Porter steers mowday & boulian 1974

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (\992\ 65, 185-196 Printed in Great Britain 1 8 5

© 1992 The British Psychological Society

Discriminant validity of measures of job satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative

affectivity

Augustine O. Agho*

Health Care Management, Florida A&M University, Ware-Phaney BL 103, Tallahassee, FL 32307, USA

James L. Price and Charles W. Mueller

Department of Sociology, The University oflou/a

The discriminant validity of measures used to assess job satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative afFectivity was empirically evaluated using data collected from a sample of 550 employees of a 327-bed Veterans Administration Medical Center. Confirmatory fac- tor analysis with LISREL as the estimation technique was used to test the hypothesized three-factor configuration. Results of this test and other data supported the discriminant validity of the three constructs.

Job satisfaction, the extent to which employees like their work, has long been a critical concept in the study of organizations. Systematic attempts to study satisfaction date back to the 1930s (Hoppock, 1935; Kornhauser & Sharp, 1932; Mayo, 1945; Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1939)- Stemming from the Roethlisberger & Dickson study, usually referred to as the Western Electric Research, job satisfaction was originally thought to increase productivity. Now, however, serious doubts have been raised about the assumption that high job satisfaction will lead to increased productivity (Brayfield & Crockett, 1955; Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985). Much of the present interest in job satisfaction concerns its impact on commitment, absenteeism and turnover. Several studies (Brooke & Price, 1989; Michaels & Spector, 1982; Mobley, Horner & Hollingsworth, 1978; Mowday, Porter & Steers, 1982; Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979; Mueller & Price, 1990; Porter, Steers, Mowday & Boulian, 1974; Price & Mueller, 1981, 1986^; Steers & Rhodes, 1978) have shown that job satisfaction can partially explain variation in employees' identification and involvement in a particular organization (commitment), the missing of scheduled work (absenteeism) and the maintenance of membership in a particular work organization (turnover). It should be noted that the job satisfaction and absenteeism rela- tionship is less well supported (Nicholson, Brown & Chadwick-Jones, 1976).

Historically, variations in job satisfaction have mostly been explained by situational variables such as autonomy, routinization and work group cohesion. Autonomy, the

* Requests for reprints.

186 Augustine 0. Agho et al.

degree to which employees have freedom to make job-related decisions, is believed to have a positive impact on employees' job satisfaction (Brooke, Russell & Price, 1988; Curry, Wakefield, Price, Mueller & McCloskey, 1985; Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman, Pearce & Wolfe, 1978; Porter & Lawler, 1965; Price & Mueller, 1986*; Tetrick & LaRocco, 1987). Routinization, the degree to which employees perform repetitive tasks, is believed to have a negative impact on employees' job satisfaction (Curry et al., 1985; Eichar & Thompson, 1986; Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Price & Mueller, \9%6a). Work group cohesion, the extent to which employees have close friends in their immediate work units, appears to influence positively employees' job satisfaction (Keller, 1983; Martin & Hunt, 1980; Mueller & Price, 1990; Nicholson, 1977; Price & Mueller, 1986^).

The concepts of positive affectivity and negative affectivity have now been introduced into the study of organizations. Positive affectivity is an individual's disposition to be happy across time and situations (Watson, Pennebaker & Folger, 1987); negative aflfec- tivity is an individual's disposition to experience discomfort across time and situations (Watson & Clark, 1984). Unlike the situational variables (autonomy, routinization and work group cohesion), positive afifectivity and negative affectivity are personality vari- ables. Proponents of these concepts (Bradburn, 1969; Byrant & Veroff, 1982; Diener & Emmons, 1984; Watson & Clark, 1984; Watson et al., 1987; Watson & Tellegen, 1985) have argued that positive and negative affectivity are related but distinct.

Recent empirical evidence suggests that positive affectivity and negative affectivity might explain variations in employees' job satisfaction. For example, Staw and his col- leagues (Staw, Bell & Clausen, 1986; Staw & Ross, 1985) have shown that variations in job satisfaction can be explained by an individual's dispositional affectivity. These authors showed that employees who are predisposed to be happy (positive affectivity) are more likely to have higher job satisfaction than those who are predisposed to experience dis- comfort (negative affectivity). Recently, Brief, Burke, Atieh, Robinson & Webster (1988) validated the finding presented by Staw and his colleagues and argued that negative affec- tivity should be controlled in the studies of job attitudes.

AJthough those who argue that positive affectivity and negative affectivity are deter- minants of job satisfaction believe that the three concepts are different, they have provided no empirical data supporting this claim. Staw and his colleagues, for example, failed to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis to demonstrate that these concepts are dif- ferent. They just assume that the concepts are different. While data have been provided by Watson & Tellegen (1985) to demonstrate the distinction between positive and negative affectivity, they have not empirically assessed the discriminant validity of the three concepts. Watson and his colleagues have mostly ignored job satisfaction in their research.

An examination of the measures used to assess the three concepts also suggests that respondents may have difficulty in making the distinctions. A respondent, for example, who agrees with the statement 'I am seldom bored with my job' (global measure of job satisfaction) may also agree with the statement 'I usually find ways to liven up my days' (measure of positive affectivity). Again, a respondent who agrees with the statement 'most days I am enthusiastic about my job' (global measure of job satisfaction) may also agree with the statement 'most days I have moments of real fun or joy' (measure of posi- tive affectivity). The assessment of job satisfaction by global questions may be simulta- neously assessing positive affectivity. Negatively worded items to measure job satisfaction

Measures of job satisfaction, positive and negative affectivity 187

may, of course, be simultaneously measuring negative afFectivity. These possibilities

should be empirically checked. If it is true that the positive affectivity, negative affectivity and job satisfaction mea-

sures are tapping the same construct, the implications for the interpretation of past research and for the conduct of future job satisfaction research would be significant. To the extent that these constructs are not distinct, the findings regarding dispositional affec- tivity as a determinant of job satisfaction would be meaningless. In other words, to say that dispositional affectivity is a determinant of job satisfaction when there is no distinc- tion between these constructs is tantamount to saying that 'job satisfaction is a determi- nant of job satisfaction'.

The purpose of this study is to assess empirically whether employees can discriminate between questions designed to measure job satisfaction from those designed to measure positive aflFectivity and negative affectivity. (Henceforth, job satisfaction will be referred to as 'satisfaction'.)

Method

Subjects

Subjects were employees ofa 327-bed Veterans Administration Medical Center located in the upper Midwest of the USA. The sample included administrators, physicians, nurses, technicians, social workers, psycholo- gists, clerical employees and blue-collar workers. The sample consisted of 199 (36.2 per cent) men, and 351 (63.8 per cent) women.

Procedure

Questionnaires were distributed to 823 full-time and part-time employees (excluding temporary employees, residents and trainees) through the organizational distribution channels and returned by mail to the princi- pal investigator at the university. Fieldwork was performed in the hospital for two months prior to the admin- istration of the questionnaire. During the fieldwork, observations were made, interviews were held, documents were read, talks were given, and announcements were placed in the hospital s newsletter. The pur- pose of the fieldwork was to learn about the hospital and to improve the response rate.

A total of 550 (67 per cent) responses were received by the deadline date of the survey. This response rate is significantly higher than other mail surveys (Dillman, 1978). This may be attributed to the fact that field- work was conducted prior to the administration of the questionnaire. A series of chi-square tests was con- ducted to evaluate the representativeness of the study sample. This representativeness is evaluated by comparing subjects' characteristics (sex, employment status and occupational status) with those of other employees from which the sample is drawn. The result of this preliminary analysis reveals that the sample adequately represents the population from which it is drawn.

Measures

All the constructs are measured by multiple-item scales. Satisfaction is operationalized using six items selected from the 18-item index developed by Brayfield & Rothe (1951). The validity and reliability of this six-item, global satisfaction index has been demonstrated in previous studies (Brooke et al.., 1988; Price & Mueller, 1981, 1986^; Sorenson, 1985; Wakefield, 1982). In this study, this satisfaction scale achieved an acceptable reliability level with a Cronbach's alpha of .90.

Positive and negative affectivity are measured using 22 items selected from the 25 items in the Multidimensional Personality Index obtained directly from David Watson. The number of items was reduced to 22 to shorten the length of the questionnaire. Eleven of the items are used to assess the degree to which an individual is predisposed to be happy across time and situation (positive afFectivity) and the remaining 11 items are used to assess the degree to which an individual is predisposed to experience discomfort across time

188 Augustine 0. Agho et al.

and situation (negative affectivity). Watson & Tellegen (1985) report satisfactory validity and reliability for both scales. In this study, the Cronbach's alphas are .82 and .79, respectively, for positive affectivity and neg- ative affectivity.

The three preceding concepts—satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity—are measured by single, multiple-item scales. Ideally, multiple measures of each construct are preferred. However, significant methodological contributions can be made with single, multiple-item scales. Brooke et al. (1988) and Mathieu & Farr (1991), for example, have conducted important studies that demonstrate discriminant valid- ity for job involvement, job satisfaction and organizational commitment. These authors used single, mul- tiple-item scales to measure the constructs in their studies. It should also be noted that most measurement research in the study of organizations use the single-scale approach of this paper (Price & Mueller, 1986*).

Three variables are included to establish construct validity: autonomy, routinization and work group cohe- sion. As is customary in organizational research, perceptual measures are used to assess each of the three sit- uational variables (Price & Mueller, 1986*). Autonomy is operationalized with four items selected from the Job Characteristics Inventory developed by Sims, Szilagyi & Keller (1976). This index is designed to measure the degree to which employees have freedom to make work-related decisions. Griffin, Moorhead, Johnson & Chonko (1980) have demonstrated the validity and reliability of this scale. In the present study, the Cronbach's alpha is .81.

Routinization is measured with a four-item index developed by Price & Mueller (1981, 1984*). This index measures the degree to which tasks are repetitive. The validity and reliability of this index have been demonstrated in other research (Brooke et al., 1988; Price & Mueller, 1986*; Sorenson, 1985; Wakefield, 1982). In this study, a reliability check revealed that the scale has a Cronbach's alpha of .81.

Work group cohesion is assessed with an eight-item index developed by Price & Mueller (1981, 1986a) to measure the extent to which employees have close friends in their immediate work units. The validity and reliability of this scale have been demonstrated in other studies (Price & Mueller, 1986a; Martin & Hunt, 1980). The Cronbach's alpha in this study is .84. Table 1 presents descriptive data on the six variables used in this analysis and the Appendix to this study presents the measures used to assess the six variables.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics

Variable Mean SD Alpha

4.90 .90 2.90 .83 2.53 .79 3.16 .81 3.11 .81 5.43 .84

Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis, correlation and regression estimates are used to establish discriminant validity. First, confirmatory factor analysis (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1984) with LISREL as the estimation technique was used to test the hypothesis that three factors underlie the 28 items used to measure satisfaction, positive affec- tivity and negative affectivity. Five hypotheses regarding nested measurement models were tested. The first model (null-model) hypothesized that no fector structure underlies the measures of job satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity. The second model (one-factor model) hypothesized that the 28 items would load on a single factor. The third model (two-factor model) hypothesized that satisfaction and positive affectivity items would load on one factor, and that negative affectivity items would load on a second factor. The fourth model (alternate 1: two-factor model) hypothesized that satisfaction items would load on one fac- tor, and positive affectivity and negative affectivity items would load on a second factor. Finally, the fifth model (three-factor model) hypothesized that the measures of satis&ction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity would load on three distinct factors. The fifth model is assumed by most researchers.

Job satisfaction Positive afFectivity Negative affectivity Autonomy Routinization Wbtk group cohesion

20.89 7.89 5.28

15.67 8.51

25.36

Measures of job satisfaction, positive and negative affectivity 189

Second, the relationships of the three constructs with other constructs are examined. Given the causal rela- tionships between satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity, one would expect to find the three constructs to be correlated. However, given the causal relationships between satisfaction and the situational variables (routinization, autonomy and work group cohesion), one would expect satisfaction to be more strongly correlated with these situational determinants than with either positive affectivity or negative afFectivity. In addition, since positive affectivity and negative affectivity are considered to be fairly stable indi- vidual phenomena that are not greatly influenced by characteristics of the work environment, one would expect that the relationship of satisfaction with these affectivity constructs would not be substantially altered by the degree of autonomy, routinization and work group cohesion. This expectation will be assessed by exam- ining the effects of the two afFectivity variables on satisfaction net of these situational variables.

Although LISREL is now routinely used in conducting confirmatory factor analysis, the chi-square test of the overall fit of the model and various goodness-of-fit indexes are known to be sensitive to sample size and violations of the assumption of multivariate normality (Bentler & Bonett, 1980; BoUen, 1989; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1984; Pedhazur, 1982; Sobel & Bohrnstedt, 1985). Marsh, Balla & McDonald (1988) examine more than 30 of these indexes in order to determine the extent to which each is affected by sample size. Of these, only the incremental-fit indexes are of interest here, because the objective is to demonstrate that a particular factor model provides a better fit than other models. Following the recommendations of Marsh et al., the Tucker-Lewis (1973) Incremental-fit Index is used since it is the least affected by sample size. The Tucker-Lewis Index is the same as the non-normed index proposed by Bentler & Bonett (1980). Although no statistical basis is available, index values of .90 or greater are considered to be a good fit.

Results

Presented in Table 2 are the chi-squares, degrees of freedom, adjusted goodness-of-fit indexes, and the Tucker-Lewis Incremental-fit Index of the measurement models. The first model (null model) hypothesizes that no common factor structure underlies the mea- sures of satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity. The goodness-of-fit index obtained for this model is .35. As expected, this model provides a very poor fit to the data. The one-factor model which hypothesizes that all the items used to measure the three con- structs would load on a single factor has a fit of .51. Similar to the null-model, the one- factor model provides a poor fit to the data.

The next two measurement models hypothesize that two factors underlie the measures of satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity. One model (two-factor model) hypothesizes that satisfaction and positive affectivity items would load on one factor and that negative affectivity items would load on a second factor. This model produces an

Table 2. Tests for plausible factor structures

Adjusted Incremental- Measurement goodness-of-fit fit

d\ Chi-square d.f. index index

Null model One-factor Two-factor Alternate 1: two-factor Three-factor

5188.91* 2527.87* 1647.98* 1347.95* 111.01*

378 350 349 349 347

.35

.54

.70

.76

.89

.51

.71

.78

.90

* /> = .000

190 Augustine 0. Agho et al.

Incremental-fit Index of .71. The second two-factor model (alternate 1: two-factor model) which hypothesizes that satisfaction items would load on one factor and that positive and negative affectivity items would load on a second factor produces an Incremental-fit Index of .78. Although this two-factor model (alternate 1: two-factor model) represents an improvement over the null, one-factor, and the first two-factor model, it does not provide an adequate fit to the data.

The last model (three-factor model) hypothesizes that three correlated factors underlie the measures of satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity. The Incremental- fit Index for this model was .90. A comparison of these six models indicated that the three-factor model provides the best fit to the data. This finding provides empirical evidence supporting the assumption that the measures of satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative afiFectivity are assessing distinct constructs.

An exploratory check for correlated measurement error for items across constructs (using the modification indices feature of LISREL 7) was conducted. No evidence was found that response bias or some other form of non-random measurement error was pre- sent that might affect the conclusion that these are three distinct constructs. The factor loadings for the indicators of each of the constructs are presented in Table 3.

Table 4 presents the results of the LISREL estimates of the correlations between satis- faction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity, on the one hand, and the situationai variables—autonomy, routinization and work group cohesion—on the other hand. This analysis was conducted to investigate further the discriminant and convergent validity of the constructs. Consistent with existing literatures (Brooke et al.., 1988; Curry et al., 1985; Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Price & Mueller, l98Qt), satisfaction is found to be moderately correlated with autonomy (r = .49), routinization (r = - .58) and work group cohesion (r = .39). As expected, satisfaction is generally more strongly correlated with these situationai variables than with either positive or negative affectivity

Positive affectivity is found to be weakly correlated with autonomy (r = .16), rou- tinization (r = - . 2 3 ) and work group cohesion {r = .20). Negative affectivity is also weakly correlated with work group cohesion (r = - . 1 0 ) and not significantly correlated with either routinization or autonomy. Since positive affectivity and negative affectivity are considered to be fairly stable individual phenomena, these weak correlations between these two personality variables and the situationai variables were expected. Given that the situationai variables are generally more strongly correlated with satisfaction than with either positive or negative affectivity, these findings can be interpreted as additional evidence that the three constructs are distinct.

Also consistent with recent reviews of the literature (Watson et al., 1987), it is found that satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity correlate significantly with one another. Satisfaction correlates positively with positive affectivity (r - .44) and nega- tively with negative affectivity (r = - . 2 6 ) . Positive affectivity correlates negatively with negative affectivity (f = - . 4 8 ) . Again, these findings provide evidence that satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity are related but distinct constructs.

Table 5 presents additional evidence of the rather stable relationship between satisfac- tion and the two affectivity constructs. The partial standardized regression coefficients for regressing satisfaction on each of the affectivity variables and the situationai variables show that the zero-order coefficient for negative affectivity ( - . 2 6 ) is reduced by only 4 per cent when each of the situationai variables is controlled. The effect of positive affec-

Measures of job satisfaction, positive and negative affectivity 191

Table 3. Factor loadings based on estimating the three-factor model

Item Jobsat

Jobsatl Jobsat2 Jobsat3 Jobsat4 Jobsat 5 Jobsat6 Positive 1 Positive2 Positive3 Positive4 Positive5 Positive6 Positive7 Positive8 Positive9 Positive 10 Positive 11 Negative 1 Negative2 Negative3 Negative4 Negative 5 Negative6 Negative7 Negative8 Negative9 Negative 10 Negative 11

.887

.795

.744

.514

.858

.845

Positive

.492

.358

.616

.579

.662

.565

.440

.575

.435

.668

.613

Negative

.474

.542

.559

.527

.563

.520

.392

.634

.391

.616

.541

Notes. Jobsat — job satisfaction, Positive = positive affectivity, Negative ~ negative affectivity. Ail factor loadings were statistically significant,/" < .001.

Table 4. Correlations among factors (LISREL latent variable correlations)

Sat Pa Na Auto Rout Group

Sat

1.00 0.44**

- 0 . 2 6 * * 0.49**

- 0 . 5 8 * * 0.39**

Pa

1.00 - 0 . 4 8 * *

0.16* - 0 . 2 3 * *

0.20**

Na

1.00 - 0 . 0 9

0.08 - 0 . 1 0 *

Auto

1.00 - 0 . 5 3 * *

0.31**

Rout

1.00 - 0 . 3 4 * *

Group

1.00

*p< . 0 5 ; * * ^ < .001. Note. Sat — job satisfaction, Pa = positive affectivity, Na = negative affectivity, Auto = autonomy. Rout = routinization. Group = work group cohesion.

192 Augustine 0. Agho et al.

Table 5. LISREL estimates of the impact of affectivity on satisfaction net of situational variables: standardized coefficients (betas)

Beta u/eigits

No controls Positive afFectivity 44*** Negative affectivity —.26***

With controls Positive net of the effect of autonomy 37*** Positive net of the effect of routinization .32*** Positive net of the effect of wotk group cohesion .38*** Positive net of the combined effects of autonomy, routinization

and work group cohesion .29*** Negative net of the effect of autonomy .22*** Negative net of the effect of routinization .22*** Negative net of the effect of work group cohesion 22*** Negative net of the combined effects of autonomy, routinization

and work group cohesion .20***

***p< .001.

tivity (.44) is reduced by 12 per cent or less when the same controls are introduced. In addition, controlling for all three situational variables simultaneously reduces the satis- faction—positive affectivity relationship by only 15 per cent and the satisfaction—negative affectivity by only 6 per cent. These data demonstrate that the relationships observed between satisfaction and affectivity, although not unaffected, are not spurious due to these particular situational conditions.

Discussion

Confirmatory factor analysis was used to estimate five plausible measurement models rep- resenting different factor configurations of the 28 items used to assess satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity. Major differences were found between the three-factor model and the other models estimated (i.e. null model, one-factor, two-factor, alternate two-factor and three-factor models). The three-factor was found to be the best fit to the data. The three constructs were also found, as expected, to be correlated with sit- uational variables (autonomy, routinization and work group cohesion). These results indi- cated that employees are able to distinguish between questions designed to assess the extent to which they like their job (job satisfaction), the extent to which they are predis- posed to be happy (positive affectivity), and the extent to which they are predisposed to experience discomfort (negative affectivity). Also consistent with expectations, the effects of positive and negative affectivity on satisfaction are not spurious due to situational fac- tors. Not only have the data shown that the affectivity dispositions and satisfaction are different constructs, but also that they do not have in common important situational con- ditions as determinants.

Measures of job satisfaction, positive and negative affectivity 193

If the research reported in this paper is replicated in other samples, three important sets of problems can be profitably investigated in future investigations. First, models designed to explain satisfaction which include traditional situational variables and the two affec- tivity variables can be estimated with confidence, since it will have been demonstrated that three key variables in the model are different. The determinants of satisfaction can- not be properly investigated as long as there is doubt as to whether the affectivity vari- ables are different from satisfaction. Second, more confidence can be given to the claims that f)ositive and negative affectivity are relatively stable dispositions that impact on sat- isfaction and are little affected by situational work conditions. Third, since models of sat- isfaction are nested within the models used to explain commitment, absenteeism and turnover, this paper, by demonstrating that satisfaction and the two affectivity constructs are different, prepares the groundwork for further advances in the study of commitment, absenteeism and turnover.

References

Bentler, P. M. & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance test and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance struc- tures. Psychological Bulletin, 8 8 , 588-606.

Bollen, K. (1989). Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley. Bradburn, N . M. (1969). The Structure of Psychological Well-Being. Chicago: Aldine. Brayfield, A. H . & Crockett, W. H. (1955). Employee attitudes and employee performance. Psychological

Bulletin, 52, 396-424. Brayfield, A. H . & Rothe, H . F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. JoafTia/ of Applied Psychology, 35,

3 0 7 - 3 1 1 . Brief, A. P., Burke, M. J., Atieh, J. M., Robinson, B. S. & Webster, J. (1988). Should negative affectivity

remain an unmeasured variable in the study of job uie^s} Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 193-198. Brooke, P. P.,Jr& Price, J . L. (1989). The determinants of employee absenteeism: An empirical testofacausal

iaode\. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 1—19. Brooke, P. P., Jr, Russell, D . & Price, J. L. (1988). Discriminant validation of measures of job satisfaction, job

involvement, and organizational commitment._/o«f72a/ of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 139—145. Bryant, F. B. & Veroff, J. (1982). The structure of psychological well-being: A sociohistorical annlysis.Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 3 , 653-673- Curry, J. P., Wakefield, D . S., Price, J. L., Mueller, C. W. & McCloskey, J. C. (1985). Determinants of turnover

among nursing department personnel. Research in Nursing and Health, 8, 3 9 7 ^ 1 1 . Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative ^Hect. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 47, 1105-1117. Dillman, D. A. (1978). Hail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Methods. New York: Wiley. Eichar, D. M. & Thompson, J. L. P. (1986). Alienation, occupational self direction, and worker consciousness.

Work and Occupation, 13, 4 7 - 6 5 . Griffin, R. W., Moorhead, G., Johnson, B. H. & Chonko, L. B. (1980). The empirical dimensionality of the

Job Characteristics Inventory. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 95—103. Hackman, J . R. & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job chincteristks. Journal of Applied Psychology,

55, 2 5 9 - 2 8 6 . Hackman, J. R., Pearce, J. L. & Wolfe, J. C. (1978). Effects of changes in job characteristics on work attitudes

and behavior: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 2 1 , 289-304.

Hoppock, R. (\')i'i). Job Satisfaction. New York: Arno Press. Iaffaldano, M. T. & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 9 7 , 2 5 1 - 2 7 3 . Joreskog, K. G. & Sorbom, D. (1984). LISREL VI User's Guide. Sweden: University of Uppsala.

194 Augustine 0. Agho et al.

Keller, R. T. (1983). Predicting absenteeism from prior absenteeism, attitudinai factors, and nonattitudinal (actots. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 68, 536-540.

Kornhauser, A. & Sharp, A. (1932). Employee attitudes: Suggestions from a study in a factory. Personnel Journal, 1 0 , 3 9 3 - 4 0 1 .

Marsh, H . W., Balla, J. R. & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness of fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 3 9 1 - 4 1 0 .

Martin, T. N . & H u n t , J . G. (1980). Social influence and intent to leave: A path-analytic process model. Personnel Psychology, 33, 505-528.

Mathieu, J . E. & Farr, J. L. (1991). Further evidence for the discriminant validity of measures of organiza- tional commitment, job involvement, and job sMisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 1 2 7 - 1 3 3 .

Mayo, E. (1945). The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization. Boston, MA: Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.

Michaels, C. E. & Spector, P. E. (1982). Causes of employee turnover: A test ofthe Mohley, Griffith, Hand, and Meglino MoAel.Joumalof AppliedPsychology, 67, 5 3 - 5 9 .

Mobley, W. H., Horner, S. O. & HoUingsworth, A. T. (1978). An evaluation of precursors of hospital employee tMinoyti. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 408—414.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W. & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover. New York: Academic Press.

Mowday, T. T., Steers, R. M. & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitmem.Joumal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247.

Mueller, C. W. & Price, J. L. (1990). Economic, psychological, and sociological determinants of voluntary tutaovet. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19, 321-335.

Nicholson, N . (1977). Absence behavior and attendance motivation: A conceptual synthesis. Journal of Management Studies, 14, 2 3 1 - 2 5 2 .

Nicholson, N . , Brown, C. A. & Chad wick-Jones, J. K. (1976). Absence from work and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6 1 , 7 2 8 - 7 3 7 .

Pedhazur, E. J . (1982). Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. New York: CBS College Publishing. Porter, L. W. & Lawler, E. E. (1965). Properties of organizational structure in relation to job attitudes and job

behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 2 3 - 5 1 . Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday R. T. & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satis-

faction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians.yo«r»a/ of Applied Psychology, 59, 6 0 3 - 6 0 9 . Price, J . 1 . & Mueller, C. W. (1981). Professional Turnover: The Case of Nurses. Bridgeport: Luce. Price, J . L. & Mueller, C. W. (1986<»). Absenteeism and Turnover among Hospital Employees. Greenwich: JAI

Press. Price.J. L. &Mueller,C. W. (1986*). Handbook of Organizational Measurement. Scranton: HarperCollins. Roethlisberger, F. & Dickson, W. (1939). Management and the Worker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Sims, H. P., Jr, Szilagyi, A. D. & Keller, R. T. (1976). The measurement of job characteristics. Academy of

Management Journal, 19, 195-212. Sobel, M. & Bohmstedt, G. W. (1985). Use of null models in evaluating the fit of covariance structure models.

Sociological Methodology, 5, 152-178. Sorenson, W. B. (1985). A Causal Model of Organizational Commitment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

University of Iowa. Staw, B. M. & Ross, J . (1985). Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approach to job attitudes.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 4 6 9 - 4 8 0 . Staw, B. M., Bell, N . E. & Clausen, J. A. (1986). The dipositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime

longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 56—77. Steers, R. M., & Rhodes, S. R. (1978). Major influences on employee attendance: A process model. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 6 3 , 3 9 1 ^ 0 7 . Tetrick, L. E. & LaRocco, J. M. (1987). Understanding, prediction, and control as moderators of the rela-

tionship between perceived stress, satisfaction, and psychological well being. Journal of Applied Psychology,

72(4), 5 3 8 - 5 4 3 . Tucker, L. & Lewis, C. (1973). 'A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis'. Pychometrika,

38, 1-10. Wakefield, D. S. (1982). Organizational Commitment of Full-time and Part-time Registered Nurses: A Contingency

Approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Iowa.

Measures of job satisfaction, positive and negative affectivity 195

Watson, D. & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative afFectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional

states. Psychological Bulletin, 9 6 , 4 6 5 - 4 9 0 . Watson, D., Pennebaker, J. W. & Folger, R. (1987). Beyond negative afFectivity: Measuring stress and satis-

faction in the woikfoTce. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 8(2), 141-157.

Watson, D . & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of ntiood. Psychological Bulletin, 9 8 ,

2 1 9 - 2 3 5 .

Received 1 May 1991; revised version received 11 December 1991

Appendix: Measurements

Global measure of job satisfaction

The following six items come From Brayfield & Rothe (1951): (1) I find real enjoyment in my job; (2) I like my job better than the average person; (3) I am seldom bored with my job; (4) I would not consider taking another kind of job; (5) Most days I am enthusiastic about my job; and (6) I Feel Fairly well satisfied with my job. All the items have a five-point response scale ranging From 'strongly agree' to 'strongly disagree'.

Dispositional variables

The measures oF positive aFFectivity and negative aFFectivity were obtained From David Watson.

Positive affectivity. This is measured with the Following 11 items: (1) It is easy For me to become enthusiastic about things I am doing; (2) I oFten Feel happy and satisfied For no particular reason; (3) I live a very interest- ing liFe; (4) Every day I do things that are fun; (5) I usually find ways to liven up my day; (6) Most days I have moments of real fun or joy; (7) I oFten Feel sort oF lucky For no special reason; (8) Every day interesting things happen to me; (9) In my spare time I usually find something interesting to do; (10) For me liFe is a great adventure; and (11)1 always seem to have something pleasant to look Forward to.

Negative affectivity. This is assessed with the Following 11 items: (1)1 often find myselF worrying about some- thing; (2) My Feelings are hurt rather easily; (3) OFten I get irritated at little annoyances; (4) I sufFer From ner- vousness; (5) My mood oFten goes up and down; (6) I sometimes Feel 'just miserable' For no good reason; (7) I am easily startled by things that happen unexpectedly; (8) I oFten lose sleep over my worries; (9) Minor set- backs sometimes irritate me too much; (10) There are days when I'm 'on edge' all oFthe time; and (11) I am too sensitive For my own good. All oFthe items are keyed as true' or 'False'. True is scored as 1, whereas False is scored 0.

Autonomy

The following items come From Sims et al. (1976): (1) How much Freedom do you have to do what you want on your job? (2) How much are you left on your own to do your work.'' (3) To what extent are you able to act independently of your supervisor in performing your job Functions? (4) To what extent does your job allow you the opporrunity For independent thought and action? The first two items had a five-point response scale ranging From 'very much' to 'very little' and the last two items had a five-point response scale ranging From very great extent' to 'very little'.

196 Augustine 0. Agho et al.

Routinization

The four items come from Price & Mueller (1986a): (1) To what extent does your job require you to keep learning new things? (Five-point response scale ranging from 'must always be learning new things' to 'never required to learn new things') (2) To what extent does your job require a high level of skill? (Five-point response scale ranging from 'a very high level of skill is required' to 'very low level of skill is required') (3) How creative does your job require that you be? (Five-point response scale ranging from 'required to be very creative' to 'no creativity required) (4) How much does your job let you use your skills and abilities? (Five- point response scale ranging from 'my job makes very good use of my skills and abilities' to 'my job makes no use of my skills and abilities').

Work group cohesion

The eight items come from Price & Mueller (1986d): (1) To what extent are individuals in your work group friendly? (Five-point response scale ranging from 'very friendly' to 'not friendly at all') (2) How often do you do things socially with iridividuals in your work group outside of work? (3) How often do you discuss impor- tant personal problems with individuals in your work group? (Five-point response scale for (2) and (3) rang- ing from 'never' to 'very often') (4) To what extent are individuals in your work group helpful to you in getting your job done? (Five-point response scale ranging from 'very helpful' to 'not helpful at all') (5) To what extent do you trust individuals in your work group? (Five-point response scale ranging from 'a great deal of trust' to 'no trust at all') (6) To what extent do individuals in your work group take an interest in you? (Five -point response scale ranging from 'nor interested at all' to 'very interested') (7) To what extent will indi- viduals in your work group do favours for you at considerable cost to themselves? (Five-point response scale ranging from 'will do almost no favours for me' to 'will do almost any fcivour for me') (8) How much do you know about the individuals in your work group? (Five-point response scale ranging from 'know a great deal about them' to 'know nothing about them').