Job Satisfaction and Subjective Well-Being-Judge & Klinger

7/22/2019 Job Satisfaction and Subjective Well-Being-Judge & Klinger

1/21

Job SatisfactionSubjectiveWell-Being at Work

TIMOTHY A.JUDGE and RYAN KLINGER

Work is central to most people's identities. When asked a general question,"What do you do"?, most people respond with their job title. Moreover, acrossmany languages, a significant number of people's surnan1esare based on occupa-tions (e.g., in English, just to name a few: abbot,archer,baker, barber,barker, brewer,carpenter, carter, clark, collier, cook, cooper, armer, fisher, fowler, goldsmith, hooper,mason, miller, porter, roper, sawyer,smith, taylor, thatcher, urner, weaver, wright). Fur-thermore, more than half of the nonretired adult population spends most of itswaking hours at work. Thus, no research on subjective well-being can be com-plete without considering subjective well-being at work.Beyond their centrality to identities, job attitudes are imponant to con-sider for other reasons. First, the most widely investigated job attitude-jobsatisfaction-may be the most extensively researched topic in the history ofindustrial/ organizational psychology Qudge & Church, 2000}. Second, in theorganizational sciences, job satisfaction occupies a central role in many theoriesand models of individual attitudes and behaviors. Finally, as we note later, jobsatisfaction research has practical applications for the enhancement of individuallives as well as organizational effectiveness.In this chapter we provide a review of significant theoretical and empiricalcontributions to the job satisfaction literature, emphasizing several current con-

393


2/21

394 SUBJECrIVE WELL-BEING IN THE INTERPERSONAL DOMAINceptual and methodological ssues.We begin with a discussionof the definitionof job satisfaction,noting several eaturesof the definition that make ob satisfac-tion an inherently complex social attitude. Next we discuss he measurementofjob satisfaction,bridging definitional/ conceptual issuesand practical consider-ations. Then we discuss everalprominent theories of the antecedents f job sat-isfaction followed by an overview of empirical support for various significantoutcomesof job satisfaction.Finally, we mention some areasof research hat webelieve are particularly deservingof future exploration.

Definitional IssuesThe concept of job satisfactionhas been defined in many ways. However, themost-useddefinition of job satisfactionn organizational esearchs that of Locke(1976), who described ob satisfactionas "a pleasurableor positive emotionalstate resulting from the apprajsa1 f one's job or job experiences" (p. 1304).Building on this conceptualization,Hulin and Judge (2003) noted that ob satis-faction includes multidimensional psychological esponseso one's ob, and thatsuch responses ave cognitive (evaluative),affective (or emotional), and behav-ioral components. This tripartite conceptualization of job satisfaction its wellwith typical conceptualizationsof social attitudes (Eagley &. Chaiken, 1993).However, there are two apparent difficulties with this viewpoint.First, asnoted by Hulin andJudge (2003), social attitudesare generallyweakpredictors of specific behaviors (Eagley &. Chaiken, 1993; Fishbein, 1980;Wicker, 1969), yet job attitudes are generally reliably and moderately stronglyrelated o relevant ob behaviors. f job satisfaction s a social attitude, then howmigilt we resolve this apparent nconsistency?Although we have more to sayabout this issuewhen discussing he outcomes of job satisfaction,one possiblereason or the apparentcontradiction is that ob attitudesmay be more salientandaccessibleor workers than the social attitudes ypically assessedn social attituderesearch.For instance,cognitive and affective outcomes of job dissatisfaction relikely to permeateand nfluence an individual's thougilts from the moment he orshe wakes o the moment the individual returns home from work (and possiblyspill over into nonwork domains aswell). Attitudes toward a political party or amarketing campaignare ikely considerably esssalient or the average ndividual.Second, althougil most researchersnclude affect in their definitions of jobsatisfaction, uch asprovided by measures f life satisfaction, nstruments used oevaluateob satisfaction end to assessognitive more than affective aspects. hisbias has ed some to conclude that the missing affective component sufficientlyimpairs extant measures, nd thus to recommend entirely new measures f jobsatisfaction Brief &. Weiss, 2002; Weiss, 2002). We consider his topic further inour discussionof measurement ssues.


3/21

395ob SatisfactionMeasurement of Job Satisfaction

Most researchersecognize that job satisfaction s a global concept that is com-prised of, or indicated by, various acets.The most typical categorization (Smith,Kendall, & Hulin, 1969) considers ive facetsof job satisfaction: ay, promotions,coworkers, supervision,and the work itself. Locke (1976) addsa few other facets:recognition, working conditions, and company and management.Furthermore,it is common for researcherso separateob satisfaction nto intrinsic and extrin-sic elements whereby pay and promotions are considered extrinsic factors andcoworkers, supervision, and the work itself are considered ntrinsic factors.The astute reader will notice a rather casual use of measurement erms("comprised of," "indicated by") that, in the measurement iterature, generallyindicatesvery different conceptualizationsof a concept. This loosenesss inten-tional. Particularly, seof the termcomprisedj generally enotesreatmentof aconcept as a manifest or aggregate r formative variable, wherein specific facetsor items cause he concept. Conversely, use of the term indicated y generallyconnotes a latent or reflective concept, where the subscales r items indicate ahigher-order concept. Although clarity in thinking about concepts s often rec-ommended n this literature (Law, Wong, & Mobley, 1998), we think consider-able confusion can be createdby making falsechoices. Specifically, n this case,concepts can be either manifest or latent, depending on how the researcherwishes o treat them. Clearly, when considering he facetsof job satisfaction, t isa manifest variable in that overall ob satisfaction s comprised of more specificsatisfactionsn different domains.Just as clearly, though, job satisfaction s also alatent variable n that it is likely that people's overall attitude toward their job orwork causes pecific satisfactions o be positively correlated. Thus, we do notthink that conceptualizationsor measuresof job satisfactionare advanced byforcing false dichotomies into the literature.With that caveat n mind, two further issueswarrant discussion.First, wewish to reprise our earlier discussion f the (missing) ole of affect n job satisfac-tion measures, nd ts implications for research n, and measurement f, ob satis-faction. Second, here is the practical ssueof how to measureob satisfaction orresearchpurposes.We address ach n turn.As we noted earlier, affect s central to any definition of job satisfaction,orjob attitudesmore generally.However, this acknowledgmentof the role of affectcreatesproblems for researchers. s noted by Brief and Weiss (2002) and Hulinand Judge (2003) n the job satisfactioniterature, and Diener and Larson (1984)in the subjective well-being literature, affective reactionsare ikely to be fleetingand episodic--state variables ather than consistent chronic, trait-like variables.Measurementof affect should reflect its state-like, episodicnature. Otherwise webecome enmeshed n a methodological stalemate Larson & Csikszentmihalyi,1983) in which researchers ttempt to study propositions of newly developed


4/21

396 SUBJECTIVE WELL-BP.JNG N THE INTERPERSONAL DOMAINtheories with methods and analyses ppropriate only to the needs of an oldergeneration of theoretical models.

To some degree,we are discussing researchdesign ssue.Thjs problem hasbeen addressed, nd partially solved,by event signalmethods (ESM), or momen-tary ecological assessments, nd multilevel statistical analyses hat combinewithin- and between-personeffects (Bryk &: Raudenbush, 1992). ESM designsshow that when job satisfaction s measuredon an experience-sampledbasis,roughly one-third to one-half of the variation in job satisfaction s within-individual. Thus, typical "one-shot" between-person research designs miss aconsiderable portion of the variance in job satisfaction by treating within-individual variation as ransient error.However, another, perhapsmore, controversial ssue s whether extant mea-suresof job satisfactionare poorly suited to assesshe affective nature of job satis-faction. This is a complex issue,and spaceallows only a few cursory thoughtshere. First, it is very difficult, perhaps nsurmountably so, to separatemeasures fcognition and affect. Isen and colleagues e.g., Ashby, Isen, &: Turken, 1999;Isen, 2002, 2003) have made his point repeatedly n reference o positive affect.Indeed, there is some discussion hat even neuroimaging echniquessuch asmag-netic resonancemaging (MRI), functional magnetic resonance maging (fMRI),and positron emission omography (PET) scansare not sufficiently sensitive oseparate ognitive and affective processes.f we cannot make such separationsnneuroimaging, t seemsnconceivable hat survey measureswill be more ensitive.A secondand related point is to express ubious regard oward efforts to developmeasuresof "job affects" as distinct from measuresof "job cognitions." Forexample,Brief (1998) and Brief and Roberson (1989) have argued hat ob affectshould be assessedeparately rom job satisfaction, wing to the overly cognitivefocus of the latter measures.However, the Brief and Roberson's measureof job

cognitiom correlated as strongly with affect as did their measureof job satisfac-tion. Another study showed that cognition and affect each contributes (roughlyequally) to job satisfaction Weiss, Nicholas, &: Daus, 1999). Perhaps he bestadvice that can be offered here is that researchon discrete moods and emotionsshould continue, alongside esearchon job satisfaction. ncluding separatemea-suresof moods (suchaspositive and negativeaffect) or specific emotiom with jobsatisfaction ertainly seems dvisablewithout posing any potentially falsedualitiesbetween cognition and affect.To be clear, we are not suggesting hat the dual roles of affect and cognitionshould not be studied n the context of job satisfaction.What we are objecting tois (1) the characterizationof measures f job satisfactionas either cognitive oraffective;and (2) the need o develop new, affectively aden measures f job satis-faction or to replace measures f job satisfactionwith "work affect" measures.Cognition and affect conceptscan help us better understand he nature of job sat-isfaction, but they are not substitutes or job satisfaction ny more than the accu-mulated body parts of a cadaversubstitute or a living human.


5/21

Job Satisfaction 197Turning to practicaI ssuesn measuringob satisfaction, n the literature thetwo most extensively validated employee attitude survey measures re the Job

Descriptive Index QDI; Smith et aI., 1969) and the Minnesota SatisfactionQues-tionnaire (MSQ; Weiss, Dawis, England. & Lofquist, 1967). TheJDI assessesat-isfaction with five different job areas:pay, promotion, coworkers, supervision,and the work itsel This index is reliable and hasan mpressivearray of validationevidence. The MSQ has he advantageof versatility-long and short forms areavailable,as well as faceted and overall measures.As for overall measures f job satisfaction,Brayfield and Rothe's (1951) obsatisfactionscale s commonly used. n some of our research e.g.,Judge, Bono.& Locke, 2000) we have used a reliable (i.e., internal consistenciesa] at .80 orabove) five-item version of this scale.The five items are:1. I feel fairly satisfiedwith my present ob.2. Most days am enthwiastic about my work.3. Each day at work seems ike it will never end4. I find real enjoyment in my work.5. I consider my job to be rather unpleasant.Two additional issues concerning the measurement of job satisfaction are

worth consideration. First, some measures, such as the ]DI, are faceted, whereasothers are global. If a measure is facet-based, overall job satisfaction is typicallydefined asa sum of the facets. Scarpello and Campbell (1983) found that individualquestions about various aspectsof the job did not correlate well with a global mea-sure of overall job satisfaction. Based on these results, the authors argued that fac-eted and global measures do not measure the same construct. In other words, thewhole is not the same as he sum of the parts. Scarpello and Campbell concluded,"The results of the present study argue against the common practice of using thesum of facet satisfaction as the measure of overall job satisfaction" (p. 595). Thisconclusion is probably premature. Individual items generally do not correlatehighly with independent measuresof the same construct. 1 ne uses ob satisfactionfoats (asopposed to individual job satisfaction items) o predict an independent mea-sure of overall job satisfaction, the correlation is considerably higher. For example,using data I (T .AJ.) collected, and using the ]D I facets o predict a measure of over-all job satisfaction, the combined multiple correlation is r = .87. 1 his correlationwere corrected for unreliability, it would be very close to unity. As has been notedelsewhere (e.g., Judge & Hulin, 1993), the job satisfaction facets are correlatedhighly enough to suggest hat they indicate a common construct. Thus, there maybe little difference between measuring general ob satisfaction with an overall mea-sure and measuring it by summing facet scores.Second, although most job satisfaction researchers have assumed that single-item measures are unreliable and therefore should not be used, this view bas notgone unchallenged. Wanous, Reichers, and Hudy (1997) found that the reliabil-


6/21

SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING IN THE INTERPERSONAL DOMAIN98ity of single-item measures f job satisfaction s .67. In addition, for the G. M.Faces cale,another single tem measureof job satisfaction hat asks ndividuals tocheck one of five facets that best describes heir overall satisfaction (Kunin,1955), he reliability was estimated o be .66. Though theseare respectableevelsof reliability, it is important to keep n mind that these evels are ower than mostmultiple-item measuresof job satisfaction.For example,Judge, Boudreau, andBretz (1994) useda three-item measureof job satisfactionwith an interitem reli-ability of a = .85. The items in this measurewere:

1. All things considered,are you satisfiedwith your present ob (circleone)? YES NO

2. How satisfiedare you with your job in general (circle one)?1 2 3 4 5

Very Somewhat Neutr2l Somewhat Very SatisfiedDissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied3. Below, pleasewrite down your best estimateson the percent of timeyou feel satisfied,dissatisfied, nd neutral about your present ob onaverage.The three figures should add up to equal 1000/0.ON THE

AVERAGE:The percent of time I feel satisfiedwith my present ob _%(note:only this responseis scored)The percent of time I feel dissatisfiedwith my present ob _%The percent of time I feel neutral about my present ob. .%

TOTAL. .%When used in practice, these tems need to be standardizedbefore summing.Although this measure s no substitute or the richnessof detail provided in a fac-eted measureof job satisfaction,we do believe t is a reasonably alid measureofoverall ob satisfactionand more reliable than a single-item measure.

Theories of Antecedents of Job SatisfactionSeveral heories concerning causes f job satisfactionhave been proposed n theorganizational iterature. These heoriescan be loosely classifiednto one of threecategories:

1. Situational theories, which hypothesize hat job satisfaction esults romthe nature of one's ob or other aspects f the environment.2. Dispositional approaches,which assume hat ob satisfaction s rooted inthe personologicalmakeup of the individual.


7/21

399ob Satisfaction3. Interactive theories, which propose hat job satisfaction esults rom theinterplay of situational and personological actors.

As with all areasof psychology, some theories are never really seriously nvesti-gated (e.g., Salancik & Pfeffer's [1977, 1978] social infonnation processingapproach),some ake off and then are either discredited (e.g., Herzberg's [1967]two-factor theory) or broadly supported (though we have difficulty finding anyjob satisfaction heory to fit in this category), and still others lie dormant foryears,only to be investigatedat a later time (e.g., Landy's [1978] opponent pro-cess theory, which recendy was reappraised [Bowling, Beebr, Wagner, &Libkuman, 2005]). We now turn our focus o several heories hat have garnereda considerable portion of the attention and or support of job satisfactionresearchers.

Job Characteristics ModelThe job characteristicsmodel (JCM) argues hat jobs that contain intrinsicallymotivating characteristicswill lead to higher levels of job satisfaction Hackman& Oldham, 1976). Five core ob characteristics efine an intrinsically motivatingjob: (1) task dentity-degree to which one can seeone's work from beginning toend; (2) task signijicance-degreeo which one's work is seen as mportant andsignificant; (3) skill variety-extent to which job allows one to do different tasks;(4) autotwmy-degree to which one hascontrol and discretion over how to con-duct one's ob; and (5) eedback-degree o which the work itself provides feed-back for how one is performing the job. According to the theory, jobs that areenriched to provide thesecore characteristics re ikely to be more satisfyingandmotivating than obs that do not provide thesecharacteristics.More specifically,it is proposed hat the core ob characteristicsead to three critical psychologicalstates--experienced meaningfulnessof the work, responsibility for outcomes,and knowledge of results-which, in turn, lead to outcomessuch as ob satisfac-tion.There is both indirect and direct support for the validity of the model's basicproposition that core ob characteristicsead to more satisfyingwork. In terms ofindirect evidence, research tudiesacrossmany years,organizations,and types ofjobs show that when employeesare asked o evaluatedifferent facetsof their job,such as supervision,pay, promotion opportunities, coworkers, and so forth, thenature of the work itself generallyemerges s he most important job facet Gudge& Church, 2000; Jurgensen, 1978). In addition, of the major job satisfactionfacets-pay, promotion opportunities, coworkers, supervision, and the workitself-iatisfaction with the work itself is almost always he facet most stronglycorrelated with overall ob satisfaction,aswell as with important outcomes suchasemployee etention (e.g., Frye, 1996; Parisi & Weiner, 1999; Rentsch & Steel,1992; Weiner, 2000). Researchdirectly testing the relationship between work-


8/21

SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING IN THE INTERPERSONAL DOMAIN00ers' reports of job characteristics nd ob satisfactionhas produced consistentlypositive results.For instance,Frye (1996) reported a true score correlation of .50between ob characteristics nd ob satisfaction.Initially a purely situational model, the ]CM was modified by Hackman andOldham (1976) to account for the fact that two employeesmay have the samejob, experience he same ob characteristics, nd yet have different levels of jobsatisfaction.The concept of growth need strength (GNS)--an employee'sdesirefor personal development-was added as a moderator of the relationshipbetween intrinsic job characteristics nd ob satisfaction.According to this inter-actional orm of the model, intrinsic ob characteristics re especially atisfying orindividuals who score high on GNS. Empirical evidence supports his position:The relationship between work characteristics nd ob satisfaction s stronger forhigh-GNS employees average = .68) than for low-GNS employees average= .38) (Frye, 1996). However, it should be noted that task characteristicsarerelated to job satisfactioneven for those who score ow on GNS.Value-Percept TheoryLocke (1976) argued that individuals' values would detemline what satisfiedthem on the ob. Only the unfulfilled job values hat were important to the indi-vidual would be dissatisfying. ccording to Locke's value-perceptmodel, ob sat-isfaction can be modeled by the formula

s = (~- 1')x ViorSatisfaction= (want - have) X importance

where S is satisfaction,v. is value content (amount wanted), P is the perceivedamount of the value provided by the ob, and V; s the importance of the value tothe individual. Thus, value-percept theory predicts that discrepancies etweenwhat is desired and what is received are dissatisfyingonly if the job facet isimportant to the individual. Because ndividuals consider multiple facetswhenevaluating their job satisfaction, he cognitive calculus s repeated or each obfacet. Overall satisfaction s estimatedby aggregatingacrossall contents of a ob,weighted by their importance to the individual.The value-percept model expressesob satisfaction n tenns of employees'valuesand ob outcomes. A particular strength of the model is that it highlightsthe role of individual differences n values and job outcomes. However, onepotential problem with the value-percept heory is that what one desires V, orwant) and what one considers mportant (V; or importance) are likely to behighly correlated. n addition, the use of weighting may be inappropriate unlessweighting variables are measuredwith very high reliability. The model alsoignores nfluences rom exogenous actors,such ascostsof holding ajob, or cur-


9/21

Job Satisfaction 401rent and past social, economic, or organizationalconditions external to the indi-vidual/job nexus.

Dispositional ApproachesOver the past 20 yean, researchon job satisfactionantecedents as been domi-nated by dispositionalapproaches s reviewed by Judge and Lanen (2001), thesestudieshave been both indirect-inferring a dispositional source of job satisfac-tion without measuringpersonality-and direct. We provide a brief review eachof these ypes of studies.Indirect StudiesStaw and Ross (1985) exploited the National Longitudinal Surveys (NLS) data-base and found that measures of job satisfaction were reasonably stable over time(over 2 yean, r = .42; over 3 years, r = .32; over 5 yean, r = .29). They alsofound that job satisfaction showed modest stability even when individualschanged both employers and occupations over a 5-year period of time (r = .19, P< .01). Finally, the authors found that prior job satisfaction was a stronger predic-tor of current satisfaction (b = .27, t = 14.07, P < .01) than changes in pay (b =.01, t = 2.56, P < .01) or changes n status (b = .00). In a separate ine of research,Arvey, Bouchard, Segal, and Abraham (1989) found significant consistency injob satisfaction levels between 34 pairs of monozygotic twins reared apart fromearly childhood. The intraclass correlation (ICC) of the general job satisfactionscores of the twin pairs was .31 (p < .05). AsJudge and Larsen (2001) and others(Gerhart, 2005) have noted, the problem with indirect studies is that alternativeexplanations are obvious. For example, correlations of satisfaction levels acrosstime and jobs may retlect relative consistency in jobs asmuch as it does stableindividual dispositions; those who are able to secure a good, high-quality job atone time are likely to secure an equivalent job at a later time, and thus situationalexplanations for job satisfaction consistency are not ruled out, even if individualschange jobs (Hulin & Judge, 2003).

Direct StudiesMore recent studieshave inked direct measures f penon2lity traits to job satis-faction. Most of the studies n this area have focused on one of four typologies:(1) positive and negative affectivity; (2) the five-factor model of person2lity; (3)core self-evaIuations; 4) other measuresof affective disposition. Probably theheir to the throne of indirect studieswere studies hat related positive affectivityand negative affectivity (trait PA and trait NA) to job satisfaction.Counter to thetheoty that PAis more strongly related o positive outcomes han NA, Thoresenet aI.'s (Thoresen,Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, & de Chennont, 2003) meta-analysis


10/21

402 SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING IN THE INTERPERSONAL DOMAINrevealed hat trait NA was somewhat more strongly related to job satisfactionthan was trait PA (p = .37 and p = .33, respectively). s for the five-factormodel, Judge, Heller, and Mount (2002) found that three Big Five traits-neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness--eachdisplayed moderate,nonzero relationshipswith job satisfaction: euroticism, p = -.29; extraversion,p= .25; conscientiousness, = .26.

Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997) introduced the construct of core self-evaluations. According to these authors, core self-evaluationsare fundamentalpremises hat individuals hold about themselvesand their functioning in theworld. Judge et aI. argued that core self-evaluation s a broad personality con-struct comprised of severalmore specific traits: (1) self-esteem; 2) generalizedself-efficacy; (3) locus of control; and (4) neuroticism or emotional stability.Judge and Bono (2001) completed a meta-analysis f 169 independent correla-tions (combined N = 59,871) between each of the four core traits and ob satis-faction. When the four meta-analyses here combined into a single compositemeasure, he overall core trait correlates 37 with job satisfaction. udge, Locke,Durham, and Kluger (1998) found that one of the primary causalmechanismswas through the perception of intrinsic job characteristics, finding that hasalsogeneralized o objective measuresof job complexity Oudge, Bono, & Locke,2000).Finally, in terms of other measures f affective disposition, n order to gaugerelative ob satisfactionmore accurately,Weitz (1952) developeda "gripe index"that takes into account individuals' tendencies o feel negatively or positivelyabout many aspects f their lives.Judge and Hulin (1993) found that employees'responseso neutral objectswere correlatedwith job satisfaction,a finding repli-cated by Judge and Locke (1993). However, Judge et aI. (1998) and Piccolo,Judge, Takahashi, Watanabe, and Locke (2005) found that, compared to coreself-evaluations,affective disposition explained essvariance n job satisfaction.Comell ModelHulin, Roznowski, and Hachiya (1985) and Hulin (1991) provide a model of obsatisfaction hat attempts o integrateprevious theoriesof attitude fornlation. Themodel proposes hat job satisfaction s a function of the balance between roleinputs-what the individual puts into the work role (e.g., training, experience,time, and effort)-and role outcomet--what is received by the individual (pay,status,working conditions, and intrinsic facton). All else equal, the more out-comes eceived relative to inputs invested, he higher work role satisfactionwillbe. Furthermore, according to the Cornell model, an individual's opportunitycostsaffect he value the individual placeson inputs. In periods of labor ovenup-ply (i.e., high unemployment), individuals will perceive their inputs as essvalu-able due to the high competition for few alternative positions, and the opportu-


11/21

Job Satisfaction 403nity cost of their work role declines (i.e., work role membership s lesscosdyrelative to other opportunities). Therefore, as unemployment (particularly inone's local or occupational labor market) rises, he subjective utility of inputsfa11. -Inakingperceived value of inputs less, elative to outcomes-thus increas-ing satisfaction.Finally, the model proposes hat an individual's frames of refer-ence, which representpast experienceswith outcomes, nfluence how he or sheperceives current outcomes received. This concept of frames of reference, asgeneratedand modified by individuals' experience,accounts, n part, for differ-ences n job satisfactions f individuals with objectively identical obs. However,direct testsof the model are lacking.

SNmmaryOf the ob satisfaction heories hat havebeen put forth, it appean hat three havegarnered he most research upport: Locke's value-percept heory, the job char-acteristicsmodel, and the dispositionalapproach. t is interesting o note that oneof these theories is, essentially,a situational theory (job characteristicsmodel),another is a person theory (dispositional approach), and another is a penon-situation nteractional heory (value-perceptmodel). Although this outcome maylead one to assume hat these heories are competing or incompatible explana-tions of job satisfaction, his is not necessarily he case. udge et al. (1997), inseeking o explain how core self-evaluationswould be related o job satisfaction,proposed that intrinsic job characteristicswould mediate this relationship.Indeed, Judge et al. (1998) showed that individuals with positive core self-evaluationsperceived more intrinsic value in their work, and Judge, Bono, andLocke (2000) showed that the link between core self-evaluationsand intrinsicjob characteristicswas not solely a perceptualprocess-


12/21

SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING IN THE INfERPERSONAL DOMAIN404relationship: (1) spillover,wherein ob experiences pill over onto life experiences,and vice versa; (2) segmentation,herein job and life experiencesare Balkanizedand have ittle to do with one another; and (3) compensation,herein an individ-ual seeks o compensate or a dissatisfyingob by seeking ulfillment and happi-ness n his or her nonwork life, and vice versa.Judge and Watanabe (1994)argued that these different models may exist for different individuals and thatindividuals can be classifiednto the three groups. On the basisof a national strat-ified random sampleof workers, they found that 68610f workers could be classi-fied as alling into the spillover group, 20010ell into the segmentationgroup, and12% fell into the compensationgroup. Thus, the spillover model, whereby obsatisfaction pills nto life satisfaction,and vice versa,appearso characterizemostU.S. employees.Consistent with the spillover model, a quantitative review ofthe literature indicated that job and life satisfaction are moderately stronglycorrelated-a meta-analysisevealed he average true score" correlation of + .44(Tait, Padgett, & Baldwin, 1989).Given that ajob is a significantpart of one's ife, the correlation between oband life satisfactionmakessense-one's job experiences pill over into nonworklife. However, it alsoseems ossible hat the causalitycould go the other way-ahappy nonwork life spills over into job experiencesand evaluations. In fact,research suggests hat the relationship between job and life satisfaction isreciprocal-job satisfactiondoes affect life satisfaction,but life satisfactionalsoaffects ob satisfactionGudge & Watanabe, 1993).Job satisfactions also related o an impressivearray of workplace behaviors.These nclude (1) attendanceat work (Smith, 1977; Scott & Taylor, 1985); (2)turnover decisions Carsten& Spector, 1987; Hom, Katerberg, & Hulin, 1979;Hom, 2001; Hulin, 1966, 1968; Mobley, Horner, & Hollingsworth, 1978;Miller, Katerberg, & Hulin, 1979); (3) decisions o retire (Hanisch & Hulin,1990, 1991; Schmitt & McCune, 1981); (4) psychologicalwithdrawal behaviors(Roznowski, Miller, & Rosse, 1992); (5) prosocial and organizationalcitizenshipbehaviors (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Farrell, 1983; Roznowski et al., 1992);(6) pro-union representation votes (Getman, Goldberg, & Herman, 1976;Schriesheim,1978; Zalesny, 1985); (7) prevote unionization activity (Hamner &Smith, 1978); (8) ob performanceGudge,Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001); and(9) workplace incivility (Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006).Although job satisfaction s related to an impressivearray of behaviors, hecorrelations are not large, typically in the .15-.35 range. As Fishbein and Ajzen(1974) have noted, much mischief hasbeen created n the attitude-behavior lit-erature by failing to achieve correspondencebetween attitudes and behaviors.One meansof achieving attitude-behavior correspondences to use specific atti-tudes to predict specific behaviors, as has been the course of action pursued nFishbein and Ajzen's research.For example, we might use a specific behavioralintention (e.g., ntent to quit smoking) to predict a specific behavior (e.g., quit-


13/21

4OSob SatisfActionting smoking) within a relatively delimited time period. However, anotherapproach s to use a general attitude to predict a general behavior. Becauseobattitudes are generalconcepts,we may expect the relationship between ob satis-faction and behavior to increase f we broaden he conceptualizationof the rele-vant behavioral set. For instance, Harrison, Newman, and Roth (2006) foundthat the relationship between general ob attitude (comprised of job satisfactionand organizational commitment) and individual effectiveness a construct com-prised of a broad set of workplace behaviors, ncluding focal performance, con-textual performance, ateness, bsenteeism, nd turnover) was much stronger (r =.59) than those typically reported in the job attitude literature.

Future of Job Satisfaction ResearchBased on our review of the job satisfaction iterature, we now suggestseveralfruitful directions for future job satisfaction esearch.First, as might be gatheredfrom this review, and hasbeen noted in the subjectivewell-being literature morebroadly (Diener, 1984), here is no consensus n the roles of cognition and affectin job satisfaction esearch.Although we have made our position known in thesection on measurement,we do not mean to imply that this is "settled law"-there s more to be learnedabout how cognition and affect are ntertwined in jobsatisfaction esearch.Rather than focusing on measurement roperties, our pref-erence s for future research o look at more substantive ssues n cognitive pro-cessing nd to focus on moods and emotions. For example, despite he consider-able impact of affective events theory (Weiss &: Cropanzano, 1996) on jobattitudes esearch,we still have a very poor idea of what affective eventsare mostsalient to individuals, how individuals process his information, and what thecognitive, affective, and behavioral mplications of these events might be.Another area for future research s the role of goals n job satisfaction.AsDiener (1984) noted in his review, the telic perspectivehas been an importantone in conceptualizationsof subjective weD-being. However, the role of goaJsin well-being is not perfectly clear. Some have argued that the explicit goal ofhappiness s likely to make the realization of this goal elusive (Gilbert, 2006).Research by Mento, Locke, and Klein (1992) suggests hat goals, althoughimproving performance, are likely to breed dissatisfaction ecause hey involveholding oneself to a high standard.On the other hand, the self-concordancemodel suggests hat the type of goal matters-goals pursued for intrinsic rea-sons are more likely to bring happiness han those pursued for extrinsic rea-sons; here is support for this position in both the subjective weD-being (Shel-don &: Elliot, 1999) and job satisfaction Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke, 2005)literatures. Thus, more work on goals and ob satisfaction s needed, conceptu-ally and empirically.


14/21

406 SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING IN THE INTERPERSONAL DOMAINA third area or research oncerns he issueof stability and change. n the per-sonality literature we have come to understand hat stability and change coexist

(Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006). There is considerable ank-orderconsis-tency in personality, hough, naturally, consistencydeclinesover time (Srivastava,john, & Gosling. 2003). However, there are also forces of change-personalitydoeschangeover time, and ime doesnot do the same hing to each rait. For exam-ple, there is evidence hat individuals become more conscientiousbut lessopenover time (Srivastava t al., 2003).Within the subjectivewell-being literature, hereare sin1ilardialoguesand debates.Clearly, there s a geneticbasis o life satisfaction,no doubt operating hrough genetic effectson personality raits, abilities, physicalcharacteristics, nd so forth. The genetic basis s so strong that some have arguedthat ife satisfactions defined by a "setpoint" from which individuals rarely deviate(Headey & Wearing, 1989; Lykken & Tellegen, 1996). However, other researchsuggestshat whereas omeeventsdo little to changeone'scharacteristicevel oflifesatisfaction,other events can have profound effects on happiness.For example,although t appearshat there s adaptation o marriage uch hat, over time, individ-uals eturn to their setpointbefore courtshipbegan see ucas& Dyrenforth, 2005),adaptation s partial but less omplete n the other direction-when marriage esultsin divorce (Lucas,2005b). Our point here s that this debateon the dominanceof asetpoint and the importance of events n changing ife satisfactionhas seeminglybeen ost on ob satisfaction esearch.Many of the concepts,arguments,and meth-odscould be incorporated nto studieson ob satisfaction, nd we can seeno reasonwhy this should not take place.Fourth and related, Brickman and Campbell's (1971) "hedonic treadmill"concept suggestshat although individuals do react rather strongly to good andbad events,over time they then tend to adapt o theseeventsand return to theiroriginal level of happiness.As noted by Diener (2000), one of the explanationsfor this adaptation effect is that individuals constantly change heir expectanciesand goals n response o new information. If an individual receivesa pay raiseatwork, he or she quickly adjustsaspirationsand mentally "spends" the reward.However, whereasadaptation effectsare not uncommon, it is clear that peopledo not completely habituate o aUconditions. As reported in Diener, Lucas,andScollon (2006), using data from two large longitudinal studies, Lucas (2005a)found that individuals whose well-being was measured, on average, 7 yearsbefore and 7 yearsafter onset of a disability reported substantial rops n life satis-faction and ittle evidence of adaptation returning to predisability ife satisfactionlevels)over time. As Diener et aI. (2006) conclude n examining the evidenceonadaptation o positive and negativeevents, Adaptation may proceed slowly overa period of years, and in some cases he process s never complete" (p. 311).Although some subjective well-being researchhas consideredwork events suchas ob loss, very little of this line of research as made ts way into organizationalpsychology. Clearly, it is not a long bridge to build.


15/21

Job Satisfaction ~7Fifth, asJudge and Church (2000) noted, the extent to which organizationshave adopted he tenn job satisfactionnd institutionalized interventions basedon

job-satisfaction-related heory and researchs mixed, at best.Job satisfaction, orexample, s rarely included as part of an organization's key values, basic beliefs,core competencies,or guiding principles, nor is the topic given much directexposure n popular business ooks. Judge and Church (2000) conducted a sur-vey of practitioners (most of whom were employed n the human resourcearea)regarding their organization's general perception of job satisfaction, ts relativeimportance, and the use of the tenn in their organizations.Roughly half of thepractitioners ndicated that job satisfactionas a tenn and singular construct wasrarely, if ever, mentioned or considered n their organizations.When askednextabout the utilization of current theory and research n ob satisfaction, he resultswere even essoptimistic. Most practitioners ndicated that researchwas rarely, ifever, consulted or valued n their organizations.There is a real gap between howjob satisfaction s viewed by researchers nd organizations,and given the central-ity of work to individual's well-being, we think most researchers re hamperedby a somewhat Panglossian elief that becausewe believe organizationsshouldvalue ob satisfactionand the well-being of their employees, hey do so. But thevalues of organizational managersand subjective well-being researchers re notnecessarily he same.Finally, increasingly we see he chasmbetween psychology and economicsbeing bridged. Some economists, or example, are using neuroscience o deter-mine how brain activity is related to economic decision making (Camerer,Loewenstein, & Prelec, 2005). Kahnemanand Krueger (2006) have applied eco-nomic concepts o the study of well-being. Outside of work on how labor mar-ket conditions can affect the degree o which individuals will leave dissatisfyingjobs (Iverson & Currivan, 2003), however, little job satisfaction researchhasmade use of economic concepts.Although the Cornell model (reviewed earlier)is an interestingblend of economic and psychologicalconcepts,we are not awareof any direct tests of the model, in whole or in part. Such tests would proveworthwhile.

ConclusionIn summary, ob satisfaction s a salientand perhaps nveterate attitude, penneat-ing cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspectsof peoples' work and nonworklives. These featuresaccentuate he importance of job satisfactionas a constructworthy of attention in the organizationalsciences swell assubjectivewell-beingresearchmore generally. The reciprocal nature of job attitudes and subjectivewell-being highlights the fact that a sound understanding of one domain isincomplete without due consideration of the other.


16/21

SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING IN THE INTERPERSONAL DOMAIN408References

Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. J., Segal,N. L., & Abraham, L. M. (1989). Job satisfaction:Environmental and genetic components. ournalof Applied Psychology,4, 187-192.Ashby, F. G., Isen, A. M., & Turken, U. (1999). A neuropsychological heory of positiveaffect and its influence on cognition. Psychologilal eview, 106, 529-550.Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983).Job satisfactionand the good soldier: The rela-tionship between affect and employee "citizenship." Academy f ManagementJournal,26, 587-595.Bowling, N. A., Beehr, T. A., Wagner, S. H., & Libkuman, T. M. (2005). Adaptationlevd theory, opponent process heory, and dispositions:An integrated approach othe stability of job satisfaction. ournal of Applied Psychology,0, 1044-1053.

Brayfidd, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. ournal of AppliedPsychology,5, 307-311.Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Hedonic rdativism and planning the good soci-ety. In M. H. Appley (Ed.), Adaptation evel heory:A symposiumpp. 287-302). NewYork: Academic Press.Brief, A. P. (1998). Attitudes n and aroundorganizations. housand Oaks, CA: Sage.Brief, A. P., & Roberson, L. (1989).Job attitude organization:An exploratory study.Jour-nal of Applied SocialPsychology, 9,717-727.Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect at work. AnnualReviewof Psychology,3, 279-307.Byrk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hieran-hicallinear odels: pplications nd dataanalysismethods. ewbury Park, CA: Sage.Camerer, C. F., Loewenstein, G. F., & Prelec, D. (2005). Neuroeconomics: How neuro-sciencecan infonn economics.Journal of Economiciterature, 43, 9-64.Carsten,J. M., & Spector, P. W. (1987). Unemployment, job satisfaction,and employeetumover: A meta-analytic est of the Muchinsky model. Journalof Applied Psychology,72, 374-381.

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychologicalulletin, 95, 542-575.Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The scienceof happinessand a proposal for anational index. AmericanPsychologist,5, 34-43.Diener, E., & Larsen, R. (1984). Temporal stability and cross-situationalconsistencyofaffective, behavioral, and cognitive responses.ournalof Personality nd SocialPsychol-ogy, 47, 871-883.Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Scollon, C. N. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill:Revising the adaptation heory of well-being. Ameritan Psychologist,1, 305-314.Eagley, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology f attitudes.New York: Harcourt.Farrell, D. (1983). Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as responseso job dissatisfaction:Amultidimensional scaling study. Academy f Managementournal, 26, 596--607.Fishbein, M. (1980). A theory of reasonedaction: Some applicationsand implications. InH. Howe & M. M. Page (Eds.), Nebraska ymposium n motivation:Beliefs,attitudes,and values pp. 65-116). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1974). Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single andmultiple behavioral criteria. Psychologicaleview,81, 59-74.


17/21

Job Satisfaction 409Frye, C. M. (1996).New evidenceor the ob characteristicsmodel:A meta-analysisf the ob

characteristiCS'-jobatisfaction relationship using compositecom-lations.Paper presented atthe 11th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychol-ogy, San Diego, CA.Gerhart, B. (2005). The (affective) dispositional approach to job satisfaction: Sorting outthe policy implications. joum41 of Organizational Behavior, 26, 79-97.Getman,J. G., Goldberg, S. B., & Hemlan, J. B. (1976). Unionrepresentation lections:Lawand reality. New York: Sage.

Gilbert, D. (2006). Stumbling on happiness.New York: Knopf:Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test

of a theory. arxanizational Behavior and Human Performance,16, 250-279.Hamner, W., & Smith, F. J. (1978). Work attitudes as predicton of unionization activity.

joumal ofApplied Psychology, 63, 415-421.Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1990). Retirement as a voluntary organizational with-drawal behavior. oumal ofVocational Behavior, 37, 60-78.

Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1991). General attitudes and organizational withdrawal:An evaluation of a causal model. joumal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 110-128.Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job atti-tUdes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and timesequences. Academy ofManagement oumal, 49, 305-325.

Headey, B., & Wearing, A. (1989). Penonality, life events, and subjective well-being:Toward a dynamic equilibrium model.joumal ofPersonality and Social Psychology,57,731-739.Herzberg, F. (1967). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland, OH: World Book.

Horn, P. W. (2001). The legacy of Hulin's work on tUrnover thinking and research. In F.D. Drasgow & J. M. Brett (Eds.), Psychology fwork: TheoreticaUybased empiricalresearch pp. 169-187). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hom, P. W., Katerberg, R., & Hulin, C. L. (1979). A comparative examination of threeapproaches to the prediction oftUrnover.joumal oj Applied Psychology,64,280-290.

Hulin, C. L. (1966). Job satisfaction and tUrnover in a female clerical population. joum41 ojApplied Psychology,50, 280-285.Hulin, C. L. (1968). The effects of changes injob satisfaction levels on tUmover.joumal of

Applied Psychology, 52, 122-126.Hulin, C. L. (1991). Adaptation, penistence, commitment in organizations. In M.Dunnette & L. Hough (Eds.),Handbook f industrial ndorganizational psychology 2nded., pp. 445-507). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Hulin, C. L., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Job attitUdes. In W. C. Borman, D. R. ligen, & R.J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbookoj psychology:ndustrialand organizational psychology(pp. 255-276). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Hulin, C. L., Romowski, M., & Hachiya, D. (1985). Alternative opportunities and with-drawal decisions: Empirical and theoretical discrepancies and an integration. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 97, 233-250.Isen, A. M. (2002). Missing in action in the AIM: Positive affect's facilitation of cognitiveflexibility, innovation, and problem solving. Psychological nquiry, 13, 57-65.

Isen, A. M. (2003). Positive affect as a source of human strength. In L. G. Aspinwall & U.


18/21

410 SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING IN THE INTERPERSONAL DOMAINM. Staudinger (Eds.), A psydloiogy ofhuman stmtgths: Fundamental questiom andfutultdiltctionsfor a positive psychology pp. 179-195). Washington, DC: American Psycho-logical Association.Iverson, R. D., &: Currivan, D. B. (2003). Union participation, job satisfaction, andemployee turnover: An event-history analysis of the exit-voice hypothesis. IndustrialRelations, 42, 101-105.

Judge, T. A., &: Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of COte self-evaluations traits-self-esteem. generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability-with jobsatisfaction and job perfonnance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,80-92.

Judge, T. A., Bono,J. E., Ere%,A., &: Locke, E. A (2005). Cote self-evaluations andjoband life satisfaction: The role of self-concoroance and goal attainment. Journal ofApplied Psydwlogy, 90, 257-268.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., &: Locke, E. A. (200. Personality and job satisfaction: Themediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psydtolagy, 85, 237-249.

Judge, T. A., Boudreau,J. W., &: Btetz, R. D. (1994). Job and life attitudes of male exec-utives. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 79, 767-782.Judge, T. A., &: Church, A. H. (200. Job satisfaction: Research and practice. In C. L.Cooper &: E. A Locke (Eds.), Industrial and O'fd"izationat psydtolagy: Linkiltg theoryUlith praaiCt (pp. 166-198). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Judge, T. A., Heller, D., &: Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of penonwty andjob satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 87, 530-541.

Judge, T. A, &: Hulin, C. L. (1993). Job satisfaction as a teflection of disposition: Amultiple-source causal analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Dedsion ProctSSts,56, 38s-421.

Judge, T. A., &: Lanen. R. J. (2001). Dispositional affect and job satisfaction: A teviewand theotetical extension. Organizational Bthavior and Human DedsiOrt Processes, 6,67-98.

Judge, T. A., &: Locke, E. A. (1993). Effect of dysfunctional thought processes on subjec-tive well-being and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psycholagy, 78, 47>-490.Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., &: Durham, C. c. (1997). The dispositional causes of job sat-isfaction: A COte evaluations approach. RtSeardl in NaPlizational Behavior, 19, 151-188.

Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham. C. C., &: Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effectson job and life satisfaction: The role of COte evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology,83, 17-34.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., &: Patton, G. K. (2000). The job satisfaction-job perfonnance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative teview. PsydtologicalBulletin, 127, 376-407.

Judge, T. A., &: Watanabe, S. (1993). Another look at the job satisfaction--life satisfactionrelationship. Journal of Applied Psydtolagy, 78, 939-948.

Judge, T. A., &: Watanabe, S. (1994). Individual differences in the natute of the telation-ship between job and life satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy-dwiogy, 67, 101-107.Jurgensen, C. E. (1978). Job preferences (What makes a job good or bad?). Journal ofApplied Psydtolagy, 50, 479-487.


19/21

41:ob Satisfaction


20/21

412 SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING IN THE INTERPBRSONAL DOMAINmeasuresof employeebehavior: The C4seor employee daptation and dtizenship. Paper pre-sented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Las Vegas.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977). An examination of need-satisfaction models of jobattitudes. Administrative Sdence QuaTtLrly, 22, 427-456.Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer,J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job atti-

tudes and task design. Admi'Jistrative SdenceQuarterly, 23, 224-253.Scarpello, V., & Campbell, J. P. (1983). Job satisfaction: Are all the parts there? Personnel

Psychology, 36, 577-600.Schmitt, N., & McCune, J. T. (1981). The relationship between job attitudes and the

decision to retire. AC4demyof ManagemNlt ournal, 24, 795-802.Schriesheim, C. (1978). Job satisfaction, attitudes toward unions, and voting in a union

representation election. journal of Applied Psychology,63, 548-552.Scott, K. D., & Taylor, G. S. (1985). An examination of conflicting findings on the rela-

tionship between job satisfaction and absenteeism: A meta-analysis. Academy oj Man-ageme'lt ournal, 28, 599-612.

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinalwell-being: The self-concordancemodel. ournal oj Personalitynd Sodal Psychology,76, 482-497.

Smith, F. J. (1977). Work attitudes as predictors of attendance on a specific day. journal ofApplied Psychology, 62, 16-19.

Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measumnentof satisfaction n ~rkand retireme'lt. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Srivastava, S.,John, O. P., & Gosling, S. D. (2003). Development of personality in earlyand middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change?Journal of Personality andSodal Psychology, 84, 1041-1053.

Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approachto job attitudes. Journal oj Applied Psychology,70, 469-480.

Tait, M., Padgett, M. Y., & Baldwin, T. T. (1989). Job and life satisfaction: A reevalua-tion of the strength of the relationship and gender effects as a function of the date ofthe study. Journal oj Applied Psychology,74, 502-507.

Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & de Cherrnont, K. (2003).The affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analyticreview and integration.Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: Howgood are single-item measures?JounJal oj Applied Psychology,82, 247-252.

Weiner, S. P. (2000, April). Worldwide technical recruiting in ffiM: Research andaction. In P. D. Bachiochi (Chair), Attracting and keeping op talent i,1 the high-tech i,,-dustry. Practitioner forum at the 15th annual conference of the Society for Industrialand Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.

Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Matlualfor the Min-'JesotaSatisfaction Questio'Jnaire.Minneapolis: Industrial Relations Center, Universityof Minnesota.

Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs a~affective experiences.Human ResourceManagementReview, 12, 173-194.Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A. theoretical discus-


21/21

413ob Satisfactionsion of the structure, causes,and consequences f affective experiencesat work.Researchn OIKanizationalBehavior, 8, 1-74.

Weiss, H. M., Nicholas,]. P., & Daus, C. S. (1999). An examination of the joint effectsof affective experiencesand ob beliefs on job satisfactionand variations n affectiveexperiencesover time. OIKanizational ehavior nd Human Decisi

Job Satisfaction and Subjective Well-Being-Judge & Klinger

Documents

Transcript of Job Satisfaction and Subjective Well-Being-Judge & Klinger