reliability coefficient o f any single measure is the average correlation o f that measure
with all other measures designed to assess the same trait (Nunnally, 1978; Cronbach et
al., 1972; Schmidt & Hunter. 1999). The generalizability reliability coefficient for the
population o f SE scales, .74, was calculated by first identifying the intercorrelation
80
among all SE scales used in the primary studies included in the present meta-analysis. I
then computed the average o f those intercorrelations. The resulting average is the
generalizability coefficient for each SE scale. The specific data and calculation used to
derive the generalizability reliability coefficient for SE measures is shown below:
The SE scales and the intercorrclation among SE scales as reported in the
literature are:
• Rosenberg’s Self-esteem Scale correlates w ith Coopersmith’s Self-esteem Inventory

rxx = .59
• Tennessee Self Concept with Coopersmith’s Self-esteem Inventory

rxx = .92
• Ziller Social Self-esteem with Coopersmith's Self-esteem Inventory

rxx = .83
• Rosenberg’s Self-esteem Scale with Ziller Social Self-esteem

rxx = .62
The average o f the intercorrelation values = 2.96/4 = .74, thus, the generalizability
reliability coefficient for SE scales is .74.
The same procedure was used to calculate the generalizability reliability
coefficient for GSE, LOC, ES and job satisfaction scales. A graphic depiction o f the
scales used to measure the LOC, GSE, SE, and ES constructs are shown in Figures, 7, 8,
9, and 10, respectively. The generalizability reliability coefficients for all personality and
job satisfaction scales are reported in Table 6. The generalizability reliability coefficient
for the five perceived job characteristics could not be calculated due to insufficient
information regarding the intercorrelation with other scales that assess perceived job
characteristics. Therefore, as indicated earlier, coefficient alpha was used as the
reliability estimate for these scales.
81
The sample weighted mean observed intercorrelations among SE, GSE, LOC and
ES were corrected for measurement error in predictor and criterion measures using the
generalizability reliability coefficients computed for each type o f scale in the interactive
meta-analysis program to obtain evidence o f the relationships between and among
constructs. The generalizability reliability coefficient assigned both random response and
scale specific error to measurement error. Thus measurement error (other than transient
error) was excluded from estimates o f the true score correlations between
traits/constructs. Only what the different scales measured in common was included in
estimates o f the true correlations between constructs. The intercorrelations among the
four traits/constructs were expected to approximate 1.00 thereby providing empirical
evidence to support hypothesis 1(a) that SE, GSE, LOC. and ES scales intercorrelate
almost perfectly and measure the same latent construct.
Analysis II - confirmatory factor analysis
Analysis II was designed to provide empirical evidence that SE, GSE, LOC and
ES scales are indicators o f a single latent construct, ES while Analysis III was conducted
to assess the causal relationship between the latent construct and job satisfaction. Three
factors were hypothesized in the confirmatory factor analysis. Factor 1- trait: measured
by four indicators, SE, GSE, LOC and ES; Factor 2 - perceived job characteristics:
measured by five indicators, task identity (TI), task significance (TS), skill variety (SV),
feedback (FBK), and autonomy (A U T) and Factor 3 - job satisfaction (JS), with one
indicator. The four traits, five perceived job characteristics and job satisfaction measures
were posited to each load heaviest on a single factor; Factors 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
82
These three factors were corrected for sampling error, random response error and specific
factor measurement error. Thus the intercorrelations reported reflect relationships at the
construct level.
The Hunter & Hamilton (1992) CFA confirmatory factor analysis program was
applied to the meta-anaiyticaiiy derived lu.xlu intercorrelation matnx (shown in Table 3)
obtained from Analysis I. The sample weighted mean observed correlations between
variables were corrected for measurement error using communalities for all variables
except job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured with only one measure so there
was insufficient data to compute communalities for this variable. Therefore, corrections
for measurement error in job satisfactions scales were made prior to conducting the
confirmatory factor analysis. The generalizability reliability coefficient for job
satisfaction scales, .71, was used to make corrections for measurement error.
The trait indicators SE, GSE, LOC and ES were expected to have the highest
loading on Factor 1, the ES factor, low loadings on Factor 2, the perceived job
characteristics and job satisfaction factors, and moderate loadings on Factor 3, job
satisfaction. The perceived job characteristic indicators, TI, TS, SV, FBK, and A U T
were expected to have the highest loadings on Factor 2 and Factor 3, the job
characteristics and job satisfaction factors, respectively, and low loadings on Factor 1, the
ES factor.
Analysis III - path analysis and covariance structural analysis
A 3x3 factor correlation matrix (see Table 11) was obtained and used in the
Hunter & Hamilton (1992) Path program to conduct path analyses o f two hypothesized
83
causal models. The direct effects and the mediated effects models were simultaneously
tested using the path model shown in Figure 12. I f the direct effects only model is
correct, there w ill be only a direct path from ES to job satisfaction; there w ill be no
indirect effect through the perceived job characteristics construct. On the other hand, i f
the indirect effects modei is correct there w iii be no direct path from ES to JS; there w ill
be only an indirect effect through the perceived job characteristics construct. 1
hypothesize that there w ill be both direct and an indirect effects o f ES on job satisfaction.
That is, I expect both models to be supported. In addition, I hypothesize that the indirect
or mediated effect w ill be larger than the direct effect.
Covariance structure analysis was estimated using LISREL 8.12 (Joreskog &
Sorbom. 1993). Both the measurement model and the causal models were included in the
analysis. Data obtained from Analysis I, the meta-analytically derived 10x10 uncorrected
correlation matrix was used as input to LISREL 8.12 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993)
analysis. The covariance structure analyses were expected to be consistent with the
results o f the confirmatory factor analysis and path analyses ran using the Hunter &
Hamilton (1992) software.
84
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Results o f analysis I - meta-analvsis o f the trait-iob satisfaction relationship
The meta-analysis o f the relationship between four personality constructs,
namely, SE, GSE. LOC and ES, and the job satisfaction construct conducted in Analysis 1
included corrections for sampling error, random response error and specific factor
measurement error, as defined in generalizability theory. A variety o f different non
parallel scales were used in the primary studies included in this meta-analysis to assess
job satisfaction and each type o f personality construct, thus there was a strong potential
for scale specific error to cause a downward bias in observed correlations. Table 5 shows
the different personality scales and job satisfaction scales used in the primary studies
included in this meta-analysis. Corrections for scale specific measurement error, which is
typically overlooked by researchers, using Cronbach et al (1972) generalizability theory
reliability estimates were made in the present meta-analyses to reduce the downward bias
caused by this type o f error. The generalizability reliability estimates (computed as
described in the previous section) used to make corrections for measurement error are
shown in Table 6. The average reliability, as defined in classical measurement theory as
well as the generalizability theory reliability estimate, Cronbach (1951) alpha and rtJ.
respectively, for each measurement domain are shown in Table 6. Since the individual
scales in each measurement domain were not designed to be parallel forms, the
85
generalizability theory reliability estimates are less than the average alpha estimates. The
generalizability reliability estimates presented here should be used to make corrections
for random response and specific factor measurement error in future research in the
personality domain involving measures o f SE, GSE, LOC and ES to increase the
accuracy and generalizability o f Endings.
The results o f the psychometric meta-analyses o f the observed correlations
between measures o f the four personality traits, namely, SE, GSE, LOC, ES, five
perceived job characteristics (TI, TS, SV, FBK, and AUT) and jo b satisfaction are shown
in Tables 3, 7, 8, and 9. The 10x10 intercorrelation matrix o f uncorrected sample
weighted mean observed correlations between all variables included in this study is
shown in Table 3.
The sample weighted mean observed correlations between trait, perceived job
characteristics and job satisfaction reported in Table 3 are positive and range from a low
o f .11 to a high o f .79. The highest sample weighted mean observed correlations were
found to exist among the four traits; the sample weighted observed correlation between
GSE and SE was the highest, .79 whereas the sample weighted mean observed
correlation between LOC and SE, .28, was the lowest intercorrelation found among the
four trait measures. The uncorrected sample weighted observed correlations among the
four personality trait measures reported in Table 3 and Table 7 show that the four
personality trait measures intercorrelate at moderate to high levels. (Table 6 shows only
the uncorrected sample weighted mean observed correlations among the four personality
traits and between those traits and job satisfaction). Note that the range o f
86
intercorrelations between LOC measures and the other three trait measures (.28 to .45) is
lower than the range o f intercorrelations for the other three trait measures. LOC
correlated .28 with ES, .44 with SE and .45 with GSE. The pattern o f low correlations
for LOC scales effects the average intercorrelation among the four trait scales. The
average intercoirclalion among measures o f SE, GSE, LOC and ES is .53. however, the
average intercorrelation among trait measures increases almost 25% to .66 when LOC
measures are excluded from the calculation. Thus, these data provide evidence o f high
intercorrelations among measures o f SE, GSE. LOC and ES at the observed score level
prior to making any corrections for measurement error which suggests that these trait
scales measure a single latent construct.
More compelling evidence o f the existence o f a single underlying construct is
presented in Table S. Here the findings o f the meta-analyses that made corrections for
sampling error and random response and specific factor measurement error are reported.
As expected, the results o f the meta-analyses were consistent with the pattern o f high
intercorrelations found at the observed score level; the true score intercorrelations among
the four trait measures ranged from .54 to 1.00. A perfect intercorrelation, 1.00 was
found between SE and GSE measures while the lowest intercorrelation, .54, was found
between measures o f LOC and ES. The average intercorrelation among SE, GSE, LOC
and ES is .82; however the average intercorrelation among SE, GSE and ES (excluding
LOC) is .91.
Taken together, the results o f the meta-analyses o f the intercorrelations among
SE, GSE, LOC, and ES scales and constructs reported in Tables 7 and 8, respectively,
87
support hypothesis 1 (a); that is, the intercorrelation among the four trait measures
approximate 1.00, and provide strong evidence that a single latent construct underlies
these four trait measures.
Overall, moderate to high correlations were also found between the four
personality measures and measures o f job satisfaction; sampie weighted mean observed
correlations between SE, GSE, LOC and ES measures and job satisfactions measures
were .26, .25. .38 and .31, respectively. These data show measures o f LOC to have the
highest sample weighted mean observed correlation, .38, with job satisfaction measures
and therefore the strongest relationship, with job satisfaction even though LOC scales
have the weakest intercorrelations with the other three personality measures.
The true score correlations between personality and job satisfaction constructs are
reported in Table 8. A fte r making corrections for statistical artifacts, namely sampling
error and random response and specific factor measurement error, the range o f true score
correlations between personality and job satisfaction constructs was found to be .30
(GSE) to .60 (LOC). The true score correlation between SE. GSE, LOC. ES and job
satisfaction is .31, .30, .60, and .37, respectively (see Table S).
As shown in Tables 8 and 9, the highest correlation (.60) was found to exist
between LOC and job satisfaction. This finding is particularly interesting considering
that LOC had the lowest intercorrelation with the other three traits. This finding suggests
that LOC scales capture variance in job satisfaction that is not measured by SE, GSE, and
ES scales. Conversely, the LOC-JS correlation may be due to a statistical artifact. The
generalizability reliability estimate for the population o f LOC scales was very low, .41
88
(see Table 6). It appears that LOC may be a poorly defined theoretical construct.
Different scales developed to measure the same construct clearly should correlate higher
than .41. The low reliability o f LOC scales may be due to differences in the way
researchers conceptualize and measure the LOC construct (recall the discussion o f the
differences in the Rotter and Levenson scales from the previous chapter) that in turn
affects the correlation between different LOC scales (which is the generalizability
reliability estimate).
The true score correlations reported in Table 9 summarize the evidence found in
this study based on the cumulative findings o f years o f research that examined the
relationship between specific personality traits, namely SE, GSE, LOC and ES, and job
satisfaction. The data presented here provides strong empirical evidence o f the
intercorrelation among trait measures and the link between personality traits and job
satisfaction. The true score correlations found in this study show that personality and job
satisfaction correlate at higher levels than previously reported in the literature.
The pattern o f correlations between measures o f perceived job characteristics and
job satisfaction measures reported in Table 3 are consistent with job characteristics theory
(Hackman & Oldham, 1975; 1976). The range o f intercorrelations among the five
perceived job characteristics, from .24 to .45, was moderate. The lowest correlation, .24,
was found to exist between skill variety (SV) and task identity (TI) while the highest
correlation, .45, was found between autonomy (A U T) and skill variety (SV). Measures
o f the perceived job characteristics also correlated w ith job satisfaction measures at
moderate levels; correlations ranged from .29 (TI - job satisfaction)to .43 (FBK - job
89
satisfaction). The evidence presented here is consistent w ith previous research (Fried &
Ferris, 1987; Frye, 1996) that each o f the five perceived job characteristics captures
unique variance in job satisfaction even though they share some common variance. Also
consistent with previous research (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Frye, 1996; Agho, et al, 1992) is
the finding th a t a u to n o m y (Fried Sc Ferris, 19S7; Frye. 1996: Agho, et ai, 1992) and
feedback (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Frye, 1996) with a correlation o f .41 and .43,
respectively, have the strongest correlation and are therefore the two best predictors (o f
the five perceived job characteristics) o f job satisfaction.
O f the four trait measures, GSE measures consistently demonstrated the highest
correlation with perceptions o f the five job dimensions (see Table 3). GSE correlations
ranged from .31 (GSE and feedback) to .49 (GSE and task significance). The
correlations between measures o f ES and job characteristics were moderate; the lowest
was between ES and skill variety, .15, and the highest was between ES and feedback, .25.
These data suggest that ES has a moderate affect on individuals’ perceptions o f different
job dimensions.
Results o f analysis II - confirmatory factor analysis
In Analysis II, an indicator approach was taken to generate evidence to support
the hypothesis 1 (b) that measures o f SE, GSE, LOC and ES are indicators o f a single
latent construct. The meta-analytically derived uncorrected intercorrelations among
traits, job characteristics and job satisfaction (as reported in Table 3) were factor
analyzed using the Hunter & Hamilton (1992) confirmatory factor analysis method to
determine the extent to which the trait, perceived job characteristics and job satisfaction
90
measures loaded on common factors. Three factors were defined; Factor 1: ES; Factor 2:
Perceived job characteristics and Factor 3: Job satisfaction. Measures o f SE, GSE, LOC
and ES were expected to load highly on Factor 1 (ES) and Factor 3 (job satisfaction) and
at moderate levels on Factors 2 (perceived job characteristics).
As shown in Tabie 10, measures o f SE, GSE, LOC and ES loaded highly on
Factor 1 with loadings ranging from a low o f .48 for LOC scales to a high o f .94 for SE
scales. SE, GSE, LOC and ES loaded on Factor 1 .94, .87, .48 and .65, respectively.
These data therefore support hypothesis I (b), measures o f the four traits load on one
common factor. Thus these loadings also suggest that SE, GSE, LOC and ES are
indicators o f a single underlying construct. Also, as expected, the four traits loaded on
Factors 2 and 3 at lower levels; the loadings ranged from .22 (LOC) to .43 (GSE) and
from .16 (GSE) to .38 (LOC) on the job characteristics (Factor 2) and job satisfaction
factors (Factor 3), respectively.
Notice that LOC has the lowest loading, .48, o f all the trait scales on Factor 1, the
ES factor, yet LOC loaded the highest, .38, on Factor 3-Job satisfaction. While the factor
loading o f .48 suggests that LOC is an indicator o f the same construct that underlies
measures o f SE, GSE, and ES, the strength o f LOC scales as an indicator in comparison
to the other scales is relatively weak; the LOC loading o f .48 is only about half the SE
loading, o f .94 for SE on the ES Factor. The low loading o f LOC on the ES factor may
be due to the relatively low generalizability reliability estimate o f LOC scales. The low
generalizability reliability figure, .41. suggests that LOC is not a clearly defined
91
theoretical construct since the correlation between different scales designed to measure
the LOC construct is relatively low (discussed further in the Chapter V).
Also note that, excluding measures o f LOC, ES scales loaded highest, .31, on
Factor 3, job satisfaction. These data show that ES is a better indicator o f job satisfaction
than SE and GSE. The generaiizabiiity reliability estimate o f ES scales is higher than
that o f LOC scales, therefore, more confidence can be placed in the finding that ES scales
are the best indicator o f job satisfaction. The reliability estimates reported in Table 6
based on a review o f the personality-job satisfaction literature reveals that ES scales have
an average Cronbach alpha o f .82 and a generalizability theory reliability coefficient o f
.68 whereas the average Cronbach alpha and generalizability reliability estimate for LOC
scales are .76 and .41, respectively.
Results o f analysis HI - path analyses and covariance structural analysis
Path analysis results
The 10x10 correlation matrix (presented in Table 3) constructed from the results
o f the meta-analyses conducted in Analysis I was factor analyzed to obtain a 3x3 factor
correlation matrix for use in conducting path analyses. The factor correlation matrix
obtained from the confirmatory factor analysis is shown in Table 11. Consistent with
previous research that shows a strong relationship between five perceived job
characteristics and job satisfaction (Hackman & Oldham, 1975; 1976; Fried & Ferris,
1992; Frye, 1996), the job characteristics factor (Factor 2) correlated .62 w ith the job
satisfaction factor, Factor 3. The ES factor correlated .41 w ith job satisfaction and .39
with the perceived job characteristics factor.
92
The factor intercorrelation matrix (see Table 11) was used as input for path
analyses. A path model with ES, perceived job characteristics and job satisfaction was
assessed to obtain estimates o f the direct causal relation between ES and job satisfaction
as well as the indirect relationship between ES and job satisfaction with perceived job
characteristics as a mediator variable tsee Figure i2). Resuits o f the path analysis
provide support for hypothesis 2; that is, ES has a direct causal effect (path coefficient =
.20) on job satisfaction. The effect o f ES on job satisfaction was mediated by the
perceived job characteristics (hypothesis 3); the indirect effect o f ES on job satisfaction is
.21 (.39 x .54). Hypothesis 4 was weakly supported; the mediated path between ES and
job satisfaction, .21 (.39 x .54) is higher than the direct path. .20. Thus, as posited, ES
was found to have both direct (hypothesis 2) and indirect (mediated; hypothesis 3) causal
effects on the job satisfaction. The indirect causal effect o f ES on job satisfaction was o f
slightly greater magnitude than the indirect causal effect, hence hypothesis 4 was also
supported.
Covariance structural analysis results
In addition to path analyses, covariance structural analysis using LISREL 8.12
(Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993), which is based on maximum likelihood estimation, was
conducted to examine the construct level relationship between ES and job satisfaction.
LISREL analysis was conducted to collaborate findings o f the path analysis. The meta-
analytically derived 10x10 matrix o f sample weighted mean observed correlations
reported in Table 3 were used as input for the covariance structure analysis. The results
o f the confirmatory factor analysts are presented Table 12. The pattern o f factor loadings
93
and paths obtained from LISREL procedures are consistent w ith those obtained from the
confirmatory factor analysis and path analysis run using the Hunter & Hamilton (1992)
software programs. LISREL analysis show that measures o f SE, GSE, LOC and ES load
.91, .86, .50, and .68, respectively, on a single factor. These data can be interpreted as
additional evidence that SE. GSE, LOC and ES are caused by a singie iatent construct.
Figure 12 reports the results o f the LISREL analysis for the direct and indirect
(mediated) effects models. Again, both direct and indirect causal relationships were
found to exist between ES and job satisfaction. The direct path coefficient between ES
and job satisfaction was . 13 while the indirect (mediated by perceived job characteristics)
path coefficient between ES and job satisfaction was .24 (.35 x .69). Hence. LISREL
results are consistent with results obtained from the path analysis and show that the direct
effect o f ES on job satisfaction is smaller than the indirect effect.
Several fit indices were used in combination to provide a complete assessment o f
model fit (see the bottom h a lf o f Table 12). The three norm fit indices, the root mean
square error approximation (RMSEA=.000), incremental fit index (IFI=1.03) and
comparative fit index (CFI=1.00) used to assess overall model adequacy indicate good
model fit. Models resulting in CFI and IFI values o f .90 or higher are considered
acceptable (Bagozzi & Y i, 1988) and a RMSEA index value o f .05 and lower are
considered indicative o f good fit (Brown & Cudeck, 1993). The results obtained from the
covariance structural analysis using LISREL 8.12 indicate good model fit.
94
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
The meta-analytic evidence presented here cumulates the research o f the
relationship between personality and job satisfaction constructs. In previous research,
observed correlations between personality and job satisfaction constructs obtained from
small sample studies were corrected for measurement error using Cronbach’s alpha
(1947), however, the specific factor error inherent in the different scales used to assess
personality traits was left uncorrected. This caused underestimation o f the relation
between personality and job satisfaction constructs. Corrections for specific factor
measurement error in the present study reveal stronger relationships between personality
and job satisfaction constructs than previously reported. The true score correlations
between SE-JS, GSE-JS, LOC-JS and ES-JS were found to be .31, .30, .60, and .37,
respectively (see Tables 8 and 9).
More importantly, generalizability theory reliability estimates used to make
corrections for specific factor measurement error in SE, GSE, LOC and ES scales
revealed that these trait specific scales actually measure a single latent construct that
personality research suggests is ES, Factor IV o f the Big Five personality dimensions.
The theoretical definition o f these four constructs overlap to some extent thereby
suggesting that a general factor, ES, exists that causes these constructs to be interrelated.
The various trait scales developed to measure SE, GSE, LOC and ES capture this general
95
factor as w ell as group factors specific to each scale. Assigning scale specific factor
variance across all scales to measurement error allows the general factor across the scales
to be accurately measured.
The results o f the meta-analysis also shows that o f the four traits, LOC had the
lowest intercorreiation with SE, GSE and ES however, LOC was found to have the
strongest correlation, true score correlation .60, with job satisfaction (see Table S). The
results o f the confirmatory factor analyses show a similar pattern that is, LOC had the
lowest loading (.48) o f the four trait measures on Factor I, the common factor that
underlies measures o f SE. GSE. LOC and ES, yet LOC loaded the highest, .38. on the job
satisfaction factor (Factor 3) (see Table 10). These findings suggest that LOC measures
may be tapping a portion o f job satisfaction that the other trait measures fail to capture.
An interesting finding in this study is the loading o f ES scales on the ES factor;
ES loaded .65 on the ES factor (Factor 1) that ranked third among the four trait measures
(see Table 10). The factor loading for SE and GSE, .94 and .87. respectively, suggest
that each scale assesses some unique variance in the ES, construct, but SE and GSE
scales are better indicators o f ES than ES scales. In other words, ES scales used in
personality inventories such as those in the primary studies included in the present meta
analysis (see Table 5 for a listing o f those scales) may be too narrow to be construct valid
measures o f ES. Specific factor measurement error in these scales may be large enough
to lim it their ability to be construct valid measures o f ES. Thus, these results suggest that
multiple measures o f ES, such as SE, GSE and LOC scales, be combined to provide a
more construct valid measure o f ES.
96
In light o f the previously stated conceptual relationship among the SE, GSE, LOC
and ES constructs, it is not surprising that the intercorreiation among the four
approximates 1.00. In fact, scales designed to measure SE, GSE, LOC and ES contain
similar items (see Appendices A through D). Although each construct has been
theoretically defined and placed within the noniuiogieai net o f related personality
constructs, ES is the most broad and pervasive o f these constructs, thus the empirical
findings presented here are interpreted as evidence that SE, GSE, and LOC are subsumed
within the ES construct. The theoretical definitions o f the four constructs highlight their
interrelationship and thereby support this conclusion. Furthermore, the meta-analytic
data presented here suggests that there is no difference between SE, GSE, and to a lesser
extent LOC at the construct level.
As stated previously, the multidimensional construct SE is defined as one’s
perceptions o f one’s own value or self-worth and GSE is defined as the competency
dimension o f SE dealing with one’s beliefs in one’s ability to perform certain behaviors
to obtain desired outcomes. In turn, LOC is defined in relation to GSE because both are
based on personal beliefs (perceptions) o f one’s ability to control outcomes (internals)
whereas GSE is one’s beliefs in one’s ability to perform behaviors in order to obtain
outcomes. ES, is defined as a bipolar factor o f personality comprised o f multiple trait-
descriptive clusters that encompass traits which cause individuals to experience anxiety,
insecurity, worthlessness, confidence and unconfidence - feelings that are also associated
with SE, GSE, and LOC. Hence, ES permeates all aspects o f an individual's life; it is the
lens through which individuals view themselves and develop perceptions and beliefs that
97
generalize across a variety o f situations (including work). It follows then that individuals
with low ES may also have low self-worth (low SE), perceive themselves as having
limited ( i f any) control over outcomes (low LOC or externals) and have little confidence
in their abilities to perform different tasks (low GSE). These types o f negative
perceptions, rooted in low ES, inevitably spillover into the workpiace and influence work
attitudes (job satisfaction) either directly or indirectly.
Indeed, the present meta-analytic investigation found causal relationships, both
direct and indirect, to exist between ES and job satisfaction. Path analysis and covariance
structural analysis results show an indirect causal relationship between ES and job
satisfaction (mediated by perceived job characteristics) to be slightly stronger than the
direct causal relationship between these variables. In fact path analysis results show only
a minimal difference between the size o f the direct and indirect effects. The indirect
causal effect o f ES on job satisfaction was .21 and the direct effect was .20. A greater
difference was found in the covariance structural analysis. Results obtained from
LISREL show the indirect (mediated) causal effect o f ES on job satisfaction to be almost
twice as strong (.35 x .69 = .24) as the direct causal effect (.13) o f ES on job satisfaction.
Thus, the results o f the path and covariance structural analyses are consistent in showing
the nature o f relationship between ES and job satisfaction is similar; that is, ES has both
direct and indirect causal effects on job satisfaction with the indirect effect being o f
higher magnitude than the direct effect. These findings therefore support hypothesis 4.
The generalizability reliability estimates calculated in this study for each type o f
trait scale (SE, GSE, LOC and ES) provide invaluable information to researchers in the
98
field o f I/O psychology who are being encouraged to make corrections for both random
response error and specific factor measurement error in their research. The coefficients o f
equivalence computed based on generalizability theory reported here apply to all scales
designed to measure SE, GSE, LOC and ES, thus these reliability estimates can be used
to make corrections fu r random response error and specific factor error in research
involving measurement o f any o f these traits. Recent research shows that a substantial
amount o f error specific factor measurement variance exists in the various personality
scales used in empirical research in the personality domain (Schmidt & Le, 1999;
Schmidt & Hunter, 1999). Researchers are urged to accurately account for scale specific
measurement error by utilizing generalizability reliability coefficients to eliminate the
potential for computing biased estimates o f relationships between constructs.
The intercorreiation among personality constructs namely, SE, GSE, LOC and ES
was found to be quite high in the present study (see Table 7 and Table S). For example, a
perfect correlation was found to exist between SE and GSE and a nearly perfect
correlation, .90. was found between SE and ES. These high intercorrelations lead to
suspicions o f construct redundancy. Given that the true score intercorrelations among all
four o f the personality constructs were .54 or higher and the average intercorreiation
among personality constructs was .S2 these findings may be interpreted as additional
evidence that SE, GSE, LOC and ES scales measure the same construct. Results o f the
confirmatory factor analyses provide additional support that the four measures serve as
indicators o f one latent construct since they load highly on a single factor (see Tables 10
99
and 12). The question that arises is: what is the construct that underlies measures o f SE,
GSE, LOC and ES?
Empirical evidence cumulated in this study is based on many years o f personality-
job satisfaction research. The data presented in this study provides compelling evidence
that one lalenl construct causes four traits, nameiy. SE, GSE, LOC and ES and that
construct has both direct and indirect causal effects on job satisfaction. The results o f the
meta-analysis found the four traits to be highly intercorrelated which suggests they assess
the same construct. Additionally, the results o f confirmatory factor analyses and path
analyses using two different statistical procedures (the Hunter & Hamilton software and
LISREL 8.12) show measures o f SE, GSE, LOC and ES load on a single common factor
and that factor has both direct and indirect causal relations with job satisfaction. ES is a
theoretically based, broad personality construct that encompasses SE. GSE and LOC
therefore it is concluded that ES is the latent construct that underlies measures o f SE,
GSE, LOC and ES and ES is the personality construct that is causally related to job
satisfaction both directly and indirectly (through perceived job characteristics).
This study is the first to summarize the extant literature on the personality-job
satisfaction relationship. The findings presented here summarizes and clarifies the
literature by providing empirical evidence o f the causal relationships that exist between
ES and job satisfaction, thereby showing that disposition does matter in job satisfaction
research. Numerous studies have been conducted to identify a lin k between personality
and job satisfaction and to identify which personality construct had the strongest
relationship with job satisfaction. Previous research noted a positive correlation between
100
personality and job satisfaction (Hoppock, 1935), that personality traits are stable over
time and across situations (Staw & Ross, 1985; Pulakos & Schmidt, 1983) and that ES
(reverse scored as neuroticism) is the personality construct with the strongest correlation
with job satisfaction, however there was little evidence o f any causal relationships
between these variables. This study contributes to the personality-job salisiaction
literature by providing empirical evidence that establishes ES as the personality construct
that is causally related to job satisfaction. The findings reported here also suggest that a
more construct valid measure o f ES can be obtained by summing SE, GSE, LOC and ES
measures.
Judge and his colleagues have conducted several studies within the past five years
that investigated the causal effect o f personality on job satisfaction. The dispositional
theory presented by Judge and his colleagues suggested mechanisms by which traits
could be causally related to job satisfaction and the primary studies they conducted to
simultaneously measure SE, GSE, LOC and ES in a single study advanced research in the
personality-job satisfaction domain. However their research is based on a “ new”
personality construct, core self-evaluations, that has not been clearly defined within the
nomological net o f related personality constructs. Core self-evaluations as defined by
Judge et al (1997) appears to be a different label for Factor IV, ES, o f the Big Five
personality dimensions. There is no discriminate validity evidence that differentiates
core self-evaluations from ES. Furthermore, the evidence presented in this study
supports the conclusion that ES is the latent construct that is measured by SE, GSE, LOC
and ES scales. ES has consistently emerged in personality research and has been
101
included in personality models, taxonomies and theories for almost seventy years
(Allport, 1935; Cattell, 1957; Norman, 1967; Costa & McCrae, 1980; Digman, 1990).
The present study also contributes to the personality literature by providing
generalizability theory reliability estimates (Cronbach et al, 1972) for the population o f
SE, GSE, EOC, ES and job satisfaction scales. Tho^c conducting rcsoarcri mat includes
measures o f these traits can use the generalizability reliability estimates provided in Table
6 to make corrections for specific factor measurement error that w ill make their findings
more accurate, interpretable, and generalizable and ultimately lead to the development o f
more scientifically parsimonious theories.
Implications and future research
The evidence presented in this study demonstrates that personality, in particular
ES, does matter in job satisfaction research and merits inclusion in future research aimed
at increasing understanding o f the nature and magnitude o f the ES-job satisfaction
relation. For instance, this study shows ES to have an indirect (mediated) causal effect
on job satisfaction. The five job characteristics included in the Hackman and Oldham
(1975; 1976) Job Characteristic Theory was the only mediator examined in this study,
however there are numerous other job characteristics, such as role ambiguity, role
overload to name a few, that warrant investigation.
These findings have implications for research and theory development in the
organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, absenteeism, and
turnover domains. Theories in these research streams typically have job satisfaction
models embedded w ithin them. Including a construct valid measure o f ES in these
102
models may increase their explanatory or predictive power and thereby increase
understanding o f the relationships under study.
Future research should also investigate potential moderators o f the ES-job
satisfaction relation. No moderator analysis was conducted in this study. Many
questions remain unanswered concerning the nature o f the ES-job satisfaction reiation.
For example: is the causal relationship between ES and jo b satisfaction different for
individuals who are high on ES as compared to those who are low on ES? I f so, how
does the ES-job satisfaction relation change based on individual differences in
personality?
These are just a few questions about the ES-job satisfaction relation that merit
further empirical investigation. Conducting research that addresses these questions and
others can increase our understanding o f the nature and magnitude of the ES-job
satisfaction relationship. Furthermore, the findings o f this study and future research on
the ES-job satisfaction relationship can be used to develop more comprehensive,
interactional, scientifically parsimonious dispositional theories ofjob satisfaction. The
empirical evidence presented here clearly shows that contrary to what some researchers
who diminish the role o f personality and ascribe to the situational approach o fjo b
satisfaction believe, disposition does matter in job satisfaction research. These findings
are consistent with Agho et al (1993) who conducted research examining the effect o f
multiple types o f variables on job satisfaction state, “ ...evidence from this study show
that in order to understand the factors influencing employees’ satisfaction, researchers
must examine the combined effects o f environmental (opportunity), [perceived] job
103
characteristics [skill variety, distributive justice], and personality [emotional stability]
variables” (Agho. et al., 1993, p. 1023).
The evidence presented here also shows that statistical artifacts caused a
downward bias in estimates o f the relationship between personality and job satisfaction.
After making corrections for statisticai artifacts (i.e., sampling error, random response
error, and specific factor measurement error) across studies using meta-analytic
techniques, the relationship between personality constructs namely, SE, GSE, LOC and
ES and job satisfaction was found to be higher than previously reported. These findings
cumulate previous research o f the personality-job satisfaction relation and support the
role o f ES as a causal determinant o fjo b satisfaction. These findings also highlight the
need for researchers in the field o f I/O psychology to make corrections for specific factor
measurement error as defined in generalizability theory when conducting research in the
personality domain. Hopefully, the information presented in this study w ill lead to the
development o f more scientifically parsimonious dispositional theories o fjo b
satisfaction.
104
Table 1. Relationship between affective disposition and job satisfaction
Overall Job Satisfaction Overall Job Satisfaction

Adult 2 Adult 3
Affective disposition data collected in (40-48 vrs) (58-62 years)
Early adolescence (12 - 14 years) .20 .37

(N=59) (N=46)
Late adolescence .26 .39

(N=52) (N=40)
Adult 1 .30 .48

(N=70) (N=67)
Adult 2 .40 .12

(N=76) (N=63)
Adult 3 .23
(N=81)
105
Table 2. Studies included in the meta-analysis by trait subgroup
Self-esteem studies: 18
Generalized self-efficacy: 10
T „ C 1.
L U V U 5 VI t u m i u i . 19
Emotional stability: 26
Total no. o f studies: 73
Note: The specific studies included in the meta-analvses are listed in Appendix F.
106
Table 3. Meta-analytically derived intercorreiation matrix o f trait, perceived job

characteristics, and job satisfaction measures (uncorrected mean correlations
and true score correlations)
SE GSE LOC ES TI TS SV AUT FBK JS
SE — 1.00 .79 .90 .16 .25 .20 .15 .20 .31
GSE .79 — .86 .82 .35 .49 .37 .32 .31 .30
LOC 4.4 .45 — .54 .25 .29 .23 .26 .19 .60
ES .64 .56 .28 - .24 .23 .15 .23 .25 .37
TI .12 .25 .14 .16 — .40 .32 .56 .46 .34
TS .17 .30 .14 .15 .26 — .62 .51 .54 .43

SV .17 .27 .13 .11 .24 .42 — .58 .45 .42
AUT .12 .23 .14 .16 .41 .34 .45 — .50 .48
FBK. .16 .22 .11 .17 .34 .35 .35 .37 — .49
JS .26 .16 .38 .31 .29 .33 .37 .41 .43 ..
SE = self-esteem; GSE = generalized self-efficacy; LOC = locus o f control;
ES = emotional stability; TI = task identity; TS = task significance; SV = skill variety,
AUT = autonomy; FBK = feedback; JS = job satisfaction
Note: Values above the diagonal are corrected true score correlations and values below
the diagonal are uncorrected mean correlations with the exception o fjo b
satisfaction (JS). Correlations reported below the diagonal between study
variables and JS are corrected for unreliability in JS scales using the
generalizability reliability estimate for JS scales o f .71.
107
Table 4. Summary o f the 45 separate meta-analyses conducted to derive the

intercorreiation matrix o f trait, perceived job characteristics, and job
satisfaction measures presented in Table 2.
SE GSE LOC ES TI TS SV ALT FBK
SE
GSE k=6
N = I4 S I
LOC k=S k=5

N=2476 N = I2 7 3
ES k=6 k=5 k=10

\ = 131S N = 1273 \= 2 4 9 7
TI k=4 k=3 k=5 k=3

N'= 131S \= 4 4 5 N=1562 N=445
TS k=4 k=3 k=5 k=3 k=14

N=1318 N;=445 N =1562 N=445 N=8719
SV k=4 k=3 k=5 k=3 k=19 k = I3

\= 1 3 1 8 \= 4 4 5 N=1562 N=445 N=9824 N=S5S0
AUT k=4 k=3 k=5 k=3 k= 1S k=14 k = I4

N=131S NT=445 N =1562 N’=445 N=9728 N =8719 N'=8719
FBK k=4 k=3 k=5 k=3 k=18 k=14 k= 14 k= 13

\= 1 3 1 8 \= 4 4 5 N = I5 6 2 N'=445 N=9612 N'=S719 N=8719 N'=7S26
JS k=31 k= 12 k=31 k=29 k=31 k= 14 k=31 k=31 k=20

N’=7179 N=27S7 N=7329 N=8269 N=16146 N'=6229 N=15377 N '=I5.37 4=8350
Note: k = number o f correlations meta-analyzed

N = total sample size included in meta-analysis
108
Table 5. Trait scales used in primary studies
Self-esteem Scales: Scale Developer(s):
Adjective Checklist Gough, Heilbrum, 1965
Self-esteem Scale Rosenberg, 1965
Self-esteem inventory Coopersmith, 1967
Texas Behavior Inventory Helmitch & Sapp, 1974
Tennessee Self-Concept Scale Fitts. 1965
Social Self-esteem Ziller, Hagey, Smith & Long, 1969
Generalized Self-efficacv Scales: Scale Developer(s):
• Generalized self-efficacy scale Sherer, Maddux, Mercandante, Prentice-Dunn,
Jacobs & Rogers, 1982
• Riggs Generalized Self- Riggs & Knight, 1989
Efficacy Scale
• Self-efficacy Scale Bandura, 1977; 1978
Locus o f control Scales: Scale Developerts):
• Internal-External LOC Scale Rotter, 1966
• Intemality, Powerful Others Levenson, 1981
Scale
• Spector Work LOC Scale Spector, 1988
109
Table 5— (continued)
Emotional Stability Scales Scale Developers
• Eysenck & Eysenck Eysenck & Eysenck, 1958; 1968; 1975
• Positive Affectivity, Negative Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988

A ffectivitv Scale (PANAS)
• Job Affect Scale Brief, Burke, Atieh, Robinson & Webster, 1988
• Affect Rating Scale Sipprelle, Gilbert & Ascough, 1976
• Taylor Manifest Destiny Taylor, 1953
• Trait Anxiety Scale Spielberger, 1979
• State-Trait Anxiety Spielberger, Gprsuch & Lushene, 1958
• Positive Emotionality, Tellegen, 1982
Negative Emotionality Scale
o f the Minnesota Personality

Inventory
Job Satisfaction Scales: Scale Developer(s):
• Brayfield- Rothe Brayfield & Rothe, 1951
• Hoppock Hoppock. 1935
• FACES Dunham & Herman, 1975; Kunin, 1955
• Minnesota Satisfaction Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967
Questionnaire
• Job Descriptive Index Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969
110
Table 6. Mean values o f Classical Measurement Theory reliability estimate (Cronbach

alpha) and Generalizability Theory reliability estimate (r,j)
Measurement Domain k Cronbach Alpha (Classical Generalizability

Theory Measurement Theory) reliability coefficient
Average r.j
Self esteem 6 .85 .74
Generalized self-efficacy .71 .68
->
Locus o f control .76 .41
Emotional Stability S .82 .68
Job Satisfaction 5 .84 .71
Job Diagnostic Survey
■ Task identity 1 .73 —
■ Task significance 1 .58 -
■ Skill variety 1 .79 -
■ Autonomy 1 .74 —
* Feedback 1 .75 —
Note: k = number o f scales included in the calculation o f the average alpha and
generalizability reliability estimates
Ill
Table 7. Intercorrelations among personality trait measures -

matrix o f sample weighted mean observed correlations (uncorrected*)
SE GSE LOC ES JS
SE
GSE .79
LOC .44 .45
ES .64 .56 .28
JS* .26 .25 .38 .31 —
SE = Self-esteem
GSE = Generalized self-efficacy
LOC = Locus o f control
ES = Emotional stability
JS = Job satisfaction
* A ll trait-job satisfaction correlations reported here are corrected for measurement

unreliability (random response and specific factor) using the generalizability reliability
for job satisfaction scales: rxx= = .71.
112
Table 8. M atrix o f trait - job satisfaction true score correlations

(fu lly corrected)
SE GSE LOC ES JS
SE —
GSE 1.00 —
LOC .79 .86 —
ES .90 .82 .54 . . .
JS .31 .30 .60 .37 —
Note: SE = Self-esteem
GSE = Generalized self-efficacy
LOC = Locus o f control
ES = Emotional stability
JS = Job satisfaction
113
Table 9. Trait/Construct correlations: (uncorrected and fully corrected correlations

reported)
Sample Weighted Mean Estimated True Score

Trait/Construct k N Observed Correlation Correlation*
Intercorrelations:
SE-GSE 6 1,481 .79 1.00
SE-LOC S 2,476 .44 .79
SE-ES 6 1,389 .64 .90
GSE-LOC 5 1,273 .45 .86
GSE-ES 5 1271 .56 .82
LOC-ES 10 2,497 .28 .54
Correlation with Job Satisfaction (JS):
SE-JS 31 7.179 .26 .31
GSE-JS 12 2,787 .24 .30
LOC-JS 31 7,329 .38 .60
ES-JS 29 8.269 .31 .37
k = number o f studies in the meta-analysis

N= sample size
* True score correlations reflect corrections for random response error and specific
factor measurement error in independent and dependent measures.
* A ll sample weighted mean observed correlations reported here were corrected for
measurement unreliability (random response and specific factor error) using the
generalizability reliability for job satisfaction scales: rvx= = .71.
114
Table 10. Results of confirmatory factor analysis: factor loadings
SE GSE LQC ES TI TS SV AUT FBK JS
Factor 1:
Trait .94 .87 .48 .65 .23 .26 .23 .22 .22 .33
Factor 2:
Job
Characteristics .25 .43 .22 .25 .51 .57 .62 .69 .59 .62
Factor 3:
Job
Satisfaction .26 .24 .38 .31 .29 .33 .37 .41 .43 1.00
Note: SE = Self-esteem; GSE = generalized self-efficacy; LOC = locus o f control;

ES = emotional stability; TI = task identity; TS = task significance; SV = skill
variety, A U T = autonomy; FBK = feedback; JS = job satisfaction
115
Table 11. Factor correlation matrix: results from path analysis
FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3

TR A IT JOB CHARACTERISTICS JOB SATISFACTION
FACTOR I
TR AIT 1.00
FACTOR 2
JOB
CHAR. .39 1.00
FACTOR 3
JOB
SATISF. .41 .62 1.00
Path coefficients matrix:
FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3
FACTOR 1 0
FACTOR 2 .39 0
FACTOR 3 .20 .54 0
Direct relation between ES and Job satisfaction = .20

Indirect relationship between ES and Job satisfaction = .21
(.39 x .54)
Total effect: .20+ .21 =.41
116
Table 12. Results of LISREL analysis
Results o f confirmatory factor analysis from LISREL analysis:
SE GSE LOC ES
ES Factor I .91 .86 .50 .6S
Path coefficients:
Direct relation between ES and Job satisfaction = . 13

Indirect relationship between ES and Job satisfaction = .24
(.35 x .69)
Fit indices indicating model fit:
RiVIR = .052
GFI = .94
IFI = 1.03
CFI = 1.00
RMSEA= 0.00
Harmonic
Mean = 5,062
117
Figure I. Judge, Locke and Durham Direct effects - Model I
emotional
Core Job
Evaluations ------ ►
Satisfaction
generalization
118
Figure 2. Judge, Locke and Durham Mediated effects - Model II (Appraisals)
Situational
Appraisals
Core Job
Evaluations Job Satisfaction
Perceptions
119
Figure 3. Judge, Locke and Durham Mediated effects - Model III (Actions)
Actions
Core In h
Evaluations Satisfaction
• Job Choice
• Effort
• Tenacity
120
Figure 4. Judge, Locke and Durham Moderator effects - Model IV
Job Characteristics Job Satisfaction
Core
Evaluations
121
Figure 5. Measurement model for emotional stability construct
Self-Esteem
Measure
Generalized
Self-Efficacv
Emotional Stability
Measure
Construct
Locus o f
Control
Measure
Emotional
Stability
Measure
122
Figure 6. Causal model of the emotional stability - job satisfaction relationship
Emotional
stability Job
Satisfaction
Perceived
Job
Satisfaction
123
Figure 7. Measurement model for locus of control construct
Locus o f Control Construct

as measured by Locus
o f Control Scales
Internal- [ntemalitv Spector Work

External Powerful Others LOC Scale
LOC Scale & Chance Scale
(Rotter, 1966) (Levenson. 19S1) (Spector, 19S8)
124
Figure 8. Measurement model for generalized self-efficacy construct
Generalized Self-efficacy
as measured by
Generalized
Self-efficacv Scales
Generalized Riggs Generalized Bandura

Self-Efficacv Self-Efficacv Self-Efficacy
Scale Scale Scale
(Sherer, Maddux, (Riggs & Knight, 1989) (Bandura, 1977; 1978)

Mercandate, Prentice-
Dunn, Jacobs &
Rogers. 1982)
Figure 13. Results o f LISREL analysis: causal model

o f ES job satisfaction relationship
Job
Satisfaction
Emotional
Stability
Task identity
measure
Task
significance
Perceived Skill variety

Job measure
Character
istics Feedback
measure
Autonomy
measure
Figure 12. Results o f path analysis: causal model I o f emotional

stability - joh satisfaction relationship
Direct Effects Model 1: ES ► JS: = .20
Indirect (Mediated) Effects Model II: ES ------► Perceived Job Characteristics ► JS: = .21
(.39 x .54)
.20
Job Satisfaction
.39 .54
Perceived Job
Characteristics
to
ON
Figure 11. Model o f hypotheses - causal model o f the

emotional stability job satisfaction relationship
Self-Esteem
Generalized Self-
Job t ask Identity
Efficacy Emotional measure
Stability Satisfaction
Task significance
measure
Locus o f
Control
S kill variety
measure
Feedback
Emotional Perceived measure
Stability Job
A utonom y
Characteristics
measure
to
Figure 10. Measurement model for emotional stability construct
Emotional D7D as
measured by Emotional
Stability Scales
Eysenck & P A N A .S Job A llccl A ttcci S ia te -T ra it P ositive b n to tio n a lity

Eysenck R ating M a n lie st A n x ie ty A n x ie ty & N eg ativ e
A n x ie ty In ven to ry E m o tio n a lity o f
S cale M in n e so ta P ersonality
Q uestionnaire
(E ysenck & (W atso n , (B rie f, B urke, (S tp p re lle ,

Eysenck, C la rk & A tie h , G ilb e rt & (T a y lo r, 1955) (S p ie lb e ig e r, ( S pielbeig er, (T e lle g e n , 19 82)
11)58, 1968, Te lle g e n , Robinson &. A sco ug li, 19 79) (io rsueh &
1075) 108S) W ebster, 10SH 1976) l.ushene, 1958)
to
oo
Figure 9. Measurement model for self-esteem construct
Self-esteem construct
as measured by
Self-esteem Scales
Adjective Self-Esteem Self-Esteem Texas Social Tennessee Social

Check List Scale Inventory Scale Behavior Self-Concept Self-
Scale Inventory Scale Esteem
(Gough & ( Rosenberg, (Ziller, Hagey,

(Coopersmith, (Helmilch & Sapp, (Fitts, 1965)
Heilbrum, 1965) 1967) Smith & Long,
1974)
1969)
to
VO
130
APPENDIX A
ROSENBERG SELF ESTEEM SCALE
1. I feel that I am a person o f worth, at least on an equal basis with others.
1. STRONGLY 2. AGREE 3. DISAGREE 4.STRONGLY

AGREE DISAGREE
2. I feel that I have a number o f good qualities.
3. * A ll in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.
4. I am able to do things as well as most other people.
5. *1 feel I do not have much to be proud of.
6. I take a positive attitude toward myself.
7. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.
8. *1 wish I could have more respect for myself.
9. *1 certainly feel useless at times.
10. * A t times, I think I am no good at all.
*Reverse-score item.
131
APPENDIX B
SHERER, M ADDUX, MERCANDANTE, PRENTICE-DUNN, JACOBS, & ROGERS
GENERALIZED SELF-EFFICACY SCALE
When I make plans, I am certain that I can make them work.
One o f m y problems is that I cannot get down to work when I should. (R)
I f I can’ t do a job the first time, I keep trying until I can.
When I set important goals for myself, I rarely achieve them. (R)
I give up on things before completing them. (R)
I avoid facing difficulties. (R)
I f something looks too complicated, I w ill not bother to even try it. (R)
When I have something unpleasant to do, I stick to it until I finish it.
When I decide to do something, I go right to work on it.
When trying to learn something new, I soon give up i f I am not in itia lly successful. (R)
When unexpected problems occur, I don't handle them well. (R)
I avoid trying to learn new things when they look too difficult for me. (R)
Failure just makes me try harder.
I feel insecure about my ability to do things. (R)
I am a self-reliant person.
I give up easily. (R)
I do not seem capable of dealing with most problems that come up in my life.
Note. - (R) Reverse-score item.
133
APPENDIX C
ROTTER LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE
1. a. Children get into trouble because their parents punish them too much.
b. The trouble with most children nowadays is that their parents are too easy with
them.
2. a. Many o f the unhappy things in people’ s lives are partly due to bad luck.
b. People’s misfortunes result from the mistakes they make.
3. a. One o f the major reasons why we have wars is because people don’t take
enough interest in politics.
b. There w ill always be wars, no matter how hard people try to prevent them.
4. a. In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world.
b. Unfortunately, an individual’s worth often passes unrecognized no matter how-
hard he tries.
5. a. The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense.

b. Most students don't realize the extent to which their grades are influenced by
accidental happenings.
6. a. Without the right breaks one cannot be an effective leader.

b. Capable people who fail to become leaders have not taken advantage o f their
opportunities.
7. a. No matter how hard you try some people just don’t like you.
b. People who can’ t get others to like them don’t understand how to get along with
others.
8. a. Heredity plays the major role in determining one’s personality.

b. It is one’s experiences in life which determine what one is like.
9. a. I have often found that what is going to happen w ill happen.

b. Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me as making a decision to take
a definite course o f action.
134
10. a. In the case o f the well-prepared student there is rarely, i f ever, such a thing as an
unfair test.
b. Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course work that studying
is really useless.
11. a. Becoming a success is a matter o f hard work, luck has little or nothing to do
w ith it.
b. Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at the right time.
12. a. The average citizen can have an influence in government decisions.

b. This world is run by the few people in power, and there is not much the little
guy can do about it.
13. a. When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them work.
b. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be a
matter o f good or bad fortune anyhow.
14. a. There are certain people who are just no good,

b. There is some good in everybody.
15. a. In my case, getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck.
b. Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping a coin.
16. a. Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the
right place first.
b. Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability, luck has little or
nothing to do with it.
17. a. As far as world affairs are concerned, most o f us are the victims o f forces we
can neither understand nor control,
b. By taking an active part in political and social affairs, the people can control
world events.
18. a. Most people don’t realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by
accidental happenings,
b. There really is no such thing as “ luck.”
19. a. One should always be w illing to admit mistakes,

b. It is usually best to cover up one’s mistakes.
20. a. It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you.

b. How many friends you have depends on how nice a person you are.
135
21. a. In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the good ones,
b. Most misfortunes are the result o f lack o f ability, ignorance, laziness, or all
three.
22. a. W ith enough effort we can wipe out political corruption.

b. It is difficult for people to have much control over the things politicians do in
office.
23. d. Sometimes I can't understand how teachers arrive at the grades they give,
b. There is a direct connection between how hard I study and the grades I get.
24. a. A good leader expects people to decide for themselves what they should do.
b. A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their jobs are.
25. a. Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me.
b. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in
my life.
26. a. People are lonely because they don’t try to be friendly.

b. There’s not much use in trying too hard to please people, i f they like you, they
like you.
27. a. There is too much emphasis on athletics in high school,

b. Team sports are an excellent way to build character.
28. a. What happens to me is my own doing.

b. Sometimes I feel that I don’t have enough control over the direction my life is
taking.
29. a. Most o f the time I can’t understand why politicians behave the way they do.
b. In the long run the people are responsible for bad government on a national as
well as on a local level.
136
APPENDIX D
WATSON, CLARK AND TELLEGEN PANAS SCALE
very slightly a little moderately quite a bit extremely

or not at all
interested irritable
distressed alert
excited ashamed
upset in s p ire d
strong nervous
guilty determined
scared attentive
hostile jittery
enthusiastic active
proud afraid
We have used PANAS w ith the following instructions:
Moment (you feel this way right now, that is, at the present moment)
Today (you have felt this way today)
Past few days (you have felt this way during the past few days)
Week (you have felt this way during the past week)
Past few weeks (you have felt this way during the past few eeks)
137
Year (you have felt this way during the past year)
General (you generally feel this way, that is, how you feel on average)
138
APPENDIX E
THE N O R M A N T A X O N O M Y OF 1431 TRAIT-DESCRIPTIVE ADJECTIVES
Factor pole/category Examples No. o f terms
IV+
Durability tough, rugged, unflinching
Poise worriless, calm, stable, sedate, peaceful
Self-reliance confident, independent, resourceful
Callousness ruthless, insensitive, cold, stem 17
Candor frank, blunt, explicit, curt, terse 31
IV-
Self-pity touchy, careworn, whiny. oversensitive 14
Anxiety fearful, nervous, fussy, unstable 30
Insecurity unconfident, self-critical, unpoised 17
Tim idity Cowardly, timid, unventurous, wary 14
Passivity Docile, dependent, submissive, pliant 22
Immaturity NaiVe, gullible, superstitious, childlike 18
139
APPENDIX F
STUDIES INCLUDED IN M ETA-AN ALYSIS
Agho, A.O., Mueller, C.W., & Price, J.L. (1993). Determinants o f employee job
satisfaction: An empirical test o f a causal model. Human Relations. 46(81. 1007-
1027.
Aldag, R.J., & Brief, A.P. (1975). Impact o f individual differences on employee affective
responses to task characteristics. Journal o f Business Research Journal o f
Business Research. 3,311-321.
Armenakis, A.A., Field, H.S., Jr., Holley, W.H., Jr., Bedian, A.G., & Ledbetter, B., Jr.
(1977). Human resources consideration in textile work redesign. Consideration in
textile work redesign. Human Relations. 30, 1147-1157.
Arnold, H.J., & House, R.J. (1980). Methodological and substantive extensions to the job
characteristics model o f motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 25, 161-183.
Blau, G.J. (1987). Locus o f control as a potential moderator o f the turnover process.
Journal o f Occupational Psychology. 60(1). 21-29.
Brief, A.P., & Aldag, R.J. (1975). Employee reactions to job characteristics: A
constructive replication. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 60(2) 182-196.
Brief, A.P., Burke, M.J., George, J.M., Robinson, B.S., & Webster, J. (1988). Should
negative affectivity remain an unmeasured variable in the study o f job stress?
Journal o f Applied Psychology. 73(2). 193-198.
Brief, A.P. & Roberson, L.A. (1989). Job Attitude Organization: An exploratory study.
Journal o f Applied Social Psychology. 19((2). 717-727.
Caldwell, D.F., & O’Reilly, III, CA. (1982). Task perceptions and job satisfactions: A
question o f causality. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 67, 361-381.
Callahan, S.D. & Kidd, A.H. (1986). Relationship between job satisfaction & self
esteem in women. Psychological Reports, 59, 663-668.
140
Carmel, S. (1997). The professional self-esteem o f physicians scale structures,

properties, and the relationship'to work outcomes and life satisfaction.
Psychological Reports. 80(2). 591-602.
Chen, P.Y, & Spector, P.E. (1991). Negative affectivity as the underlying cause o f
correlation between stresses and strains. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 76(3),
398-407.
Decker. P.J. &. Borgcn, F.H. (1993). Dimensions o f work appraisal: Stress, strain, coping,
job satisfaction, and negative affectivity. Journal o f Counseling Psychology.
40(4). 470-478.
Dipboye. S.L., Zultowski, W.H., Dewhirst, H.D., & Arvey, R.D. (1978). Self-esteem as
a moderator o f the relationship between scientific interests and the job satisfaction
o f physicists and engineers. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 63(3), 289-294.
Dunham, R.B. (1977). Reactions to job characteristics: Moderating effects o f the

organization. Academy o f Management Journal, 20, 42-65.
Evans, M.G., Kiggundu, M.N., & House, R.J. (1979). A partial test and extension o f the
job characteristics model o f motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance. 24, 354-381.
George, J.M. (1991). Time structure and purpose as a mediator o f work-life linkages.
Journal o f Applied Social Psychology. 21(4). 296-314.
George, J.M. & B rief A.P. (1992). Feleing good-Doing good: A conceptual analysis o f
the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychology Bulletin,
112(2). 310-339.
Greenberger, D.B., Strasser, S., Cummings, L.L. & Dunham, R.B. (1989). The impact o f
personal control o f performance and satisfaction. Organizational behavior and
Human Decision Processes. 43, 29-51.
G riffin, R.VV. (1981). A longitudinal investigation o f task characteristics relationships.

Academy o f Management Journal. 24, 99-113.
Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the design o f work: Test o f a
theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.
Hirschfeld, R.R., Field, H.S., Harris, S.G., & Giles, W.F. (1997). Achievement
motivation plus work orientation: Toward a more complete specification o f a
work motivation disposition. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Conference o f the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.
141
Hockwarter, W.A.,Zellers, K.L., Perrine, P.L., & Harrison, A.W . (1998). The
Interactive Role o f negative affectivity & job characteristics: Are high NA
employees destined to be unhappy at work? Paper presented at the 13th Annual
Conference o f the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas.
TX.
James, L .A & Jones, A.P. (1980). Perceived job characteristics and job satisfaction: An
examination o f reciprocal causation. Personnel Psychology. 33, 97-135.
Jex, S.M. & Gudanowski, D.M. (1992). Efficacy beliefs and w ork stress: An
exploratory study. Journal o f Organizational Behavior, 13(5). 509-517.
Jones, G.A. (1980). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to

organizations. Academy o f Management Journal. 29(2), 262-279.
Katz, R. (1978a). The influence o f job longevity on employee reactions to task

characteristics. Human Relations, 31, 703-726.
Katz, R. (1978b). Job longevity as a situational factor in job satisfaction. Administrative

Science Quarterly. 23(2), 204-223.
Katz. R., & Van Maanen, J. (1977). The loci o f work satisfaction: Job, interaction, and
policy. Human Relations. 3J_, 469-486.
Keller J.W. (1983). Predicting absenteeism from prior absenteeism, attitudinal factors and
nonattitudinal factors. Judge & Wantabe (1993). Another look at the job
satisfaction - life satisfaction relationship. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 68(3),
536-540.
Kemery, E.R., Bedian, A.G. & Zacur, S.R. (1996). Expectancy-based job cognition’s
and job affect as predictors o f organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal o f
Applied Social Psychology. 26(7), 635-651.
Kiggundu, M.N. (1980). An empirical test o f the theory o f job design using multiple job
ratings. Human Relations. 33, 339-351.
Klein, H. (1988). Job satisfaction in professional dual-career couples: Psychological and

socioeconmic variables. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 32(3). 255-268.
Lopez, E.M. (1982). A test o f the self-consistency theory o f the job satisfaction
relationship. Academy o f Management Journal. 25(2). 335-348.
Manning, M.R., Osland, J.S., & Osland, A.. (1989). Work related consequences o f
smoking cessation. Academy o f Management Journal. 32(3). 606-621.
142
Montei, M.S., Jex, S.M., King, D.L., & King, L.A. (1997). Predictors o f Job Satisfaction:
Test and Cross - Validation o f a Model. Presented at the 12Ih Annual Conference
Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO.
Moorman, R.H. (1993). The influence o f cognitive and affective-based job satisfaction
measures on the relationship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship
behavior. Human Relations, 46(6), 759-776.
Moyle, P. (1995). The role o f negative affectivity in the stress process: Tests o f
alternative models. Journal o f Organizational Behavior, 16, 647-66S.
Munz, D.C., Huelsman, T.J., Konold, T.R. & McKinney, J.J. (1996). Are there
methodological and substantive roles for affectivity in Job Diagnostic Survey
relationships? Journal o f Applied Psychology. US 1(6), 795-805.
Nelson, A., Cooper, C.L. & Jackson, P.R. (1995). Uncertainty amidst change: The impact
o f privatization on employee job satisfaction and well being. Journal o f
Occupational Psychology. 68, 57-71.
Norris, D.R. & Niebuhr. R.E. (1984). Attributional influences on the job performance-
job satisfaction relationship. Academy o f Management Journal, 27(2) 424-431.
Oldham, G.R, Hackman, R.J. & Pearce, J.L. (1976). Conditions under which employees
respond positively to enriched work. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 61(4), 395-
403.
O’ Reilly, C.A., & Caldwell, D. (1979). Informational influence as a determinant o f task

characteristics and job satisfaction. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 64, 157-165.
O’ Reilly, C.A. & Caldwell, D. (1985). The Impact o f normative social influence and
cohesiveness on task perceptions and attitudes: A social information processing
approach. Journal o f Occupational Psychology. 58, 193-206.
O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D.F. (1991). People and organizational culture:
A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy o f
Management Journal. 34(3). 487-516.
O’ Reilly, C.A., Parlette, G.N., & Bloom, J.R. (1980). Perceptual measures o f task
characteristics: The biasing effects o f differing frames o f reference and job
attitudes. Academy o f Management Journal. 23 118-131.
Organ, D.W. & Greene, C.N. (1974). Role ambiguity, locus o f control, and work
satisfaction. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 59(1). 101-102.
143
Organ, D.W. & Konovsky, M. (1989): Cognitive versus affective determinants o f

organizational citizenship behavior. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 74(1). 157-
164.
Orpen, C. (1979). The effe4cts o f job enrichment on employee satisfaction, motivation,

involvement, and performance: A field experiment. Human Relations. 32, 189-
217.
Pcronc, M., DcWaard, R.J., & Baron, A. (1979). Satisfaction with Reai and simulated
jobs in relation to personality variables and drug use. Journal o f Applied
Psychology. 64(6). 660-668.
Pokemey, J., Gilmore, D., & Beehr, T. (1980). Job diagnostic survey dimensions:
Moderating effect o f growth needs and correspondence w ith dimensions o f job
rating form. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 22-237.
Rosman, P. & Burke, R.J. (1980). Job satisfaction, self-esteem, and the fit between
perceived self and job on valued competencies. Journal o f Psychology. 105(2).
259-269.
Rousseau, D (1977). Technological differences in job characteristics, employee

satisfaction, and motivation: A synthesis o f job design research and sociotechnical
systems theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 19, 18-42.
Rousseau, D. (1978). Characteristics o f departments, positions, and industries: Contexts

for attitudes and behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly. 23, 521-540.
Schaubroeck, J., Judge, T.A. & Taylor, L.A. III. (1998). Influences o f trait negative affect
and situational sim ilarity on correlation and convergence o f work attitudes and
job stress perceptions across two jobs. Journal o f Management. 24(4). 553-575.
Schmitt, N. & Bediean, A.G. (1982). A comparison o f LISREL and two-stage least
squares analysis o f a hypothesized life-job satisfaction reciprocal relationship.
Journal o f Applied Pscvhology. 67(6), 806-817.
Schmitt, N., Coyle, B., White, J.K., & Raushcenberger, J. (1978). Background needs, Job
perceptions and job satisfaction: A causal model. Personnel Psychology, 31, 889-
901.
Schnake, M.B. & Dumler, M.P. (1985). Affective response bias in measurement
o f perceived task characteristics: Journal o f Occupational Psychology, 58, 159-166.
144
Schwoerer, C.E. & May, D.R. (1996). Age and work outcomes: The moderating
effects o f self-efficacy and tool design effectiveness. Journal o f Organizational
Behavior. 17, 469-487.
Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., & Near, J.P. (1983). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: It’s
nature and antecedents. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 64(4), 653-663.
Somers, M.J., & Lefkowitz, J. (1983). Self-esteem, need gratification, and work
satisfaction: A test o f competing explanations from consistency theory and seif-
enhancement theory. Journal o f Vocational Behavior. 22(3). 303-311.
Spector, P.E. (1982). Behavior in organizations as a function for employee’s locus o f

control. Psychological Bulletin. 91., 482-497.
Spector (1985). Higher-order need strength as moderator o f the job scope-employee

outcome relationship: A meta-analysis. Journal Occupational Psychology, 58(2).
119-127.
Spector, P.E. (1988). Development o f the work locus o f control scale. Journal o f
Occupational Psychology. 61(4). 335-340.
Spector, P.E. & Michaels, C.E. (1986). Personality and employee withdrawal: Effects o f
locus o f control on turnover. Psychological Repons, 59(1). 63-66.
Spector, P.E. & O’Connell, B.J. (1994). The contribution o f personality traits, negative
affectivty, locus o f control and Type A to the subsequent reports o f job stressors
and job strains. Journal o f Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 67(1). 1-
12.
Stems, L., Alexander, R.A., Barrett, G.V., & Dambrot, F.H. (1983). Relationship o f
extraversion and neuroticism with job preferences and job satisfaction. Journal
o f Occupational Psychology. 56. 141-153.
Terry, D.J., Nielson, M., & Perchard, L. (1993). Effects o f work stress on psychological
well-being and job satisfaction: The stress-buffering role o f social support.
Australian Journal o f Psychology. 45(3), 168-175.
Tharenou, P. & Harker, P. (1982). Organization Correlates o f employee self-esteem.

Journal o f Applied Psychology, 67(6), 797-805.
Tokar, D.M. & Subich, L.M. (1997). Relative contributions o f congruence and
personality dimensions to job satisfaction. Journal o f Vocational Behavior. 50.
482-491.
145
Umstot, D., Beil, C.H., & Mitchell, T.R. (1978). Effects o f job enrichment and task goals
on satisfaction and productivity: Implications for job design. Journal o f Applied
Psychology. 61, 379-394.
Walsh, J. II, Taber, T.D., & Beehr, T.A. (1980). An integrated model o f perceived job
characteristic. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 25, 252-267.
Wanous, J.P. (1974). Individual differences and reactions to job characteristics. Journal
146
REFERENCES
Agho, A.O., Mueller, C.W., & Price, J.L. (1993). Determinants o f employee job
satisfaction: An empirical test o f a causa! model. Human Relations. 46(8). 1007-
1027.
Aldag, R.J., & Brief, A.P. (1975). Impact o f individual differences on employee affective
responses to task characteristics. Journal o f Business Research Journal o f
Business Research, 3,311-321.
Allport, G.W. (1935). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.
Allport, G.W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Allport, G.W. & Odbert, H.S. (1936). Trait names. A psycho-lexical study.
Psychological Monographs. 47(211), 171.
Armenakis, A.A., Field. H.S., Jr., Holley, W.H., Jr., Bedian, A.G., & Ledbetter, B., Jr.
(1977). Human resources consideration in textile work redesign. Consideration in
textile work redesign. Human Relations. 30, 1147-1157.
Arnold, H.J., & House, R.J. (1980). Methodological and substantive extensions to the job
characteristics model o f motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human
Arvey, Bouchard, Segal & Abraham (1989). JS: Environmental & Genetic Components,
Journal o f Applied Psychology. 74 (2), 187-192.
Bagozzi, R.P. & Yi, Y. (1988). On the use o f structural equations models in
experimental designs. Journal o f Marketing Research. 26(3), 271-284.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency, American Psychologist.

37(2). 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986) Social foundations o f thought and action. Englewood C liffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
147
Bandura, A. (19S9). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist.

44x 1175-1184.
Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M.K. (1991) The big five-personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology. 44, 1-26.
Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M.K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator o f the relationships
between the Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance. Journal o f
Applied Psychology, 7S (i). i i 1- i IS.
Blau, G.J. (1987). Locus o f control as a potential moderator o f the turnover process.
Journal o f Occupational Psychology. 60(1), 21-29.
Blascovich, J. & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures o f self-esteem. In J.P. Robinson, P.R.

Shaver, & L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures o f personality and social
psychological attitudes, (pp. 115-160). San Diego: Academic Press.
Bouchard, T. J., Arvey, R.D.. Keller, L.M., & Segal, N.L. (1992). Genetic influences on
job satisfaction: A reply to Cropanzano and James. Journal o f Applied
Psychology. 77(1), 89-93.
Brayfield, A.H. & Rothe, H.F. (1951). An index o f job satisfaction. Journal o f Applied
Psychology. 35, 307-31 1.
Brief, A.P., & Aldag, R.J. (1975). Employee reactions to job characteristics: A
constructive replication. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 60(2) 182-196.
Brief, A.P., & Aldag, R.J. (1978). The job characteristics inventory: An examination.
Brief, A.P., Burke, M.J., George, J.M., Robinson, B.S., & Webster, J. (1988). Should
negative affectivity remain an unmeasured variable in the study o f jo b stress?
Journal o f Applied Psychology. 73(2), 193-198.
Brief, A.P.. Butcher, A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Cookies, disposition, and jo b attitudes:
The effects o f positive mood inducing events and negative affectivity on the Job
satisfaction in a field experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes. 62, 55-62.
Brief, A.P. & Roberson, L.A. (1989). Job Attitude Organization: An exploratory study.
Journal o f Applied Social Psychology, 19((2). 717-727.
Brockner, J. (1988). Self-esteem at work. Lexington, M A : Lexington Books.
148
Brown, M.W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Single sample cross validation indices for
covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research , 24(4). 445-455.
Brousseau, K.R., (1978). Personality & Job Experience. Organizational Behavior &
Human Performance. 22. 235-252.
Caldwell, D.F., & O ’Reilly, III, CA. (1982). Task perceptions and job satisfactions: A
question o f causality. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 67. 361-381.
Caldwell, D.F. Sc O ’ Reilly III, C.A. (1990). Measuring person job fit with profile-
comparison process. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 75(6). 648-657.
Callahan, S.D. Sc Kidd, A.H. (1986). Relationship between job satisfaction & self
esteem in women. Psychological Reports. 59, 663-668.
Carmel, S. (1997). The professional self-esteem o f physicians scale structures,

properties, and the relationship to work outcomes and life satisfaction.
Psychological Reports. 80(2). 591-602.
Carsten, J.M. & Spector, P.E. (1987). Unemployment, job satisfaction, and employee
turnover: A meta-analytic test o f the Muchinsky model. Journal o f Applied
Psychology. 72(3). 374-381.
Cattell, R.B. (1943). The description o f personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters.
Journal o f Abnormal and Social Psychology. 38. 476-506.
Cattell, R.B. (1957). Personality and motivation structure and measurement. Younkers-
on-Hudson, NY: World.
Cattell, R.B. (1965). The scientific analysis o f personality. Baltimore, MD: Penguin.
Chatman, J.A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model o f

person-organization fit. Academy o f Management Review. 14(3). 333-349.
Chen. P.Y. & Spector, P.E. (1991). Negative affectivity as the underlying cause o f
correlation between stresses and strains. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 76(3).
398-407.
Connolly, J.J, Sc Viswesveran, C. (1999). Positive and negative affect: A meta-analysis.

Presented at the 14th Annual Conference Society for Industrial/Organizational
Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
Cooper, H.M. & Lemke, K.M. (1991). On the note o f meta-analysis in Personality &
Social Psychology. 17(3). 245-251.
149
Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents o f self-esteem. San Francisco: Freeman
Coopersmith, S. (1987). Self-esteem Inventory Manual. Palo Alto, CA: Psycholists

Press.
Cordery, J.L. & Sevatos, P.P. (1993), Responses to the original and revised job
descriptions : Is education a factor in responses to negatively worded items?
Costa, P.T. & McRae, R.R. (1980). Influence o f extraversion and neuroticism on
subjective well being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal o f Applied
Psychology. 38(4). 66S-678.
Costa, P.T & McCrae, R.R. (1988). From catalog to classification: M urray’s needs and
the Five-factor model. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology. 55(2). 258-
265.
Costa, P.T., McRae, R.R, & Holland, J.L. (1984). Personality and vocational interests in
an adult sample. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 69(3). 390-400.
Cronbach, L.J. (1947). Test ‘‘reliability’’: Its meaning and determination. Psvchometrika.
12, 1-16.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure o f tests.
Psvchometrika. 16, 297-334.
Cronbach, L.J., Gleser, G.C., Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The dependability o f
behavioral measurements: Theory o f generalizabilitv for scores and profiles. New
York; NY: Wiley.
Cropanzano, R. & James, K. (1990). Methodological considerations for the behavioral

genetic analysis o f work attitudes. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 75(4), 433-
439.
Davis-Blake, A., Pfeffer, J. (1989). Just a mirage: The search for dispositional effects in
organization research. Academy o f Management Review, 14(3). 385-400.
Dawis, R.W., & Lofquist, L.H. (1984). A psychological theory o f work adjustment.
Minneapolis, MN: University o f Minnesota Press.
Decker, P.J. & Borgen, F.H. (1993). Dimensions o f work appraisal: Stress, strain, coping,
job satisfaction, and negative affectivity. Journal o f Counseling Psychology.
40(4). 470-478.
150
Diener, E., Larsen, R.J., Levine, S., and Emmons, R.A. (1985). Intensity and frequency:
Dimensions underlying positive and negative affect. Journal o f Applied
Psychology, 48(5). 1253-1265.
Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence o f the five-factor model. Annual
Review o f Psychology. 41, 417-440.
Dipboyc, S.L., Zultovvski, W .IL, Dewhirst, H.D., Arvcy, R.D. (19/8). Se'if-esleein as
a moderator o f the relationship between scientific interests and the job satisfaction
o f physicists and engineers. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 63(3). 289-294.
Dunham, R.B. (1977). Reactions to job characteristics: Moderating effects o f the

organization. Academy o f Management Journal. 20, 42-65.
Erez, A. & Judge. T.A. (1998). Psychological processes underlying the dispositional
source o f job satisfaction. Unpublished manuscript. Cornell university, Ithica:
New York.
Evans, M.G., Kiggundu, M.N., & House, R.J. (1979). A partial test and extension o f the
job characteristics model o f motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 24, 354-381.
Eysenck, H.J. & Eysenck, S.B.G. (1968). Manual for the Evsenck Personality Inventory.
San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
Fitts, W.H. (1965). Manual o f the Tennessee-Self Concept Scale. Nashville, TN:
Counselor Recording and Tests.
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G.R. (1987). The validity o f the job characteristic model: A review
and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology. 40, 287-322.
Frye. C.M. (1996). New evidence o f the Job Characteristics Model-Job Satisfaction
Relationship: A meta-analysis. Presented at the 11th Annual Conference Society
for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, SanDiego, CA.
Fumham, A., & Zacheral, M. (1986).Personality and job satisfaction. Personality and
Individual Differences., 453-459.
George, J.M. (1991). Time structure and purpose as a mediator o f w ork-life linkages.
Journal o f Applied Social Psychology. 21(4). 296-314.
151
George, J.M. & B rief A.P. (1992). Feleing good-Doing good: A conceptual analysis o f
the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychology Bulletin.
112(2). 310-339.
Gerhart, B. (1987). How important are dispositional factors as determinants o fjo b

satisfaction? Implications for job design and other personnel programs. Journal o f
Applied Psychology. 72(3). 366-373.
Gist, M.E. (1987). Sclf-effieaey: Implications for organizational behavior and human
resource management. Academy o f Management Review. 12(3). 472-485.
Gist, M.E. & Mitchell, T.R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis o f its
determinants and malleability. Academy o f Management Review, 17(2), 183-
211.
Gist, M.E., Schworer, C. & Rosen, B. (1989). Effects o f Alternative Training methods
on self-efficacy & performance in computer software training. Journal o f Applied
Psychology. 74(6), 884-891.
Goldberg, L.R. (1990). An alternative "description o f personality” : the Big Five Factor
structure. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216-1229.
Goldberg, L.R. (1991). The development o f markers for the Big Five Factor Structure.
Unpublished manuscript.
Goldberg, L.R. (1993). The structure o f phenotypic personality traits. American

Psychologist. 48( 1) 26-34.
Gough, H. & Heilbrun, A. (1965). The Adjective Checklist Manual. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Green, D.P., Goldman, S.L., & Salovey, P. (1993). Measurement error masks bipolarity
in affect ratings. Journal o f Applied Social Psychology, 64(6). 1029-1041
Greenberger, D.B., Strasser, S., Cummings, L.L. & Dunham, R.B. (1989). The impact o f
personal control o f performance and satisfaction. Organizational behavior and
Human Decision Processes. 43, 29-51.
Griffin, R.W. (1981). A longitudinal investigation o f task characteristics relationships.

Hackman, J.R., & Lawler, E.E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal
o f Applied Psychology. 55, 259-289.
152
Hackman, R.J. & Oldham, G.R. (1975). Development o f the Job diagnostic Survey.
Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the design o f work: Test o f a
theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 16, 250-279.
Hannigan, Grosch & Tetrick (1996). The role o f demographic variables & job
characteristics in employee disability claims. Presented at the 11th Annual
Conference Society for Industrial Organizational Psychoiogy, San Diego, CA.
Harrison, D.A. & Martocchio, J.J. (1998). Time for absenteeism. A 20-year review o f
origins, offshoots and outcomes. Journal o f Management. 24(3). 305-350.
Harter, S (1990). Causes, correlates, and the functional role o f global self-worth: A
life-span perspective. In R.J. Sternberg & Kolligan, Jr. (Eds.), Competence
considered, (pp. 67-97). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Helmreich, R. & Stapp, J. (1974). Short Forms o f the Texas Social Behavior Inventory
(TSBt): An objective measure o f self-esteem. Bulletin o f Psvchonomic Society.
4, 473-475.
Hirschfeld, R.R., Field, H.S., Harris, S.G., & Giles, W.F. (1997). Achievement
motivation plus work orientation: Toward a more complete specification o f a
work motivation disposition. Paper presented at the I3 lh Annual Conference o f the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.
Hockwarter, W.A.,Zellers, K.L., Perrine, P.L., & Harrison, A.W. (1998). The
Interactive Role o f negative affectivity & job characteristics: Are high N A
employees destined to be unhappy at work? Paper presented at the 13th Annual
Conference o f the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas,
TX.
Holland, J.L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory o f careers (2nd ed.)
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Horn, P.W. Ccaranikas-Walker, F., Prussia. G.E. & Griffeth, R.W. (1992). A meta-
analytical structural equations analysis o f a model o f employee turnover. Journal
o f Applied Psychology. 77(6). 890-909.
Hoppock, R. (1935). Job satisfaction. New York: Harper.
153
House, R.J., Shane, S. A., & Herold, D.M. (1996). Rumors o f the death o f
dispositional research are vastly exaggerated. Academy o f Management Review,
21(19). 203-224.
Hulin, C.L. & Smith, P.C. (1965). A linear model o f job satisfaction. Journal o f Applied
Psychology, 49(3), 209-216.
Hunter. J.E. & Hamilton, M .A. (1992). Manual: CFA.BAS - A program in BASICA to
do confirmatory factor analysis. Michigan State University, Lansing, M i.
Hunter, J.E., Gerbing, D.W., & Boster, F.J. (1982). Machiavellian beliefs and
personality: Construct invalidity o f the Machiavellianism dimension. Journal o f
Personality and Social Psychology. 43(6). 1293-1305.
Hunter. J.E., & Schmidt, F.L. (1990). Methods o f meta-analvsis: Correcting error and
bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA.
laffaldano, M.T. & Muchinsky. P.M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 97. 251-273.
James, L .A & Jones, A.P. (1980). Perceived job characteristics and job satisfaction: An
examination o f reciprocal causation. Personnel Psychology. 33, 97-135.
Jex, S.M. & Gudanowski, D.M. (1992). Efficacy beliefs and work stress: An
exploratory study. Journal o f Organizational Behavior. 13(5). 509-517.
John, J.P. & Robins, R.W. (1993). Determinants o f inteijudge agreement on personality
traits: The Big Five domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique
perspective o f the self. Journal o f Personality. 61(4). 521-551.
Jones, G.A. (1980). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to

organizations. Academy o f Management Journal. 29(2). 262-279.
Joreskog, K.G. & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: User’s Refemce Guide. Chicago:
Scientific Software.
Judge, T.A. (1990). Job satisfaction as a reflection o f disposition: Investigating the

relationship and its effect on employee adaptive behaviors. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University o f Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, IL.
Judge, T.A. (1992). The Dispositional perspective in human resources research. Research
in Personnel and Human Resources Management. 10. 31-72.
154
Judge, T .A (1993). Does affective disposition moderate the relationship between job
satisfaction and voluntary turnover? Journal o f Applied Psychology. 78, 395-401.
Judge, T. A & Bono, J.E. (1999). A rose by anv other name.. .core self-evaluations and
factor IV o f the five-factor model o f personality. Unpublished manuscript.
University o f Iowa, Iowa City.
Judge, T.A. Bono, J.E, & Locke, E.A. (2000). Personality and jo b satisfaction: The
mediating role o f job characteristics. Journal ol Applied Psychology. S5(2), 237-
249.
Judge, T.A., Hanisch, K.A . & Drankowski, R.D. (1995). Human resource management
and employee attitudes. In G.R. Ferris, S.D. Rosen, & D.T. Bamum (Eds.)
Handbook o f Human Resource Management, pp. 574 - 596. Oxford, England:
Blackwell Publishers.
Judge, T.A., & Hulin, C.L. (1993). Job satisfaction as a reflection o f disposition: A
multiple-source casual analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes. 56, 388-412.
Judge, T.A., Locke, E.A, & Durham, C.C. (1997). The dispositional causes o f job
satisfaction: A core evaluation approach. Research in Organizational Behavior.
19, 151-188.
Judge, T.A., Locke, E.A, Durham, C.C., & Kluger, A.N. (1998). Dispositional effects on
job and life satisfaction: The role o f core evaluations. Journal o f Applied
Psychology. 83. 17-34.
Judge, T. A., Thoreson, C.J.. Bono, J.E., & Patton, G.K. (1998). Another look at the
relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. Unpublished
manuscript, University o f Iowa, Iowa City.
Judge & Wantabe (1993). Another look at the job satisfaction - life satisfaction
relationship. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 78. 939-948
Katz, R. (1978a). The influence o f job longevity on employee reactions to task

characteristics. Human Relations. 31, 703-726.
Katz, R. (1978b). Job longevity as a situational factor in job satisfaction. Administrative

Science Quarterly. 23(2). 204-223.
Katz, R., & Van Maanen, J. (1977). The loci o f work satisfaction: Job, interaction, and
policy. Human Relations. 31, 469-486.
155
Katzell, R.A. (1964). Personal values, job satisfaction, and job behavior. In H. Borow
(Ed.), Man in world o f w ork. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Keller J.W. (1983). Predicting absenteeism from prior absenteeism, attitudinal factors and
nonattitudinal factors. Judge & Wantabe (1993). Another look at the job
satisfaction - life satisfaction relationship. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 6S(3),
536-540.
Kcmery, E.R., Bcdian, A.G. &. Zacur, S.R. (1996). Expectancy-based job cognition s
and job affect as predictors o f organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal o f
Applied Social Psychology. 26(7), 635-651.
Kiggundu, M.N. (1980). An empirical test o f the theory o f job design using multiple job
ratings. Human Relations, 33. 339-351.
Klein, H. (1988). Job satisfaction in professional dual-career couples: Psychological and

socioeconmic variables. Journal o f Vocational Behavior. 32(3). 255-268.
Korman, A.K. (1970). Toward an hypothesis o f work behavior. Journal o f Applied

Kraiger. K.. Ford. K.J. & Salas, E. (1993). Application o f cognitive, skill based, and
affective theories o f learning outcomes to methods o f training evaluation. Journal
o f Applied Psychology. 78(2). 311-328.
Kulik, C.T., Oldham, G.R., & Hackman, J.R. (1987) Work design as an approach to
person-environment fit. Journal o f Vocational Behavior. 31 (3). 278-296.
Kulik, C.T.. Oldham, G.R. & Langner, P.H. (1988). Measurement o f job
characteristics: Comparison o f the original and the revised Job Diagnostic survey.
Journal o f Applied Pscvhologv. 73(3), 462-466.
Le, H. Schmidt, F.L. & Lauver, K. (2000). How reliable are measures o f job
satisfaction? New answers from generalizability theory. Unpublished
manuscript, University o f Iowa, Iowa City.
Lee, L. & Bobko, A.H. (1994). Self-Efficacy Beliefs: Comparison o f Five Measures.
Lefcourt, H.M. (1991). Locus o f control. In J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver, & L.S.
Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures o f Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes,
(pp. 413-499). San Diego: Academic Press.
Levenson, H. (1973). Mulitdimesional locus o f control in psychiatric patients. Journal o f

Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 41, 397-404.
156
Levin, I. & Stokes, J.P. (1989). Dispositional approach to job satisfaction: Role o f
negative affectivity. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 74(5), 752-758.
Locke, E.A. (1969) What is Job Satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human
Locke, E.A. (1976). The nature and causes o f job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook o f Industrial and organizational Psychology, (pp. 1297-1343).
iv a iiu iV ic iN a u v .
Locke, E.A. McClear, K., & Knight, D. (1996). Self-esteem and work. International
Review o f Industrial/Organizational Psychology. jj_, 1-32.
Loher, B.T., Noe, R.A., Moeller, N.L., & Fitzgerald, M.P. (1985). A meta-analysis o f the
relation o f job characteristics to job satisfaction. Journal o f Applied Psychology.
70, 280-289.
Lopez, E.M. (1982). A test o f the self-consistency theory o f the job satisfaction
relationship. Academy o f Management Journal. 25(2). 335-348.
Lykken. D.T.. Bouchard, T.J. & McGue, M „ Tellegen, A. (1992). H eritability o f

interests: A twin study. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 77(1). 649-661.
Maddux, J.E. (1995). Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and
application. New York: Plenum Press.
Manning, M.R., Osland, J.S., & Osland, A.. (19S9). Work related consequences o f
smoking cessation. Academy o f Management Journal. 32(3), 606-621.
Martocchio & Judge (1996). The Role o f Conscientiousness in Employee Training: A

test o f alternative models. Presented at the 11th Annual Conference Society for
Industrial/Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
Mastrangelo & Guy (1997). Life and Job Satisfaction: To Desegregate & Not to
Desegregate. Presented at the 12th Annual Conference Society for
Industrial/Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO.
Mathieu, J.E., Hoffmann, D.A., & Farr. J.L. (1993). Job perception - Job Satisfaction
Relations: An empirical comparison o f three competing theories. Organizational
Behavior & Human Decision Processes. 56(3). 370-387.
Mathieu, J.E. & Zajac, D.M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis o f the antecedents,
correlates, and consequences o f organizational commitment. Psychological
Bulletin. 108(2). 171-194.
157
Montei, M.S., Jex, S.M., King, D.L., & King, L.A. (1997). Predictors o f Job Satisfaction:
Test and Cross - Validation o f a Model. Presented at the 12Ih Annual Conference
Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO.
Moorman, R.H. (1993). The influence o f cognitive and affective-based job satisfaction
measures on the relationship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship
behavior. Human Relations. 46(6). 759-776.
Mosier, C.I. (1943). On the reliability u fu weighted composite. Psvchometrika. S. 161-

168.
Mount. M.K., Ones, D.S., & Barrick, M.R. (1991). The big five personality
dimensions, general mental ability, and perceptions o f employment suitability.
Unpublished manuscript.
Moyle, P. (1995). The role o f negative affectivity in the stress process: Tests o f
alternative models. Journal o f Organizational Behavior, _16, 647-668.
Munz, D.C., Huelsman, T.J., Konold, T.R. & McKinney, J.J. (1996). Are there
methodological and substantive roles for affectivity in Job Diagnostic Survey
relationships? Journal o f Applied Psychology. US 1(6). 795-805.
Murphy (1993). Integrating Research on Work Adj. With Research on Job

Performance & Behavior in Organizations: Perspectives from Industrial
Organizational Psychology. Journal o f Vocational Behavior. 43, 98-104.
Nagy & Williamson (1997): A critical review o f the Job Descriptive Index. Presented at
the 12 th Annual Conference Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, St.
Louis, MO.
Necowitz & Roznowski (1994). NA & Job Satisfaction: Cognitive Process Underlying
the Relationships and Effects o f Employee Behaviors. Journal o f Applied
Psychology. 64(4). 395-403.
Nelson, A., Cooper, C.L. & Jackson, P.R. (1995). Uncertainty amidst change: The impact
o f privatization on employee job satisfaction and w ell being. Journal o f
Occupational Psychology. 68, 57-71.
Norman, W.T. (1967). 2.800 personality trait descriptors: Normative operating

characteristics for a university population. Ann Arbor. Department o f
Psychology, University o f Michigan.
Norris, D.R. & Niebuhr, R.E. (1984). Attributional influences on the job performance-
job satisfaction relationship. Academy o f Management Journal. 27(2) 424-431.
158
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. N Y:M cG raw -H ill Publishing Company.
Oldham, G.R, Hackman, R.J. & Pearce, J.L. (1976). Conditions under which employees
respond positively to enriched work. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 61(4). 395-
403.
O ’Reilly, C.A., & Caldwell, D. (1979). Informational influence as a determinant o f task

characteristics and job satisfaction. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 64. 157-165.
O ’ Reilly, C.A. & Caldwell, D. (1985). The Impact o f normative social influence and
cohesiveness on task perceptions and attitudes: A social information processing
approach. Journal o f Occupational Psychology. 58, 193-206.
O ’ Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D.F. (1991). People and organizational culture:
A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy o f
Management Journal, 34(3). 4S7-516.
O ’ Reilly, C.A., Parlette, G.N., & Bloom, J.R. (1980). Perceptual measures o f task
characteristics: The biasing effects o f differing frames o f reference and job
attitudes. Academy o f Management Journal. 23 118-131.
Organ, D.W. & Greene, C.N. (1974). Role ambiguity, locus o f control, and work
satisfaction. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 59(1), 101-102.
Organ, D.W. & Konovsky, M. (1989): Cognitive versus affective determinants o f

organizational citizenship behavior. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 74(1), 157-
164.
Orpen, C. (1979). The effe4cts o f job enrichment on employee satisfaction, motivation,

involvement, and performance: A field experiment. Human Relations. 32, 189-
217.
Ozer, D.J. & Reise, S.P. (1994). Personality Assessment. Annual Review o f
Psychology. 45. 357-388.
Packer, E. (1985). Understanding the subconscious. The Obiectivist Forum. 6(1). 1-10
and 6(2), 8-15.
Packer, E. (1986). The art o f introspection. The Obiectivist Forum. 6(6). 1-10 and 7(1), 1-
8.
Pehazur, E.J. & Pedhazur-Schmelkin, L. (1991). Measurement. Design, and Analisis: An

Integrated Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
159
Perone, M., DeWaard, R.J., & Baron, A. (1979). Satisfaction with Real and simulated
jobs in relation to personality variables and drug use. Journal o f Applied
Psychology. 64(6). 660-668.
Pokemey, J., Gilmore, D., & Beehr, T. (1980). Job diagnostic survey dimensions:
Moderating effect o f growth needs and correspondence with dimensions o f job
rating form. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 22-237.
r, L. (1962). Job attitudes in management: Perceived deficiencies in need

fulfillm ent as a function o f job level. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 46, 375-
384.
Pulakos, E.D. & Schmitt, N. (1983). A longitudinal study o f a valence model approach
for the prediction o f job satisfaction o f new employees. Journal o f Applied
Psychology. 68(2), 307-312.
Riggs, M.L. & Knight, P. A. (1994). The impact o f perceived group success - failure on
motivational beliefs and attitudes: A causal model. Journal o f Applied
Psychology, 79(5). 755-766.
Roberson, L.A. (1990): Prediction o f Job Satisfaction from Characteristics o f personal

work goals. Journal o f Organizational Behavior. 11, 29-41.
Rokeach, M. (1972). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory o f organizational and

change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.
Rosman, P. & Burke, R.J. (1980). Job satisfaction, self-esteem, and the fit between
perceived self and job on valued competencies. Journal o f Psychology. 105(2)*
259-269.
Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal vs. external reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs. 80, Whole No. 609.
Rotter, J.B., Chance, J.E. & Phares, E.J. (1972). Applications o f a social learning theory
o f personality. New York: Holt. Reinhart & Winston.
Rousseau, D (1977). Technological differences in job characteristics, employee

satisfaction, and motivation: A synthesis o f job design research and sociotechnical
systems theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 19, 18-42.
160
Rousseau, D. (1978). Characteristics o f departments, positions, and industries: Contexts

for attitudes and behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly. 23. 521 -540.
Roznowski, M. & Hulin, M. (1992). The scientific merit o f valid measures o f general
constructs with special reference to job satisfction and job withdrawal. In C.J.
Cranny, P.C. Smith & E.F. Stone (Eds.), Job satisfaction. New York: Lexington.
Salancik, G.R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to

job attitudes and task design. Administrative Science Quarterly. 23. 224-253.
Schaubroeck, J., Judge, T.A. & Taylor, L.A. HI. (1998). Influences o f trait negative affect
and situational sim ilarity on correlation and convergence o f work attitudes and
job stress perceptions across two jobs. Journal o f Management. 24(4). 553-575.
Schmidt, F.L. (1999). Critical evaluation o f CSE theory. Unpublished manuscript.

University o f Iowa, Iowa City.
Schmidt, F.L. & Hunter, J.E. (1999). Theory testing and measurement error.
Intelligence. 27. 183-198.
Schmidt. F.L.. Law. K.S., & Hunter, J.E. (1993). Refinements in validity generalization
methods: Implications for the situational specificity hypothesis. Journal o f
Applied Psychology. 78, 3-12.
Schmidt, F.L. & Le. H. (1999) Measurement error and cumulative knowledge.
Unpublished manuscript. University o f Iowa, Iowa City.
Schmitt, N. & Bedeian, A.G. (1982). A comparison o f LISREL and two-stage least
squares analysis o f a hypothesized life-job satisfaction reciprocal relationship.
Journal o f Applied Pscvhologv. 67(6). 806-817.
Schmitt, N., Coyle, B., White, J.K., & Raushcenberger, J. (1978). Background needs, Job
perceptions and job satisfaction: A causal model. Personnel Psychology. 31, 889-
901.
Schnake, M.B. & Dumler, M.P. (1985). Affective response bias in measurement
o f perceived task characteristics: Journal o f Occupational Psychology, 58. 159-166.
Schwoerer, C.E. & May, D.R. (1996). Age and work outcomes: The moderating
effects o f self-efficacy and tool design effectiveness. Journal o f Organizational
Behavior. 17, 469-487.
161
Sherer, M., Maddux, J.E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers,
R.W. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological
Reports. 51. 663-671.
Sims, H.P., & Szilagyi, A.D. (1976). Job characteristic relationships: Individual and
structural moderators. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 17,211-
230.
Sims, H.P., Sc Szilagyi, A.D., Sc Keller, R.T. (1975). The measurement o f job
characteristics. Academy o f Management Journal. 19. 195-212.
Smith, P. Kendall, L., & Hulin, C. (1969). The measurement o f satisfaction in workand
retirment. Chicago, 1L: Rand-McNally.
Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., & Near, J.P. (1983). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: It’s
nature and antecedents. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 64(4), 653-663.
Somers, M.J., & Lefkowitz, J. (1983). Self-esteem, need gratification, and work
satisfaction: A test o f competing explanations from consistency theory and self
enhancement theory. Journal o f Vocational Behavior. 22(3). 303-311.
Spector, P.E. (1982). Behavior in organizations as a function for employee’s locus o f

control. Psychological Bulletin. 9]_, 482-497.
Spector (1985). Higher-order need strength as moderator o f the job scope-emplovee

outcome relationship: A meta-analysis. Journal Occupational Psychology. 58(2).
119-127.
Spector, P.E. (1988). Development o f the work locus o f control scale. Journal o f
Occupational Psychology. 61(4). 335-340.
Spector, P.E. & Michaels, C.E. (1986). Personality and employee withdrawal: Effects o f
locus o f control on turnover. Psychological Reports, 59(1), 63-66.
162
Spector, P.E. & O’ Connell, B.J. (1994). The contribution o f personality traits, negative
affectivty, locus o f control and Type A to the subsequent reports o f job stressors
and job strains. Journal o f Occupational & Organizational Psychology. 67(1). I-
12.
Spielberger, C.D., Gorsuch, R.L. & Lushene, R.E. (1970). State-Trait anxiety
inventory manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psycholists Press.
Sidiilcy, J.C. (1971). Reliability. In R.L. Thorndike (Ed.) Educational Measurement.

Pp.356-442. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.
Stavv, B. & Barsade, S.G. (1993). Affect and managerial performance: A test o f the
sadder-but-wiser vs. happier-and-smarter hypothesis. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 38, 304-331.
Staw, B.M., Bell, N.E., & Clausen, J.A. (1986). The dispositional approach to job
attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly. 31., 56-
77.
Staw, B.M. & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst ofchange: A dispositional approach
to job attitudes. Journal o f Applied Psychology. 70(3). 469-480.
Stems, L., Alexander, R.A., Barrett, G.V., & Dambrot, F.H. (1983). Relationship o f
extraversion and neuroticism with job preferences and job satisfaction. Journal
o f Occupational Psychology. 56, 141-153.
Tellegen, A. (1982). B rief Manual o f the Differential Personality Questionnaires.

Minneapolis University o f Minnesota Press. (PEM & NEM)
Terry, D.J., Nielson, M., & Perchard, L. (1993). Effects o f work stress on psychological
well-being and job satisfaction: The stress-buffering role o f social support.
Australian Journal o f Psychology. 45(3). 168-175.
Tett, R. P. & Mayer, J.P. (1993). Job satisfaction, turnover intention and turnover. Path
analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology. 46, 259-293.
Tharenou, P. (1979). Employee self-esteem: Are view o f the literature. Journal o f

Vocational Behavior. 15, 316-346.
Tharenou, P. & Harker, P. (1982). Organization Correlates o f employee self-esteem.

Tokar, D.M., Fischer, A.R., Subich, L.M. (1998). Personality and vocational behavior: A
Selective review o f the literature, 1933-1997. Journal o f Vocational Behavior. 53.
115-153.
163
Tokar, D.M. & Subich, L.M . (1997). Relative contributions o f congruence and
personality dimensions to job satisfaction. Journal o f Vocational Behavior. 50.
482-491.
Umstot, D., Bell, C.H., & M itchell, T.R. (1978). Effects o f job enrichment and task goals
on satisfaction and productivity: Implications for job design. Journal o f Applied
Psychology. 61_, 379-394.
Tupes & Christa! (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings. USAF
ASP Technical Report No. 61-97. Lackland A ir Force Base, TX: U.S. A ir Force.
Viswesveran, C. & Ones, D.S. (1995). Theory Testing: Combining psychometric meta
analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology. 48. 865-887.
Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Walsh, J. II, Taber, T.D., & Beehr, T.A. (1980). An integrated model o f perceived job
characteristic. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 252-267.
Wanous, J.P. (1974). Individual differences and reactions to job characteristics. Journal
o f Applied Psychology. 59, 616-622.
Watson, D., & Clark, L.A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience
aversive psychological states. Psychological Bulletin. 96, 465-490.
Watson, D., Clark, L.A, & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation ofbrief
measures o f positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal o f Applied
Psychology. 54(6). 1063-1070.
Watson, D., & Slack, A.K. (1993). General factors o f affective temperament and their
relation to job satisfaction over time. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes. 54, 181-202.
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure o f mood.

Psychological Bulletin. 98, 219-235.
Weiss, H.M . & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective Events Theory: A theoretical

discussion o f the structure, causes and consequences o f affective experiences at
work. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds), Research in organizational
behavior. 18,1-74. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Weiss, D., Dawis, R.V., & England, G.W. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapolis: University o f Minnesota.
164
Weitz, J. (1952). A Neglected Concept in Study o f Job Satisfaction. Personnel

Wylie, R.C. (1974). The self-concept: Theory and research on selected topics. Lincoln,
NE: University o f Nebraska Press.
Ziller, R., Hagey, J., Smith, M.D. & Long. B. (1969). Self-esteem: A self-scoial
construct. Journal o f Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 33. 84-95.

The Effect of Emotional Stabil PDF

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

The Effect of Emotional Stabil PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

Bell & Howell Information and Learning

Crissie Marie Frye

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillm ent o f the

Thesis supervisor: Professor Frank L. Schmidt

Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company

This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesis o f

Crissie Marie Frye

has been approved by the Examining Committee for the

spiritual support throughout this process was invaluable.

completing this (and other!) research.

May God continue to bless and keep each o f you!

Research using dispositional approaches to investigate the personality-job

satisfaction; self- esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus o f control and emotional

(mediated through perceived job characteristics) causal effects on job satisfaction.

A psychometric meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the tme correlation

among measures o f self-esteem, generalized self-efficacv, locus o f control and emotional

self-reports o f job satisfaction. Forty-five separate meta-analyses were conducted.

specific factor measurement error using generalizability theory reliability estimates. A

meta-analytically derived matrix o f the intercorrelations between traits, perceived job

factor analyses showed that measures o f self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus o f

change initiatives and organizational development interventions are discussed.

LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF FIGURES viii

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 14

Approaches to studying job satisfaction 15

Implications and future research 101

APPENDIX A. ROSENBERG SELF ESTEEM SCALE 130

APPENDIX B. SHERER, M A D D U X , MERCANDANTE. PRENTICE-

.APPENDIX C. ROTTER LOCUS OF CONTROL SCALE 133

APPENDIX D. WATSON, C LA R K AND TELLEGEN PANAS

APPENDIX E. THE N O R M A L TAXO N O M Y OF 1431 TR A IT -

APPENDIX F. STUDIES INCLUDED IN M ETA -A N A LY S IS 138

1. Relationship between affective disposition and job satisfaction 104

2. Studies included m the mcta-analysis by trait subgroup 105

3. Meta-analvtically derived intercorrelation matrix o f trait, perceived

4. Summary o f the 45 separate meta-analyses conducted to derive

5. Trait scales used in primary studies 10S

6. Mean values o f Classical Measurement Theory reliability estimate

7. Intercorrelations among personality trait measures - matrix o f

8. M atrix o f trait - job satisfaction true score correlations (fu lly

9. Trait/Construct correlations: (uncorrected and fully corrected

10. Results o f confirmatory factor analysis: factor loadings 114

11. Factor correlation matrix: results from path analysis 115

12. Results o f LISREL analysis 116

1. Judge, Locke and Durham Direct effects - Model I 117

2. Judge, Locke and Durham Mediated effects - Model II (Appraisals) 118

3. Judge, Locke and Durham Direct Mediated effects - Model III

4. Judge, Locke and Durham Moderator effects - Model IV 120

5. Measurement model for emotional stability construct 121

6. Causal model o f the emotional stability - job satisfaction relationship 122

7. Measurement model for locus o f control construct 123

8. Measurement model for generalized self-efficacy construct 124

9. Measurement model for self-esteem construct 125

10. Measurement model for emotional stability construct 126

11. Model o f hypotheses - causal model o f the emotional stability -

12. Results o f path analysis: causal model I o f emotional stability -

13. Results o f LISREL analysis: causal model o f ES - job satisfaction

Job satisfaction is one o f the most studied constructs in the field o f

Industrial/Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior (Locke, 1976;