Jobattitudes PDF

PS63CH14-Judge ARI 31 October 2011 12:16
ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further Job Attitudes
Click here for quick links to
Annual Reviews content online,
including:
Timothy A. Judge1 and John D. Kammeyer-Mueller2
Other articles in this volume 1
Mendoza College of Business, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556;
Top cited articles email: [email protected]
Top downloaded articles 2
Department of Management, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611;
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012.63:341-367. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Our comprehensive search

email: [email protected]
by University of Notre Dame on 04/23/12. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012. 63:34167 Keywords

The Annual Review of Psychology is online at job attitudes, job satisfaction, mood, emotions, personality,
psych.annualreviews.org
performance
This articles doi:
10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100511 Abstract
Copyright c 2012 by Annual Reviews. Job attitudes research is arguably the most venerable and popular topic
All rights reserved
in organizational psychology. This article surveys the eld as it has
0066-4308/12/0110-0341$20.00 been constituted in the past several years. Denitional issues are ad-
dressed rst, in an attempt to clarify the nature, scope, and structure
of job attitudes. The distinction between cognitive and affective bases
of job attitudes has been an issue of debate, and recent research using
within-persons designs has done much to inform this discussion. Recent
research has also begun to reformulate the question of dispositional or
situational inuences on employee attitudes by addressing how these
factors might work together to inuence attitudes. Finally, there has
also been a continual growth in research investigating how employee
attitudes are related to a variety of behaviors at both the individual and
aggregated level of analysis.
341
Contents Early Inuences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 Specic Dispositions . . . . . . . . . . 353
WHAT ARE JOB Core Self-Evaluations . . . . . . . . . 353
ATTITUDES? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 Integration of State
Link Between Job Attitudes and Trait Perspectives . . . . . . 354
and Social Attitudes . . . . . . . . 343 SITUATIONAL
Denition of Job Attitudes . . . . . 344 ANTECEDENTS OF
Multifaceted Nature of Job JOB ATTITUDES . . . . . . . . . . . 354
Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345 Job Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . 354
Recent Emphasis on Affect . . . . . 345 Social Environment
Multilevel, Experience- Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354
Sampling Designs . . . . . . . . . . 346 Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
DISCRETE JOB ATTITUDES . . 346 Organizational Practices . . . . . . . 356

Dening the Construct Space . . 346 Time and Job Attitudes . . . . . . . . 356
OUTCOMES OF JOB
Global Job Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . 347

Facets of Job Satisfaction . . . . . . 348 ATTITUDES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
Organizational Commitment . . 349 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
Attitudes Toward Behaviors. . . . 350 Task Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358
STATES AND TRAITS IN JOB Creative Performance . . . . . . . . . 358
ATTITUDES RESEARCH . . . 350 Citizenship Behavior . . . . . . . . . . 359
Affective Events Theory . . . . . . . 350 Withdrawal/
Recent Research on Counterproductivity . . . . . . . . 359
Within-Individual Variation Organizational
in Job Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360
DISPOSITIONAL CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360
ANTECEDENTS OF JOB
ATTITUDES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
INTRODUCTION attitudes research. These reviews tended to

treat the job attitudes literature in brief, or in
Job attitudes are one of the oldest, most popu-
service of another topic. In this review, we focus
lar, and most inuential areas of inquiry in all
exclusively on job attitudes.
of organizational psychology. As of this writing,
Despite this exclusive focus on job attitudes,
the PsycINFO database reveals 33,348 records
given the breadth and depth of job attitudes re-
pertaining to job attitudes, work attitudes,
search, we must place several bounds on this
job satisfaction, or organizational commit-
review. As is the tradition of the Annual Re-
ment. Of these entries, one of those terms ap-
view of Psychology, we purposely orient our re-
pears in the title of 6,397 entries, and the trend
view with a recency bias in that we consider
appears to be accelerating. We are therefore
newer and current topics to a greater degree
pleasedand a bit dauntedto provide the rst
than older ones. Similarly, most of our citations
review of this literature for the Annual Review
are relatively recent works (articles published
of Psychology. Previous reviewers (e.g., Brief &
in the past 10 years). However, our focus on
Weiss 2002, Miner & Dachler 1973, OReilly
the current status of the job attitudes literature
1991, Staw 1984) have made reference to job
does not mean that we ignore the traditional
342 Judge Kammeyer-Mueller

contributions of job attitudes research. Fi- sufciently segmented that they are only of
nally, our bibliography is selective rather than specialized interest (e.g., an attitude about
exhaustive. private enterprise, about expressionist art, etc.).
Job satisfaction: an
In organizing this review, we rst discuss the Given this multiplicity of attitude objects, why evaluative state that
nature of and dene job attitudes in the context is it justied to consider job attitudes as an expresses contentment
of the larger social attitudes literature. We de- important and central aspect of social attitudes? with and positive
vote a substantial amount of space to discussions There are three ways to answer this ques- feelings about ones
job
of discrete job attitudes, including job satisfaction. First, though it is reasonable, perhaps even
tion, organizational commitment, and other at- necessary, to view job attitudes as social atti- Organizational
commitment: an
titudes. We then discuss states and traits in job tudes, there are important differences between
individuals
attitudes research, including emotions and dis- these research traditions; the differences may psychological bond
positional inuences. We examine situational tell us as much about social attitudes as they with the organization,
antecedents, including a discussion of how job do about job attitudes. Though the attitudes as represented by an
and organizational characteristics and the social literature has revealed many important and in- affective attachment to
the organization, a
environment affect job attitudes. We conclude teresting insights, on the whole, the literature
feeling of loyalty
by reviewing research linking job attitudes to is limited in the range of populations, settings, toward it, and an
prominent work behaviors and outcomes. and content or targets of the attitudes. As Judge intention to remain as
et al. (2011) have noted, the limitations are in part of it
the form of what (e.g., overwhelmingly, politi- Job attitudes:
WHAT ARE JOB ATTITUDES? cal or cultural attitudes or identities as opposed evaluations of ones
to contextual attitudes about ones job, ones job that express ones
Link Between Job Attitudes feelings toward, beliefs
life, ones family, etc.), with whom (e.g., heavy
and Social Attitudes reliance on college undergraduates, which may
about, and attachment
to ones job
The substantive nature of job attitudes ows limit the scope and nature of the investigations),
Attitude:
from the broader literature on social attitudes, and how (e.g., behavior is often not studied or is a psychological
so we begin our review by discussing how studied in a sterile, though well-controlled, ex- tendency that is
these literatures are related. A job attitude, perimental context) attitudes are studied. That expressed by
of course, is a type of attitude, and therefore the job attitudes literature provides different evaluating a particular
entity with some
it is important to place job attitudes research contexts, populations, and methods for studies
degree of favor or
in the broader context of social attitudes suggests that social attitudes researchers would disfavor (of which job
research. As noted by Olson & Zanna (1993, benet as much from reading the job attitudes attitudes are examples)
p. 119), Despite the long history of research literature as the converse.
on attitudes, there is no universally agreed- Second, job attitudes are important insofar
upon denition. Perhaps the most widely as jobs are important entities. Even in times of
accepted denition of an attitude, however, economic duress, the vast majority of the adult
was provided by Eagly & Chaiken (1993, p. 1): population age 2575 is employed in some ca-
A psychological tendency that is expressed pacity (most adults have a job). Although the
by evaluating a particular entity with some time people spend working obviously varies
degree of favor or disfavor. Thus, the concept greatly by the person, the average person spends
of evaluation is a unifying theme in attitudes more time working than in any other waking
research. One problem for attitudes research activity. But the meaning of work to individu-
is that individuals may form an evaluation als goes far beyond time allocation. As Hulin
of (and thus hold an attitude about) a nearly (2002) noted, peoples identities often hinge
limitless number of entities. Some of these on their work, as evidenced by how the typ-
attitudes may border on the trivial, at least in ical person responds to the question, What
a general psychological sense (we may have do you do? or What are you? Job attitudes
an attitude about a famous actor, about oak are also closely related to more global measures
wood, or about the color green), or may be of life satisfaction ( Judge & Watanabe 1993).
www.annualreviews.org Job Attitudes 343

Job attitudes matter because jobs matterto cognitive evaluations of jobs on characteristics
peoples identities, to their health, and to their or features of jobs and generally ignored affec-
evaluations of their lives. tive antecedents of evaluations of jobs as well
Third and nally, like any attitude (Olson & as the episodic events that happen on jobs. Ac-
Zanna 1993), job attitudes matter to the extent cordingly, we devote considerable space in this
they predict important behavior. This has review to the affective nature of job satisfaction
been the dominant assumption in job attitudes and how consideration of job affect necessitates
research to such an extent that it is relatively revision in how we conceptualize and measure
rare to nd an article in the top organizational job attitudes, how we relate the concept to
journals that does not link job attitudes to other variables, and how we study job attitudes
behaviors. Although it certainly is not our and affect. Other topicssuch as job attitudes
argument that job attitudes are irrelevant to at the between-unit level of analysis and the
behavioras we note, the evidence is clear that contrast between job attitudes and related
they are relevantwe also think job attitude phenomena like descriptions of a situation and
research would benet from some nuances in motivation for behaviorare also discussed.
the attitude-behavior relationship that have
been noted in social attitudes research. First,

behavior may shape attitudes. This has been a Definition of Job Attitudes
prominent area of investigation in the attitudes We dene job attitudes as follows: Job attitudes
literature generally, but curiously relatively are evaluations of ones job that express ones
little effort has been made on this front in feelings toward, beliefs about, and attachment
job attitudes research ( Judge et al. 2011). to ones job. This denition encompasses both
Second, as some have argued in the attitudes the cognitive and affective components of these
literature (e.g., Fazio & Olson 2003), the evaluations while recognizing that these cogni-
tripartite nature of attitudesaffect, cognition, tive and affective aspects need not be in exact
and behavioralthough an important heuris- correspondence with one another (Schleicher
tic representation, has its problems. Most et al. 2004). Although this denition is relatively
signicantly, research suggests that attitudes simple, there are nuances and complexities that
can form as a result of any one of these three underlie it.
factors in isolation, and that an affectively In this denition, we consider job a broad
based attitude, for example, functions quite term that encompasses ones current position
differently from a cognitively based attitude. (obvious), ones work or ones occupation (less
Another problem is the assumption that all obvious), and ones employer (less obvious
three components must be consistent with one still). Ones attitudes toward ones work need
another, which also is not supported by reviews not be isomorphic with ones attitudes toward
of the literature that show even strongly held ones employer, and indeed these often diverge.
attitudes may not be manifested in behavior. Moreover, within each of these targets there
Affect and cognitive components of attitudes are more specic targets whose boundaries are
can be at odds with one another and, as we note necessarily fuzzy. For example, is an attitude to-
below, are quite difcult to separate in practice. ward ones advancement opportunities an eval-
While keeping these concerns in mind, uation of ones job, ones occupation, or ones
we address the departure of the study of job employer? To be sure, job attitudes have some
attitudes from the original tripartite denitions hierarchical structure with global attitudes as
of social attitudes that emphasize cognitive, a composite of lower-order, more specic at-
affective, and behavioral elements of attitude titudes (Harrison et al. 2006, Parsons & Hulin
space but try to separate these aspects from 1982). Yet delineating this structure across very
one another as appropriate. Past studies on job different types of work, careers, and employers
satisfaction have focused on judgment-based, is difcult. It is possible that the structure of job

attitudes for an associate professor of medieval not think that conceptualizations or measures
history at a prestigious university, a drive-up of job attitudes are advanced by forcing false
window worker at Burger King, and a stone- dichotomies into the literature. One researcher
mason are the same, but we are agnostic. may treat overall job satisfaction as a latent
construct and another may treat it as manifest.
Although this is not a problem, the purposes of
Multifaceted Nature of Job Attitudes the research, and the modeling of the data, will
Job attitudes are multifaceted in their compo- of course be different under each approach.
sition, in their structure, and in their temporal
nature. Employees, of course, do not have
only one job attitude. The composition of Recent Emphasis on Affect
attitudes employees have about their job and In our denition of job attitudes, we have
their work vary along many dimensions, most purposely included both cognition (beliefs) and
notably their target (e.g., their pay versus their affect (feelings). We have learned, however, that
supervision), their specicity (e.g., their most affect and cognition are not easily separable.
recent pay raise versus their job as a whole), Neuropsychology has shown us that the think-
and their nature (e.g., evaluative assessments ing and feeling parts of the brain, although sep-
versus behavioral propensities). Structurally, arable in architecture, are inextricably linked in
job attitudes are hierarchically organized, operation (Adolphs & Damasio 2001). Higher-
with perhaps an overall job attitude being the level cognition relies on evaluative input in the
most general factor, followed by still relatively form of emotion; cognition and emotion are
general job attitudes such as overall job satisfac- interwoven in our psychological functioning.
tion, organizational commitment, and perhaps Evidence indicates that when individuals per-
others, followed by more specic attitudes such form specic mental operations, a reciprocal
as job satisfaction facets, specic dimensions of relationship exists between cerebral areas
organizational commitment, and so on. specialized for processing emotions and those
Are job attitudes latent variablestop-down specialized for processing cognitions (Drevets
constructs that are indicated by their more & Raichle 1998). Even measures of affect are
specic attitudesor manifest variables substantially cognitive in nature (e.g., Ashby
bottom-up constructs composed of their et al. 1999). As applied to job attitudes, when
lower-order terms? Although clarity in think- we think about our jobs, we have feelings about
ing about concepts is often recommended what we think. When we have feelings while at
in this literature (Bollen 2002), considerable work, we think about these feelings. Cognition
confusion can be created by drawing false di- and affect are thus intimately related, and this
chotomies. Specically, we think job attitudes connection is not easy to separate for psychol-
may be either manifest or latent, depending ogy in general and job attitudes in particular.
on how the researcher wishes to treat them Although an evaluation of the nature of ones
(see also Ironson et al. 1989). Clearly, when job may seem affect free in theory, it is practi-
considering the facets of job satisfaction, it is a cally impossible for one to evaluate ones pay
manifest variable in that overall job satisfaction as poor in an affect-free manner. New method-
is composed of more specic satisfactions ologies assist in this separation, but we do not
in different domains. Just as clearly, though, believe this is a methodological issue. Rather,
broad job attitudes can be latent variables in the to a nontrivial degree, cognition and affect are
sense that individuals general attitudes about inseparable, a statement that, if true, applies
their job cause specic attitudes to be positively equally well to social and to job attitudes.
correlated. Thus, although it is important for The difculty of separating cognition and
researchers to consider the issue and to be affect notwithstanding, historically, it is fair to
clear about their treatment of attitudes, we do say that organizational psychology theory and

measures have implicitly emphasized the cog- times a day (e.g., Ilies & Judge 2002, Miner et al.
nitive nature of job attitudes (and, for reasons 2005, Weiss et al. 1999). One great advantage
noted above, their behavioral consequences) to of ESM designs is that they permit multilevel
Experience-sampling
methodology (ESM): the neglect of their affective nature ( Judge et al. modeling of job attitudes, which allows for
a method of data 2011). In recent years, however, the pendulum both within-individual (state) and between-
collection, where job has swung in the other direction, and there has individual (trait) effects. This research has
attitudes or other been more progress on the affective compo- shown that when job attitudes are measured on
psychological states
nents of job satisfaction, especially as they vary an experience-sampled basis, roughly one-third
are measured
repeatedly (such as over time, with less attention to the importance to one-half of the variation in job satisfaction
once a day or more of cognitive aspects of satisfaction. The asser- is within-individual variation. Thus, typical
often) over time tion that researchers have variously emphasized one-shot between-person research designs
cognition or affect may seem at odds with the miss a considerable portion of the variance in
previous one: If affect and cognition are in- job satisfaction by treating within-individual
separable, how can organizational psychologists variation as a transient error. We have more to
have emphasized one over the other? To some say on this issue in the section titled States and
degree, this apparent contradiction is answered Traits in Job Attitude Research.
by what (What role do discrete emotional

states play in job attitudes?) and how (If job
attitudes are affective in nature, does this neces- DISCRETE JOB ATTITUDES
sarily alter the way in which they are studied?).
Defining the Construct Space
We reserve discussion of the what question
for later (see section titled State and Traits in Having covered denitional material related to
Job Attitudes Research). We now turn to the attitudes in general, we now turn our attention
how question. to discrete job attitudes. Research in organi-
zational behavior has been largely conducted
through the use of Likert scale measures of a
Multilevel, Experience-Sampling variety of attitudes, perceptions, intentions, and
Designs motivations. Although on the surface many of
If affect is central to a denition of job attitudes, these scales are similar in format and are closely
a problem for job attitudes researchers is that correlated with one another, a large proportion
affective reactions are likely to be eeting and of these scales do not measure attitudes and thus
episodic. Lest researchers become enmeshed fall outside the scope of this review. We con-
in a methodological stalematewhere the at- sider how measures of perceptions, intentions,
tempt to study propositions of newly developed and motivations are different from attitudes be-
theories is hamstrung by methods and analyses low, with special attention to where these con-
appropriate only to the needs of an older gen- structs might t in a causal sequence.
eration of theoretical modelsthe conceptual- First, it is important to differentiate atti-
ization and measurement of job attitudes are tudes from perceptions and descriptions. Many
altered by the central role of affect. Put another variables are like attitudes, in that they involve
way, if job attitudes are, at least in part, affective cognitive judgments, and may lead to behav-
reactions, then job attitudes need to be mea- ioral responses. However, these constructs are
sured in ways that are consistent with the nec- not attitudes if they do not include an explicit
essarily ephemeral nature of affect. appraisal or evaluation of the object in question
Increasingly, job attitudes researchers have as it relates to personal values. For example, al-
responded to this problem through the use though role clarity scales (e.g., Rizzo et al. 1970)
of experience-sampling methodology (ESM), ask respondents to describe the extent to which
where job attitudes are measured once a day their organization has clearly dened policies
over a period of a week or two, or even several and procedures, routines, and expectations for

behavior, role clarity scales do not ask respon- investment or involvement of ones physical,
dents to evaluate whether they nd the policies, cognitive, and emotional energy in work
procedures, routines, and expectations good performance (Rich et al. 2010). However,
Job Descriptive
or bad, or excessive or insufcient. Thus, the ones evaluations of these investments is not Index ( JDI): perhaps
evaluative component central to our denition assessedonly the existence or nonexistence the most validated
of attitudes is missing. Similarly, most measures of these investments. Thus, engagement measure of job
of organizational justice (e.g., Colquitt 2001) reects how one directs ones energies, rather satisfaction. In
addition to a
require respondents to describe how their than an attitude toward the behavior, job, or
Job-In-General scale,
organization treats them but do not require organization. Motivational energies are likely the JDI includes the
respondents to evaluate whether they like the to be inuenced by, and to inuence, attitudes, satisfaction facets:
treatment they receive. These perception- but the actual energy to achieve ends and ones work, supervision,
based scales are typically conceptualized as attitudes toward the sources and objects of coworkers, pay, and
promotion
antecedents to attitudes (e.g., role clarity and these energies are distinct constructs.
justice lead to satisfaction) rather than as In sum, researchers should carefully differ-
attitudes themselves. It is true that the Job entiate attitude measures from descriptions of
Descriptive Index ( JDI) (Smith et al. 1969), the work environment, intentions to act on
as its name implies, asks employees to de- the work environment, and motivations. These
scribe their jobs. However, it is important variables are conceptually closely related to one
to remember that many if not most of these another and are likely to covary, but consid-
descriptions are heavily evaluative in nature erable denitional and theoretical work has
(e.g., pay is BAD, work is PLEASANT, been devoted to the differentiation of these
etc.). Most measures of job attitudes are even constructs from one another, and researchers
more evaluative. would be well advised to consider their mod-
Second, general attitudes should be differ- els in light of what theory proposes they should
entiated from attitudes toward behavior and measure and how these measures will relate to
intentions to engage in behaviors. There is a other constructs of interest.
clear link between attitudes and intentions at a With these thoughts in mind, we dene job
conceptual and empirical level. However, the satisfaction as follows: Job satisfaction is an eval-
theories of reasoned action and planned be- uative state that expresses contentment with,
havior (Ajzen 1991), which are the justication and positive feelings about, ones job. As is ap-
for much of the research on attitudes and in- parent in this denition, we include both cogni-
tentions, clearly describe attitudes toward an tion (contentment) and affect (positive feelings)
object, attitudes toward a behavior, and inten- in our denition. Our denition also implies
tions to perform a behavior as three distinct that overall or global job satisfaction results
constructs occupying distinct places in a causal from a process of evaluationtypically, that
chain. Unlike attitudes toward a behavior, in- consists of evaluation of ones job facets or char-
tentions are shaped by both opportunities to acteristics. This leads to the next section of our
perform an action as well as social norms of oth- reviewthe interplay between global or overall
ers toward the behavior in question. Consistent job satisfaction and job satisfaction facets.
with this differentiation of attitudes from in-
tentions and action, a growing body of research
we consider in a later section has shown that Global Job Attitudes
situational variables moderate the relationship Another issue that pertains to job attitudes re-
between attitudes and behavior. search is the level of specicity at which at-
Third, motivational constructs such as effort titudes are measured. There are studies that
expended toward a task and job engagement measure global attitudes toward ones job, the
should also be differentiated from job attitudes. organization, and the social environment as
Most research agrees that engagement reects a whole, which can be contrasted with more

narrowly dened scales that measure specic JDI (Smith et al. 1969). The ve facets of job
facets of job attitudes. Conceptually, the band- satisfaction examined in the JDI are satisfaction
width of measures should show delity to the with work, supervision, coworkers, pay, and
Job performance:
employee behaviors variables expected to correlate with them (Fish- promotions. These ve facets are related to one
that are consistent bein & Ajzen 1974). If one wants to under- another, but they show discriminant validity
with role expectations stand broad phenomena like overall total work- as well, with meta-analytic correlations among
and that contribute to ing conditions or job performance, broad at- dimensions of satisfaction averaging about r =
organizational
titudes such as overall job satisfaction should 0.2 to r = 0.3 (Kinicki et al. 2002), though our
effectiveness;
composed of task be examined. Conversely, if one is interested in experiences with these facets suggest somewhat
performance, more specic phenomena, such as the effect of higher intercorrelations. The Minnesota
citizenship behavior, compensation practices on employee attitudes Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) and the
withdrawal/ or the impact of attitudes on helping behav- Index of Organizational Reactions (IOR) also
counterproductivity,
ior, more specic attitudes such as satisfaction measure satisfaction with the same or similar
and creative
with pay or coworkers should be examined. The dimensions (e.g., the MSQ has a dimension
performance
most relevant level of attitudinal specicity will of advancement) and include other subdimen-
depend on the bandwidth of the antecedents sions as well (e.g., the MSQ has dimensions on
and consequences under consideration. job security and social status, among others).
Overall job satisfaction is probably the most There are substantial correlations between
researched attitude in organizational behavior. these disparate measures scores for each
This global approach is exemplied by scales dimension (Kinicki et al. 2002), though not so
such as the affect-centric faces scale (Kunin high as to suggest that there is no meaningful
1955), Likert scales asking respondents to di- unique variance attributable to each dimension.
rectly describe their level of satisfaction with Because of the importance of the JDI facets
work (Brayeld & Rothe 1951), or the more to job satisfaction research, we now consider
cognitive job in general scale (e.g., Ironson these ve satisfaction facets in turn.
et al. 1989). These global measures attempt to Evidence from several lines of inquiry
capture an overarching level of satisfaction with suggests that the facet of job satisfaction that
the job across a variety of attributes. These is most closely related to global measures is
global scales either ask respondents to indi- satisfaction with the work itself. Of the facets,
cate their overall reaction to the job as a whole satisfaction with the work itself also has the
or ask them for their summary judgment of strongest correlations with global measures of
all aspects of the job including work, pay, su- satisfaction (Ironson et al. 1989, Rentsch &
pervision, coworkers, and promotion opportu- Steel 1992). The antecedents of work satisfac-
nities. The principle of delity suggests that tion have been the subject of much research.
such global scales are likely to be best predicted The model of job characteristics described by
by broad measures of the respondent, such Hackman & Oldham (1976) has received a
as affective disposition or aggregate measures great deal of support. This model proposes that
of job characteristics, and to be predictive of skill variety, task identity, task signicance,
broad criteria such as job performance or work autonomy, and feedback all contribute to em-
withdrawal. ployee satisfaction with their work. Consistent
with this model at a higher level of analysis,
recent research has conrmed that employee
Facets of Job Satisfaction empowerment climate in groups is associated
From an alternative perspective, researchers with higher levels of individual job satisfaction
are often interested in the relative importance (Seibert et al. 2004). There is also evidence that
of specic facets of satisfaction. Much of the individuals who are higher in other orientation
research on facet-level satisfaction has used the have weaker relationships between work

attributes and job satisfaction, which suggests Scale examines a two-dimensional space akin to
that those who are less likely to pursue their positive and negative affectivity, demonstrating
self-interest in a systematic way are less prone that it is possible for a relationship to be high
to form satisfaction judgments based on the on positive relationship qualities, high on
rational, calculating model proposed by job negative relationship qualities, high on both
characteristics theory (Meglino & Korsgaard positive and negative relationship qualities, or
2007). high on neither (e.g., Mattson et al. 2007).
There are also numerous studies that have
focused specically on employee satisfaction
with organizational practices such as compen- Organizational Commitment
sation and promotion policies. The dimen- Besides examining satisfaction with ones
sionality of pay satisfaction questionnaires has job, other research has examined commit-
been examined, and research suggests that the ment toward the organization. Consistent with
four main dimensions of pay satisfaction in- Solinger et al. (2008), we dene organizational
clude pay level, benets, pay raise, and struc- commitment as an individuals psychological
ture/administration (e.g., Judge & Welbourne bond with the organization, as represented by
1994). Theoretical models of overall pay satis- an affective attachment to the organization, in-
faction suggest that satisfaction with compensa- ternalization of its values and goals, and a be-
tion is based on a small discrepancy between the havioral desire to put forth effort to support it.
amount of pay that is received and the amount As an attitude, organizational commitment re-
of pay the worker believes he or she should ects a psychological state linking an individual
receive (Williams et al. 2006). Meta-analysis to the organization based on identication with
shows that comparisons of ones own pay to the organizations values and goals (e.g., Allen
others have very strong correlations with pay & Meyer 1990, OReilly & Chatman 1986).
satisfaction, whether the target of comparisons Commitment scales also have multiple dimen-
is internal to the organization (r = 0.56, rc = sions, but unlike satisfaction, most have exam-
0.94) or external to the organization (r = 0.57, ined the nature of commitment rather than the
rc = 1.00) (Williams et al. 2006). focus of commitment (but see Meyer et al. 2004
The social context for work is emphasized for an exception). Thus, research has primar-
by researchers exploring satisfaction with ily examined affective, normative, and continu-
supervisors and coworkers. Perhaps mirroring ance commitment, with an especially large body
a general lack of attention to the social aspects of research focused on affective commitment.
of the working environment in organizational Affective commitment scales require respon-
behavior in general, relatively little research has dents to describe the extent to which they value
focused on coworker satisfaction. In contrast the organization, feel attached to and included
to the nuanced dimensions of pay satisfaction, in the organization, and see the organizations
research has not explored the dimensionality goals as similar to their own. Continuance com-
of relationships with coworkers or supervi- mitment scales require respondents to evaluate
sors. Instead, most researchers are content whether or not they are able to leave the orga-
to measure a unidimensional satisfaction nization in the near future, or if leaving the job
with coworkers. However, more theoretically would incur too many nancial costs. Finally,
developed measures of relationship attitudes normative commitment asks respondents to de-
developed in social psychology and relationship scribe their evaluation of whether or not quit-
science literature suggest that such unidimen- ting a job is a negative behavior. It appears that
sional measures fail to address the complexity affective commitment generally has the highest
of relationships sufciently. For example, the validity in predicting organizational behaviors
Positive and Negative Quality in Marriage such as job performance (Dunham et al. 1994).

A meta-analysis of this literature found that STATES AND TRAITS IN JOB

data do not strongly line up with the theoret- ATTITUDES RESEARCH
ical three-component model of commitment
Affective Events Affective Events Theory
Theory (AET): an (Meyer et al. 2002). The tripartite typology
integrative model of commitment has come under criticism by Research in organizational psychology has, in
emphasizing the links those who note that affective commitment is recent years, considered aspects of stable trait-
between job events best understood as an attitude regarding the like attitudes about work and their relationship
and job affect and
employing organization, whereas normative with more ephemeral state attitudes. In an
hypothesizing links
between job affect and and continuance commitment are attitudes attempt to address organizational psychologys
job behaviors that are regarding the specic behaviors of staying or neglect of affect, Weiss & Cropanzano (1996)
unique to affect and leaving (Solinger et al. 2008). The distinction proposed a theory of job attitudes that empha-
affective events between attitudes toward the organization sizes affect in the study of job attitudes (and
and a behavior may explain why convergent the attitude-behavior relationship). This the-
validity for scales of commitment is so com-
ory, termed Affective Events Theory (AET),

paratively low. Thus, researchers have been emphasizes links between job events and job
encouraged to rene their thinking about affect and hypothesizes links between job affect
organizational commitment by replacing the and job behaviors that are unique to affect and
three-component model of commitment with affective events. Specically, AET emphasizes
the tripartite attitudes model from social atti- links between job affect and short-term or
tudes research that focuses on affect toward the statelike behaviors, such as work withdrawal
organization, cognition about the organization and organizational citizenship behaviors (non-
in terms of identication and internalization, task behaviors that contribute to the social and
and action readiness for generalized behaviors psychological environment of the workplace,
to support the organization. such as helping and supporting others) rather
than the more reasoned long-term behaviors
(such as turnover) that have been related to job
Attitudes Toward Behaviors
satisfaction.
Besides measures of the job and organization, As noted by Judge et al. (2011), AET is dif-
there has also been a tradition of research on ferentiated from other current approaches by
attitudes toward specic behaviors and goals. (a) the distinctions between job structure or
There is evidence for a structural model that features and job events, although job features
positions attitudes toward a behavior as an an- (e.g., organizational policies, which we review
tecedent to intentions, which in turn serve as later) are likely to inuence distributions of job
an antecedent for action. For example, one events; (b) an emphasis on affect as an important
study found that positive attitudes toward vol- feature of job attitudes; and (c) the hypothesized
untary training and development activities gen- independent links between job affect and affect-
erate intentions to engage in such activities and driven behaviors, on the one hand, and be-
that these intentions are related to participation tween more evaluation-focused cognitions and
rates (Hurtz & Williams 2009). A similar re- judgment-driven behaviors, on the other. Dis-
lationship between attitudes toward job search positions are hypothesized to moderate the link
and intentions to engage in job search was found between events and affect.
in a longitudinal study with unemployed indi- The promise of AET is clear. Analyses of
viduals (Wanberg et al. 2005). Consistent with affective events, affect, and the on-the-job con-
the bandwidth-delity principle mentioned sequences of affect may answer some questions
previously, it is expected that attitudes toward about job attitudes and behaviors on the job
behaviors will be more strongly related to those that are unanswered by the traditional stud-
behaviors than will generalized attitudes. ies of relations between cognitive evaluations

and job performance (see, for example, Beal our argument is that no inferences about the
et al. 2005). Indeed, nearly every study pub- within-person level should be made solely on
lished investigating moods or emotions at the basis of data collected at the between-
Moods and
work or within-individual variation in job at- person level. Chen et al. (2005) maintain that, emotions: affective
titudes prominently features AET as a general because researchers know so little about how states that are
framework. constructs operate at levels of analysis other important to job
than the one at which they are typically studied, satisfaction and that
may be distinguished
assessments of the similarity of relationships
Recent Research on Within-Individual from one another in
between analogous constructs across levels can terms of generality,
Variation in Job Attitudes and should play an integral role in the validation duration, and event
As we have noted, job attitudes have both sta- of multilevel constructs and theories (p. 376). specicity
ble (between-individual variation) and dynamic The recent literature on within-person vari-
(within-individual variation over time) qual- ation in job attitudes can be grouped into three
ities. We should therefore expect signicant overlapping categories. Studies that link moods
between-person and within-person variation in or discrete emotional states to job attitudes

job attitudes. We also expect signicant co- comprise the rst category. Within this cat-
variation between job attitudes and couctua- egory of studies, two further differentiations
tions in affect and similarly time-variant states must be made. First is the issue of whether
(exogenous events, moods or emotions) that moods/emotions are antecedents (e.g., Bono
should predict it. Similarly, within-individual et al. 2007, Ilies & Judge 2004, Judge et al.
variation in job attitudes should be reected 2006, Weiss et al. 1999) or consequences (e.g.,
in within-individual variation in job behaviors. Judge & Ilies 2004) of job attitudes, with the for-
This dynamic nature of job affects and job be- mer greatly outnumbering the latter. Of course
haviors is illustrated by Organ & Ryan (1995), there are reasons why either direction of inu-
who note that predictions of organizational cit- ence might occur. Demonstrating causal direc-
izenship behaviors (OCBs) from affective states tions in such studies is difcult, though some
. . . will somehow have to reckon with the prob- studies are noteworthy for their use of lagged
lem of detecting discrete episodes of OCB (rather designs, whereby job attitudes on Time 1 are
than subjective reactions that presumably re- used to predict affect on Time 2 (e.g., Judge &
ect aggregations or trends of OCB over time) Ilies 2004) or affect at Time 1 is used to predict
and the psychological states antecedent to or concur- job attitudes at Time 2 (Ilies & Judge 2002).
rent with those episodes (p. 781, emphasis added). Another differentiation is the issue of whether
As we noted above, this problem has been ad- broad mood factors (generally as represented by
dressed by ESM designs, which provide ecolog- positive and negative affect) or discrete emo-
ical momentary assessments of job attitudes and tions are studied. Emotion researchers have
job behaviors. It is striking that most of these struggled in vain to delineate an accepted tax-
studies show nearly as much within-person vari- onomy of core emotions (see Power 2006).
ability in job attitudes as in moods and emo- Another challenge is that discrete emotions, al-
tions. This certainly suggests support for the though theoretically separable, are empirically
importance of affect to job attitudes. As noted less so. This is especially true with respect to
by Judge et al. (2011), It is not premature to positive emotions (Watson 2000). On the other
conclude that ESM has become an expected el- hand, broad mood factors have controversies of
ement of the research. their own, such as disagreements over the struc-
It is not the case that one expects between- ture of mood: either the positive affect/negative
individual and within-individual relationships affect rotation or the hedonic tone/arousal
to operate in opposite directions or even rotation.
to operate in the same direction but with The second category of studies investi-
dramatically different magnitudes. Rather, gates within-person variability in job attitudes

without including moods or emotions. Such some multilevel models of job attitudes are not
studies have typically examined antecedents of based on, or tested with, ESM designs. For
job satisfaction. For example, one study found example, if within-individual variation in job
Multilevel models:
models where multiple that daily interpersonal and informational jus- attitudes is studied over a very long period of
observations of job tice were related to daily levels of job satisfac- time (say, yearly measurements over 10 years),
attitudes are nested tion (Loi et al. 2009). Another repeated mea- both within- and between-individual variation
within individuals, to sures study found that dispositional affect inu- would likely to be modeled, but it is unlikely
predict or be predicted
enced employees typical levels of satisfaction data were collected using an ESM design.
by other
within-individual and moderated how sensitive employee job at-
states, and wherein titudes were to workplace events (Bowling et al.
these within-individual 2005). DISPOSITIONAL ANTECEDENTS
relationships are The third category of studies links OF JOB ATTITUDES
predicted by
within-individual variation in job attitudes to
between-individual
within-individual variation in work behaviors.
Early Influences
differences
Although there is a growing body of within- The importance of personality to job satis-
person research showing how affect is related faction was explicitly recognized in the ear-
to job performance (e.g., Miner & Glomb liest writings on job attitudes (e.g., Hoppock
2010, Trougakos et al. 2011, Tsai et al. 2007), 1935). These early ndings, however, appeared
comparatively less research has investigated to quickly fall out of favor, coinciding with the
how variability in job attitudes is related to per- nadir of personality research in the 1970s and
formance. Studies have shown that variations in 1980s. This state of affairs changed with the
job attitudes are related to higher levels of orga- publication of two seminal studies by Staw and
nizational citizenship (Ilies et al. 2006). Other colleagues, a study by Arvey and colleagues, and
research has found a relationship between vari- an integrative piece by Adler & Weiss (1988).
ations in job attitudes and workplace deviance Staw & Ross (1985) found that measures of job
( Judge et al. 2006). However, it is unclear satisfaction were reasonably stable over time,
whether these ndings are primarily the results even when individuals changed employers or
of affect or if other components of attitudes occupations. Critics of the study noted that it is
such as appraisals, beliefs, or attitudes toward difcult to establish a dispositional basis of job
behaviors will also play a complementary role. satisfaction unless one actually measures dispo-
This is clearly an area where more research is sitions, and that other, nondispositional factors
needed. might explain job attitude stability. Staw et al.
Before ending this section, we note an- (1986) corrected this deciency: Using a unique
other important distinction. Previously we longitudinal data set and childhood ratings of
mentioned multilevel models of job attitudes. personality, Staw et al. reported results showing
Here we dene multilevel models as models that affective disposition assessed at ages 1214
where multiple observations of job attitudes correlated 0.34 (p < 0.05) with overall job sat-
are nested within individuals, to predict or be isfaction assessed at ages 5462. In a similarly
predicted by other within-individual states, and provocative study, Arvey et al. (1989) found
wherein these within-individual relationships signicant consistency in job satisfaction levels
are predicted by between-individual differ- between 34 pairs of monozygotic twins reared
ences. Although all ESM studies and multilevel apart from early childhood. Judged from the
models are often treated as synonymous in job vantage point of today, these studies may seem
attitude research, that is not necessarily a valid less revolutionary than they were at the time. It
commingling. It is true that most ESM studies is not much of an overstatement to argue that in
are multilevel in that both within- and between- the late 1980s, dispositional explanations were
person effects are modeled. However, that is eschewed or, more likely, ignored entirely in
not inherently the case. More importantly, the literature.

Specific Dispositions might ask what either taxonomy adds beyond

PA/NA (Watson 2000), the affective predispo-
Although much early research on the im-
sition scale ( Judge & Hulin 1993), or the Big
portance of dispositions was able to describe
Five personality model. This is a particularly
whether there was a dispositional aspect to
relevant question given that CSEs are not un-
job satisfaction, this research did not specify
correlated with traits from these taxonomies.
which theoretically derived personality dispo-
Judge et al. (2008) found that of the three tax-
sitions would be most likely related to consis-
onomic structures (ve-factor model, PA/NA,
tencies in job attitudes. Subsequent research
and CSEs), CSEs were the most useful pre-
has attempted to clarify this omission. One
dictor of job satisfaction. Altogether, the three
study found that the dispositional taxonomy
frameworks explained 36% of the variance in
of positive and negative affectivity was related
self-reported job satisfaction and 18% of the
to job satisfaction over a period of several
variance when using reports by signicant oth-
months, even after accounting for job changes
ers. Judge et al. (2008) further showed that these
and occupational quality variables (Watson &

frameworks could be reduced to three sets of
Slack 1993). Subsequent meta-analytic research
factors for the purposes of predicting job sat-
demonstrated that the ve-factor model of
isfaction: (a) CSEs/neuroticism (all four core

personality could also explain variations in job
traits, plus NA), (b) extraversion (including PA),
satisfaction, with neuroticism (rc = 0.29), ex-
and (c) conscientiousness. Their results showed
traversion (rc = 0.25), and conscientiousness
that when these three factors were related to
(rc = 0.26) showing especially strong relation-
job satisfaction, however, only the rst factor
ships with job satisfaction ( Judge et al. 2002).
CSEconsistently inuenced job satisfaction
across studies.
Core Self-Evaluations Best et al. (2005) presented further evidence
In a different approach to dispositional inu- for the inuence of CSE on job satisfaction
ences on job attitudes, Judge et al. (1997) focus via appraisals of the work environment. The
on core self-evaluations (CSEs), fundamental authors found that CSE was negatively re-
beliefs individuals hold about themselves, their lated to perceptions of organizational obstacles
functioning, and the world. CSEs are hierar- to goal fulllment (perceived organizational
chical, with specic traits comprising a broad, constraint). Perceived organizational constraint
general trait. Judge et al. (1997) identied four mediated between CSE and burnout, which
specic traits as indicators of CSEs based on negatively predicted job satisfaction. These re-
these evaluative criteria: (a) self-esteem, (b) sults suggest that employees high in CSE are
generalized self-efcacy, (c) neuroticism, and less likely to view their job tasks and organiza-
(d ) locus of control. Increasingly, research has tional environment as stressful, shielding them
utilized direct measures of CSEs. Though CSE from burnout and its deleterious effects on job
research has expanded well beyond job satis- satisfaction.
faction research, there have been more than Studies that focus only on perceptual mea-
50 studies of the link between CSEs and job sures of job characteristics make it impossible
satisfaction. Judge & Bono (2001) completed a to distinguish whether high-CSE individuals
meta-analysis of 169 independent correlations simply hold a rosier picture of objective
between each of the four core traits and job attributes or whether they actually select into
satisfaction. When the four meta-analyses are jobs with better attributes. To address this is-
combined into a single composite measure, the sue, Judge et al. (2000) examined the mediating
overall core trait correlates rc = 0.37 with job role of objective job complexity, ascertained
satisfaction. by coding job titles, as well as subjective job
Given the various ways of considering af- characteristics. They found that both subjec-
fective disposition noted in this review, one tive and objective indicators of job complexity

were partial mediators of the relationship be- involves how situations contribute to the ex-
tween CSEmeasured in childhood and early pression of traits and how traits contribute to
adulthoodand later job satisfaction for indi- the reactions to situations.
viduals between the ages of 41 and 50. These re-
sults suggest that CSEs inuence not only how SITUATIONAL ANTECEDENTS
favorably people view their jobs, but also the ac- OF JOB ATTITUDES
tual level of complexity of the jobs they obtain.
In addition to selecting into more challeng- Job Characteristics
ing jobs, people with a high CSE may nd
As the preceding section notes, there is strong
their work more satisfying because they choose
evidence that perceptions of jobs are inu-
personally meaningful goals. Self-concordance
enced by dispositions of the individual worker.
theory posits that goals pursued for fun or on
However, there is also evidence that situa-
the basis of personally relevant values increase
tions inuence attitudes. One tradition of sit-
subjective well-being and goal attainment.
uational antecedents of job attitudes that has

Judge et al. (2005) proposed that individuals
already been mentioned is the job character-
with positive self-concept should be less
istics model. Most research has examined how

vulnerable to external pressures and therefore
subjective perceptions of work characteristics
more likely to set self-concordant goals. Self-
are related to employee attitudes, convincingly
concordant goals partially mediated between
demonstrating that employee self-reports of
CSEs and life satisfaction and between CSEs
the ve core characteristics (skill variety, task
and goal attainment. It appears that CSEs do
identity, task signicance, autonomy, and feed-
lead to the pursuit of self-concordant goals,
back) identied by Hackman & Oldham (1976)
which increases life satisfaction and goal attain-
are related to higher levels of job satisfaction.
ment. The authors concluded that CSEs may
However, data measured from self-reports can-
serve more like a trigger than an anchor. People
not be readily distinguished from the inu-
with positive CSEs strive for the right reasons,
ence of dispositions, since evidence already dis-
and therefore get the right results (p. 266).
cussed shows that personality traits are related
to perceptions of job characteristics. When self-
Integration of State report and job analystbased job characteristics
and Trait Perspectives are studied in tandem, the self-reported, more
subjective perceptions of job characteristics are
The foregoing description of research on job
more closely related to job satisfaction than are
attitudes as temporary states of being does not
analyst-based, more objective estimates of job
necessarily mean that research investigating job
characteristics ( Judge et al. 2000). Organiza-
attitudes as more traitlike (i.e., inuenced by
tional interventions to increase these sources
stable individual dispositions and unchanging
of satisfaction via job enlargement have been
job characteristics) is no longer relevant. An
shown to be effective at improving job satis-
interactionist perspective on job attitudes sug-
faction in the past (e.g., Neuman et al. 1989),
gests that dispositions have their effects on be-
which does bolster the argument that objective
havior through the interaction of individuals
job characteristics inuence job attitudes, al-
and the work environment (Magnusson 1999).
though recent research on this topic is lacking.
People respond to their dispositionally inu-
enced perceptions of the environment, so it is
still possible for personality to affect attitudes Social Environment Characteristics
even when situations are found to be important Although the features of the work itself have
(Mischel & Shoda 1998). Thus, the question clearly been linked to higher levels of job
of whether attitudes can be attributed to states satisfaction and engagement, such models omit
or traits is poorly posed; rather, the question the importance of the social environment.

Surprisingly, it is only in recent years that of engagement among older workers if they
researchers have systematically demonstrated were also satised with their older coworkers
that social environment variables, such as rela- (Avery et al. 2007). One study found that when
tionships with coworkers and supervisors, can supervisors were higher in control orientation
be as closely related to overall job satisfaction than subordinates, subordinates were more
as job conditions are related to satisfaction. A satised with their supervisor compared with
comprehensive investigation of the relation- situations in which the supervisor and subor-
ships between job characteristics and work dinate had similar levels of control orientation
attitudes found that perceived social support (Glomb & Welsh 2005). This is a rather unique
predicted satisfaction levels above and beyond example, showing that personality dissimilarity
characteristics of the work itself (Morgeson can sometimes have benecial effects on job
& Humphrey 2006). Meta-analysis shows attitudes.
that there is a consistent positive relationship
between coworker support behaviors and job
satisfaction, job involvement, and organiza- Leadership

tional commitment (Chiaburu & Harrison In organizational context, leadership styles and
2008). This meta-analysis also found that the behaviors can have a particularly powerful ef-
relationship between coworker support and fect on employee job attitudes. Leader consid-
the attitudes of satisfaction and commitment eration has a meta-analytic correlation of rc =
was stronger than the relationship between 0.78 with subordinate satisfaction ( Judge et al.
coworker antagonism and these attitudinal 2004). The strength of this relationship sug-
constructs. gests that leader consideration behaviors such
Another method for examining the relation- as showing concern and respect for followers,
ship between social characteristics of the work looking out for their welfare, and expressing ap-
environment and job attitudes is to examine preciation and support are nearly synonymous
social network ties. Evidence from one study with the extent to which followers are satis-
of network ties found that job-related affect ed with their leaders. Initiating structure has a
scores tended to be similar among individu- somewhat weaker but still positive correlation
als who interacted with one another frequently of rc = 0.33 with subordinate satisfaction with
(Totterdell et al. 2004). These results reinforce the leader.
the notion that attitudes toward work are sig- Having established strong meta-analytic
nicantly related to the social relationships one main-effect relationships between leader-
has. ship and follower attitudes, researchers have
The demographic makeup of ones work- turned their attention toward moderating
group has also been a concern for researchers. relationships. The aforementioned relation-
Theory suggests that individuals who are de- ship between leader-member exchange and
mographically dissimilar from their coworkers employee attitudes is stronger when employees
may feel less accepted and therefore experience identify their supervisor with the organization
more negative job attitudes. Some research has (Eisenberger et al. 2010). Transformational
shown that ethnic dissimilarity is negatively leadership has been linked to more positive
related to organizational commitment, but it is employee emotions during the course of the
not related to job satisfaction (Liao et al. 2004). workday, and transformational leadership can
On the other hand, this same study found that buffer the relationship between emotion regu-
differences from coworkers in extraversion and lation and job dissatisfaction (Bono et al. 2007).
openness to experience are negatively related Longitudinal research also shows that declines
to satisfaction with coworkers. Other research in supervisor support during the period of orga-
found that perceived age similarity to ones nizational entry were associated with declines
coworkers is associated with higher levels in job satisfaction ( Jokisaari & Nurmi 2009).

Conversely, negative leader behaviors, such Besides the main effect of organizational
as abusive supervision (Tepper 2000), are also practices related to compensation, research
associated with negative employee attitudes. utilizing a polynomial regression approach
to assess congruence suggests that the cor-
respondence between employee values and
Organizational Practices organizational values is associated with more
There is a substantial body of research within positive job attitudes (Edwards & Cable 2009).
organizational psychology examining the High levels of interpersonal justice are also
nature of organizational practices and their in- signicantly related to both organizational
uence on employee job attitudes. The largest commitment and satisfaction with ones
body of research under this area concerns the supervisor (Liao & Rupp 2005).
relationship between organizational justice and Although many studies have correlated in-
employee attitudes. Much of the research on dividual reports of organizational characteris-
justice and pay practices has been grounded in tics as predictors of individual attitudes, con-
discrepancy theory, which proposes that dissat- cerns about common method variance have
isfaction is the result of a discrepancy between prompted many researchers to examine these
the pay that one thinks one should receive phenomena using multiple reports of practices.
and the amount of pay one actually receives. For example, one study found that the favor-
Such discrepancies are strongly, negatively ableness of organizational changes, the extent
related to pay level satisfaction (rc = 0.54) in of the change, and the individual relevance of
meta-analytic research (Williams et al. 2006). the change combined to predict employee com-
Meta-analysis shows that distributive justice mitment (Fedor et al. 2006). One other study
correlates at rc = 0.79 with pay level satisfac- showed that establishment-level reports of
tion, suggesting that perceptions of distributive high-performance human resources practices
justice are nearly identical to attitudes toward were associated with higher levels of employee
organizational pay practices (Williams et al. job satisfaction and organizational commitment
2006). Procedural justice of compensation also (Takeuchi et al. 2009). A study involving cross-
has a substantial but slightly smaller (rc = level mediation found that the relationship be-
0.42) relationship with pay satisfaction. tween individual perceptions of organizational
Surprisingly, meta-analytic evidence sug- justice with job attitudes and job satisfaction
gests that the relationship between merit pay was moderated by group-level justice climate
raises and pay-level satisfaction is quite small (Mayer et al. 2007). These studies, taken to-
(rc = 0.08) (Williams et al. 2006). One study gether, suggest that collective perceptions of
demonstrated that pay satisfaction following a situations are predictive of individual attitudes
merit raise was much greater for those who and that there are indeed relationships between
received a high merit raise and who also had organizational characteristics and job attitudes.
high pay-raise expectations (Schaubroeck et al.
2008). The authors noted that this result sug-
gests that only individuals who believe that pay Time and Job Attitudes
decisions are connected to performance will be Some researchers have begun to examine
more satised when merit raises are disbursed. the role of time itself as a situational shaper
Another study showed that pay satisfaction is of employee attitudes. Researchers in this
often based on whom one compares oneself domain examine how employee attitudes tend
tothose who compare their pay to those who to change over time from the point of hire
make much more than themselves are less satis- to some subsequent point in time, typically
ed than those who compare their pay to those using latent growth modeling or hierarchical
who make only slightly more than themselves linear modeling. One program of research
(Harris et al. 2008). has examined the pattern of honeymoons

and hangovers in employee attitudes from primarily with the outcomes of employee
the point of hire to several months later (e.g., attitudes in organizations, the behavioral con-
Boswell et al. 2005, 2009). These studies show sequences of attitudes are clearly important. As
that early in the employment relationship, most we have noted previously, the dominant model
individuals have a period of highly positive job linking attitudes to behaviors is the theory
attitudes, followed soon after by a deterioration of planned behavior (Ajzen 1991), which
in their appraisal of their new jobs. proposes that general attitudes give rise to
Other research has investigated the trajec- specic attitudes, which in turn can give rise to
tory of organizational commitment over time. intentions to perform the behavior in question.
Most research suggests that like job satisfaction, A theory-building article also described how
organizational commitment tends to decline commitment can lead to behavior as a result of
over time among organizational newcomers a translation of attitudes toward the organiza-
(Bentein et al. 2005). There is also evidence that tion, supervisor, and team to the development
individuals who perceive that there is a psycho- of specic commitments to goals, which in
logical contract breach in their organization turn facilitates motivation to engage in specic
will have a negative trajectory of organizational actions (Meyer et al. 2004). Other studies
commitment as well (Ng et al. 2010). propose a more emotion-centric view of the
As we have noted, job attitudes often vary relationship between attitudes and behavior.
over time. Affective events theory specically For example, one study suggested that employ-
argues for the idea that emotion-laden events in ees affect toward the job and organization will
the workplace can explain the variability in job lead them to behave in ways that support the
satisfaction people experience on a day-to-day organization, as affect gives cues about the state
basis. One cross-sectional study involving 2,091 of the environment and therefore suggests
call center representatives found that work appropriate responses (Foo et al. 2009).
emotions can be explained by work features Consistent with prior theory, we emphasize
and that the relationship between these work the relationship between job attitudes and the-
features and job satisfaction was mediated by oretical constructs rather than the relationship
emotions (Wegge et al. 2006). An experience- between job attitudes and specic behaviors.
sampling study of 41 employees found that This decision is consistent with the prior dis-
negative events had a strong positive relation- cussion of the bandwidth-delity principle as
ship with negative moods at work, whereas well as research showing that broad attitudes
positive events had a positive relationship with are poor predictors of specic behaviors but are
positive moods at work (Miner et al. 2005). good predictors of broad classes of related be-
Another diary study found that interpersonal haviors (e.g., Fishbein & Ajzen 1974). As this
conicts with customers acted as an environ- principle of using broad attitudes to predict
mental trigger that produced more negative broad outcomes would suggest, one structural
attitudes (Grandey et al. 2002). Collectively, meta-analysis found that overall job attitude (a
these studies demonstrate again that job combination of satisfaction and commitment)
attitudes will differ depending upon when they was highly correlated with a broad measure of
are measured. several aspects of contribution to the work role
(Harrison et al. 2006).
We dene job performance as employee
OUTCOMES OF JOB ATTITUDES behaviors that are consistent with role expec-
tations and that contribute to organizational
Overview
effectiveness. Consistent with an accumulated
The nal consideration in models of attitudes body of research, we consider job performance
is their relationship with behavior. Because as a multidimensional construct, composed of
organizational behavior research is concerned task performance (duties and behaviors that

are formally required to perform ones job), One study explored the relationship between
organizational citizenship behavior (behaviors affective satisfaction (as measured by an overall
that go beyond formal role expectations and are index of positive and negative emotions about
generally contextual or interpersonal in nature), the job) and cognitive satisfaction (as measured
and withdrawal/counterproductivity (behav- by a cognitive appraisal of the characteristics
iors that are responses to dissatisfaction and of a job) as a potential moderated relation-
that often go against organizational interests ship (Schleicher et al. 2004). Their research
or norms). We also consider creative perfor- showed that when affective attitudes toward a
mance, as it is not clear that it ts well within job and cognitive appraisal of a job were con-
the aforementioned categories of behaviors. sistent with one another, there was a stronger
relationship between performance and satisfac-
Task Performance tion than when affective and cognitive attitudes
were less related to one another.
The link between job satisfaction and job per-
The relationship between organizational
formance has long been of interest to organi-

commitment and job performance has been
zational psychologists. Meta-analysis suggests
established in a number of studies, although the
that there is indeed a substantial relationship

relationship is not particularly strong (Wright
between job satisfaction and job performance
& Bonett 2002). However, not all studies
( Judge et al. 2001). Because this evidence comes
nd only main effects. Meta-analytic research
primarily from cross-sectional studies, it is not
demonstrated that the positive relationship be-
possible to assess whether it is the case that job
tween commitment and performance declined
satisfaction causes job performance or if per-
signicantly with increasing employee tenure,
formance leads to satisfaction. To help answer
suggesting that less-tenured employees have
this question, Riketta (2008) meta-analyzed the
a stronger attitude-behavior link (Wright &
relationship between performance and satisfac-
Bonett 2002). Another study that examined
tion in longitudinal research and found that
different clusters of affective and continuance
the evidence was stronger for a satisfaction-to-
commitment found that moderate levels of
performance link than for a performance-to-
continuance commitment and low levels of
satisfaction link.
affective commitment were particularly related
Although broad measures of satisfaction
to poorer supervisor ratings of performance
generally do correlate with job performance,
(Sinclair et al. 2005). In another study, em-
other studies have examined the importance
ployees who were low in affective commitment
of facets of satisfaction as predictors of perfor-
had a negative relationship between stress and
mance. Different facets of job satisfaction show
performance, whereas employees who were
different relationships with outcomes of inter-
high in affective commitment had a positive
est. Of the JDI dimensions, satisfaction with
relationship between stress and performance
work has the strongest relationship with mo-
(Hunter & Thatcher 2007). This last study
tivation, but all dimensions have similar rela-
demonstrates that attitudes can moderate
tionships with job performance, with corrected
the relationship between other work-related
meta-analytic correlations ranging from rc =
constructs and behaviors.
0.15 to rc = 0.23 (Kinicki et al. 2002). Other
research examining multiple dimensions of pay
satisfaction at the school district level of anal- Creative Performance
ysis has shown that aggregated pay satisfac- The relationship between employee attitudes
tion is related to student academic competency and creative performance has been the topic
(Currall et al. 2005). of vigorous debate. Although much research
Given the evidence for a substantive rela- demonstrates that positive mood states
tionship between satisfaction and performance, associated with job satisfaction encourage
researchers have begun to explore moderators. more exible and open thought processes

(e.g., Lyubomirsky et al. 2005), others have the union ten years later (Fullagar et al. 2004).
contended that negative moods can generate A meta-analytic path analysis study showed
active attention and critical thinking required that job satisfaction and perceived fairness
for creativity (George & Zhou 2002). Some independently were related to higher levels of
integrative recent work suggests that looking organizational citizenship behaviors, whereas a
at positive or negative moods may be putting model suggesting that satisfaction mediates the
emphasis on the wrong portion of the affect relationship between fairness and citizenship
circumplex, insofar as all activated moods, behaviors was less well supported (Fassina et al.
positive or negative, are associated with higher 2008). In sum, research does indeed show that
levels of creativity (De Dreu et al. 2008). Less job attitudes are related to citizenship.
research has looked at how these affective states
pertain to the job attitudescreativity link, Withdrawal/Counterproductivity
although some work has been done in this area.
If positive job attitudes are expected to relate
One study showed that dissatised employees
to positive behavioral decisions at work in the

were more creative when they had high levels
form of citizenship behavior, then negative at-
of continuance commitment and had support
titudes are expected to relate to a broad class of

from the organization and coworkers (Zhou
negative behaviors at work in the form of with-
& George 2001). However, another study
drawal and counterproductivity. The negative
found that aggregate job satisfaction was
behaviors constituting withdrawal include psy-
positively related to measures of organizational
chological withdrawal, absenteeism, turnover
innovation two years later (Shipton et al.
decisions, and decisions to retire.
2006). As such, the form of the relationship
Of the dimensions of the JDI, satisfaction
between satisfaction and performance remains
with the work itself has the strongest rela-
somewhat uncertain and may differ at the
tionship with both withdrawal cognitions and
individual and group levels.
turnover intentions (Kammeyer-Mueller et al.
2005, Kinicki et al. 2002). Relationships be-
Citizenship Behavior tween dimensions of performance and absen-
Although there is a conceptual reason to expect teeism are comparatively weaker for all other
a moderate relationship between job attitudes dimensions (Kinicki et al. 2002).
and task performance, theory is even more Most empirical tests suggest that job satis-
strongly supportive of a relationship between faction is not directly related to turnover, but
citizenship behaviors and job attitudes (Organ rather that job satisfaction leads to thoughts
& Ryan 1995). Meta-analysis demonstrates about quitting and comparison of ones job to
that overall satisfaction is related to citizenship alternatives, which in turn will eventually lead
behavior and that this relationship mediates to turnover (e.g., Hom & Kinicki 2001). Re-
the relationship between the personality traits search has also shown that job satisfaction is
of agreeableness and conscientiousness with more likely to lead to turnover for individuals
citizenship (Ilies et al. 2009). Turning to who are higher in cognitive ability, education,
facets of satisfaction, the relationship between and occupation-specic training (Trevor 2001).
citizenship behaviors and the JDI dimensions In other words, job satisfaction is more likely
of pay, coworkers, and work are roughly equal to lead to withdrawal behavior in the form of
in magnitude (rc = 0.16 to rc = 0.23), with an turnover when there are opportunities for the
especially strong relationship between supervi- attitude to express itself in the form of con-
sor satisfaction and citizenship behaviors with crete behavior. Similar conclusions about the
rc = 0.45 (Kinicki et al. 2002). Research in a role of opportunity in the satisfaction-turnover
union context using cross-lagged regression relationship can be drawn from other research
found that early union commitment was asso- in this area (Lee et al. 2008). Evidence sug-
ciated with voluntary informal participation in gests that the relationship between satisfaction
and unit-level absence is also stronger when the

unemployment rate is low (Hausknecht et al. designed to generate higher prots for the
2008). This might occur because employees are organization as a whole. Do these investments
less worried about being red from their jobs pay off? Meta-analysis suggests that there are
when there are ample alternatives in the labor indeed substantial, generalizable relationships
market. between unit-level employee satisfaction
There is also ample evidence that organiza- and engagement with customer satisfaction,
tional commitment is related to deviance and productivity, prot, turnover, and accidents
work withdrawal. Most research has focused (Harter et al. 2002). These results also were
on the relationship between affective commit- found in cross-lagged regression analyses
ment and turnover. Multivariate research also in a diverse sample of individuals from 35
consistently shows that attitudes toward the companies (Schneider et al. 2003), suggesting
job and attitudes toward the organization have that employee job attitudes are related to sub-
independent and complementary effects on sequent organizational performance. Another
turnover behavior (Kammeyer-Mueller et al. study found that manager satisfaction levels
2005). Evidence suggests that steeper declines were associated with customer satisfaction and
in organizational commitment over time are re- store performance (Netemeyer et al. 2010).
lated to increased intention to quit and actu- Moreover, this same study found an interaction
ally quitting (Bentein et al. 2005). Research also that showed that when manager performance
suggests that when a groups mean satisfaction and manager satisfaction were high, employee
and dispersion of satisfaction scores are low, at- and store performance were higher.
tendance is likely to be particularly low (Dineen
et al. 2007). CONCLUSION
There are also possible interactions between
Although research on job attitudes has been
commitment and satisfaction in predicting
at the core of the eld of organizational psy-
work withdrawal. Theory suggests that com-
chology since its inception, new methods for
mitted employees who have low levels of
conceptualizing and investigating job attitudes
satisfaction will be less likely to engage in work
continue to enliven the eld. In particular, the
withdrawal since they have some level of orga-
increased focus on within-persons studies has
nizational loyalty, whereas employees with low
helped to signicantly clarify the questions of
levels of commitment will tend to have lower
states and traits in job attitudes research and
attendance across the board. For example, one
to highlight the role of emotions and affective
study demonstrated that when organizational
events as inuences on job attitudes. A sizeable
commitment was low, group-level absenteeism
body of research has demonstrated that job atti-
was high regardless of job satisfaction, but
tudes are related to a variety of organizationally
when organizational commitment was high,
relevant behaviors including task performance,
absence was especially low among those who
citizenship, creative performance, and organi-
were most satised (Hausknecht et al. 2008).
zational protability.
As this review has also shown, new models of
Organizational Performance job attitudes involving within-person variability
Although there are many reasons to be inter- and team/organizational levels of analyses con-
ested in the relationship between individual- tinue to enrich our understanding of core job
level job attitudes and individual work behavior, attitudes. New models that demonstrate how
organizational leaders are especially interested situational perceptions mediate the relationship
in the degree to which employee attitudes are between dispositions and behavior, and mod-
related to overall organizational performance. els that demonstrate how dispositions moderate
Most organizational interventions to improve the relationship between situations and behav-
employee attitudes toward their work are ior, would be welcome.

SUMMARY POINTS
1. A job attitude is a social attitude; it may be one of the more central social attitudes
because most individuals spend a majority of their waking hours at work, work is central
to individuals identities, and job attitudes have important consequences.
2. Affect and cognition are both important to job attitudes; at various times, each has oc-
cupied a more central place in research.
3. Job attitudes are multilevel concepts that show both traitlike (stable individual differences)
and statelike (within-individual variation) properties.
4. A major thrust of recent research has used experience-sampling methodologies to study
job satisfaction. This research has suggested that job satisfaction varies signicantly on
a day-to-day basis, and this variation is not merely transient error (it predicts and can be
predicted by other meaningful concepts).

5. Of the major job satisfaction facets, work satisfaction appears to be the most important
in predicting overall job satisfaction.

6. Personality is important to job attitudes; recent multilevel research suggests that person-
ality affects individual differences in job satisfaction and within-individual relationships
involving job satisfaction and other within-individual variables.
7. Recent research has shown that the social environment is important to job satisfaction,
including coworker support, social networks, effective leadership, and demographic sim-
ilarity between employee and coworkers.
8. Job attitudes predict many organizational behaviors; to achieve optimal prediction, corre-
spondence needs to be maintained between the attitude and the behavior being predicted.
FUTURE ISSUES
1. Given that job attitudes are social attitudes, how do emerging research topics in social
attitudes inform job attitudes research? Given that job attitudes research has some con-
ceptual and methodological advantages, how might accumulated knowledge about job
attitudes inform social attitudes research?
2. Recent evidence clearly indicates that job attitudes and moods/emotions covary. What is
the causal direction: Do workplace attitudes cause moods/emotions, do moods/emotions
cause job attitudes, or both?
3. How can state and trait perspectives on job attitudeseach of which has received con-
siderable support but for which there is little integrative workbe further integrated?
4. Increasingly, researchers are conceptualizing job attitudes in a temporal context. Some of
these temporal studies examine job attitudes over a relatively short period of time (daily
variation over a week) whereas others examine temporal uctuations over a very long
time period (as long as 20 years). How does the time frame affect our understanding of
temporal variations in job attitudes?

5. Although job satisfaction is the most widely studied job attitude, it is not the only one. Can
disparate job attitudes be further integrated in future research under multidimensional
frameworks?
6. Are there viable alternatives to self-report measures of job attitudes? How might our
knowledge of job attitudes be informed by alternative measurement methodologies?
7. What interventions and organizational practices best inuence job satisfaction, and are
these interventions time bound (tend to degrade over time)?
8. If overall job satisfaction (or an even broader job attitude concept itself indicated by
job satisfaction) predicts broad behavioral composites, does the specicity of emotions
experienced at work mean they best predict more specic, time-variant behaviors?
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any afliations, memberships, funding, or nancial holdings that
might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
LITERATURE CITED
Adler S, Weiss HM. 1988. Recent developments in the study of personality and organizational behavior. In
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, ed. CL Cooper, IT Robertson, pp. 30730.
Chichester, UK: Wiley
Adolphs R, Damasio AR. 2001. The interaction of affect and cognition: a neurobiological perspective. In
Handbook of Affect and Social Cognition, ed. JP Forgas, pp. 2749. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Ajzen I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50:179211
Allen NJ, Meyer JP. 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative com-
mitment to the organization. J. Occup. Psychol. 63:118
Arvey RD, Bouchard TJ, Segal NL, Abraham LM. 1989. Job satisfaction: environmental and genetic compo-
nents. J. Appl. Psychol. 74:18792
Ashby FG, Isen AM, Turken AU. 1999. A neuro-psychological theory of positive affect and its inuence on
cognition. Psychol. Rev. 106:52950
Avery DR, McKay PF, Wilson DC. 2007. Engaging the aging workforce: the relationship between perceived
age similarity, satisfaction with coworkers, and employee engagement. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:154256
Beal DJ, Weiss HM, Barros E, MacDermid SM. 2005. An episodic process model of affective inuences on
performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:105468
Bentein K, Vandenberghe C, Vandenberg R, Stinglhamber F. 2005. The role of change in the relationship
between commitment and turnover: a latent growth modeling approach. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:46882
Best RG, Stapleton LM, Downey RG. 2005. Core self-evaluations and job burnout: the test of alternative
models. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 10:44151
Bollen KA. 2002. Latent variables in psychology and the social sciences. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 53:60534
Bono JE, Foldes HJ, Vinson G, Muros JP. 2007. Workplace emotions: the role of supervision and leadership.
J. Appl. Psychol. 92:135767
Boswell WR, Boudreau JW, Tichy J. 2005. The relationship between employee job change and job satisfaction:
the honeymoon-hangover effect. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:88292
Boswell WR, Shipp AJ, Payne SC, Culbertson SS. 2009. Changes in newcomer job satisfaction over time:
examining the pattern of honeymoons and hangovers. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:84458
Bowling NA, Beehr TA, Wagner SH, Libkuman TM. 2005. Adaptation-level theory, opponent process theory,
and dispositions: an integrated approach to the stability of job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:104453

Brayeld AH, Rothe HF. 1951. An index of job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 35:30711
Brief AP, Weiss HM. 2002. Organizational behavior: affect in the workplace. Annu. Rev. Psychol. An important review of,
53:279307 and a call for more
Chen G, Bliese PD, Mathieu JE. 2005. Conceptual framework and statistical procedures for delineating and research on, moods and
testing multilevel theories of homology. Organ. Res. Methods 8:375409 emotions in
organizational research.
Chiaburu DS, Harrison DA. 2008. Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis
of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:1082
103 A meta-analysis
Colquitt JA. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. J. Appl. showing the importance
Psychol. 86:386400 of coworkers to job
Currall SC, Towler AJ, Judge TA, Kohn L. 2005. Pay satisfaction and organizational outcomes. Pers. Psychol. attitudes.
58:61340
De Dreu CKW, Baas M, Nijstad BA. 2008. Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood-creativity link:
toward a dual pathway to creativity model. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 94:73956
Dineen BR, Noe RA, Shaw JD, Duffy MK, Wiethoff C. 2007. Level and dispersion of satisfaction in teams:
using foci and social context to explain the satisfaction-absenteeism relationship. Acad. Manage. J. 50:623
43
Drevets WC, Raichle ME. 1998. Reciprocal suppression of regional cerebral blood ow during emotional
versus higher cognitive processes: implications for interactions between emotion and cognition. Cogn.
Emot. 12:35385
Dunham RB, Grube JA, Castaneda MB. 1994. Organizational commitment: the utility of an integrative Tests relative validity of
definition. J. Appl. Psychol. 79:37080 three organizational
Eagly AH, Chaiken S. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth commitment
Edwards JR, Cable DM. 2009. The value of value congruence. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:65477 dimensions based on
meta-analytic data.
Eisenberger R, Karagonlar G, Stinglhamber F, Neves P, Becker TE, et al. 2010. Leader-member exchange
and affective organizational commitment: the contribution of supervisors organizational embodiment.
Fassina NE, Jones DA, Uggerslev KL. 2008. Relationship clean-up time: using meta-analysis and path analysis
to clarify relationships among job satisfaction, perceived fairness, and citizenship behaviors. J. Manage.
34:16188
Fazio RH, Olson MA. 2003. Attitudes: foundations, functions, and consequences. In The Handbook of Social
Psychology, ed. MA Hogg, J Cooper, pp. 13960. London: Sage
Fedor DB, Caldwell S, Herold DM. 2006. The effects of organizational changes on employee commitment:
a multilevel investigation. Pers. Psychol. 59:129
Fishbein M, Ajzen I. 1974. Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single and multiple behavioral criteria.
Psychol. Rev. 81:5974
Foo MD, Uy MA, Baron RA. 2009. How do feelings inuence effort? An empirical study of entrepreneurs
affect and venture effort. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:108694
Fullagar CJ, Gallagher DG, Clark PF, Carroll AE. 2004. Union commitment and participation: a 10-year
longitudinal study. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:73037
George JM, Zhou J. 2002. Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones dont: the role of
context and clarity of feelings. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:68797
Glomb TM, Welsh ET. 2005. Can opposites attract? Personality heterogeneity in supervisor-subordinate
dyads as a predictor of subordinate outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:74957
Grandey AA, Tam AP, Brauburger AL. 2002. Affective states and traits in the workplace: diary and survey
data from young workers. Motiv. Emot. 26:3155
Hackman JR, Oldham GR. 1976. Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Organ. Behav. Hum.
Perf. 16:25079 Provides support for an
Harris MM, Anseel F, Lievens F. 2008. Keeping up with the Joneses: a eld study of the relationships among overall job attitude
upward, lateral, and downward comparisons and pay level satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:66573 factor and tests models
of its relationship to
Harrison DA, Newman DA, Roth PL. 2006. How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic compar-
withdrawal.
isons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Acad. Manage. J. 49:30525

Harter JK, Schmidt FL, Hayes TL. 2002. Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction,
employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:26879
Hausknecht JP, Hiller NJ, Vance RJ. 2008. Work-unit absenteeism: effects of satisfaction, commitment, labor
market conditions, and time. Acad. Manage. J. 51:122345
Hom PW, Kinicki AJ. 2001. Toward a greater understanding of how dissatisfaction drives employee turnover.
Acad. Manage. J. 44:97587
Hoppock R. 1935. Job Satisfaction. New York: Harper
Hulin CL. 2002. Lessons from industrial and organizational psychology. In The Psychology of Work: Theoretically
Based Empirical Research, ed. JM Brett, F Drasgow, pp. 322. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Hunter LW, Thatcher SMB. 2007. Feeling the heat: effects of stress, commitment, and job experience on job
performance. Acad. Manage. J. 50:95368
Hurtz GM, Williams KJ. 2009. Attitudinal and motivational antecedents of participation in voluntary employee
development activities. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:63553
Ilies R, Fulmer IS, Spitzmuller M, Johnson MD. 2009. Personality and citizenship behavior: the mediating
role of job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:94559
Ilies R, Judge TA. 2002. Understanding the dynamic relationships among personality, mood, and job satis-
faction: a eld experience sampling study. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. Process. 89:111939
Ilies R, Judge TA. 2004. An experience-sampling measure of job satisfaction and its relationships with affec-
tivity, mood at work, job beliefs, and general job satisfaction. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 13:36789
Ilies R, Scott BA, Judge TA. 2006. The interactive effects of personal traits and experienced states on intrain-
dividual patterns of citizenship behavior. Acad. Manage. J. 49:56175
Ironson GH, Smith PC, Brannick MT, Gibson WM, Paul KB. 1989. Construction of a Job in General scale:
a comparison of global, composite, and specic measures. J. Appl. Psychol. 74:193200
Jokisaari M, Nurmi J. 2009. Change in newcomers supervisor support and socialization outcomes after orga-
nizational entry. Acad. Manage. J. 52:52744
Judge TA, Bono JE. 2001. Relationship of core self-evaluations traitsself-esteem, generalized self-efcacy,
locus of control, and emotional stabilitywith job satisfaction and job performance: a meta-analysis.
Judge TA, Bono JE, Erez A, Locke EA. 2005. Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: the role of
self-concordance and goal attainment. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:25768
Judge TA, Bono JE, Locke EA. 2000. Personality and job satisfaction: the mediating role of job characteristics.
Judge TA, Heller D, Klinger R. 2008. The dispositional sources of job satisfaction: a comparative test.
Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 57:36172
Judge TA, Heller D, Mount MK. 2002. Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: a meta-analysis.
Judge TA, Hulin CL. 1993. Job satisfaction as a reection of disposition: a multiple source casual analysis.
Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 56:388421
Judge TA, Hulin CL, Dalal RS. 2011. Job satisfaction and job affect. In The Oxford Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, ed. SWJ Kozlowski. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Judge TA, Ilies R. 2004. Affect and job satisfaction: a study of their relationship at work and at home. J. Appl.
Psychol. 89:66173
Judge TA, Locke EA, Durham CC. 1997. The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: a core evaluations
approach. Res. Organ. Behav. 19:15188
Judge TA, Piccolo RF, Ilies R. 2004. The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure
in leadership research. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:3651
Judge TA, Scott BA, Ilies R. 2006. Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: test of a multilevel model.
Provides comprehensive
quantitative review of
Judge TA, Thoresen CJ, Bono JE, Patton GK. 2001. The job satisfactionjob performance relation-
the job satisfactionjob
ship: a qualitative and quantitative review. Psychol. Bull. 127:376407
performance
relationship. Judge TA, Watanabe S. 1993. Another look at the job satisfactionlife satisfaction relationship. J. Appl. Psychol.
78:93948

Judge TA, Welbourne TM. 1994. A conrmatory investigation of the dimensionality of the Pay Satisfaction
Questionnaire. J. Appl. Psychol. 79:46166
Kammeyer-Mueller JD, Wanberg CR, Glomb TM, Ahlburg D. 2005. The role of temporal shifts in turnover
processes: Its about time. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:64458
Kinicki AJ, McKee-Ryan FM, Schriesheim CA, Carson KP. 2002. Assessing the construct validity of the Job
Descriptive Index: a review and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:1432
Kunin T. 1955. The construction of a new type of attitude measure. Pers. Psychol. 8:6577
Lee TH, Gerhart B, Weller I, Trevor CO. 2008. Understanding voluntary turnover: path-specic job satis-
faction effects and the importance of unsolicited job offers. Acad. Manage. J. 51:65171
Liao H, Joshi A, Chuang A. 2004. Sticking out like a sore thumb: employee dissimilarity and deviance at work.
Pers. Psychol. 57:9691000
Liao H, Rupp DE. 2005. The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work outcomes: a cross-level
multifoci framework. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:24256
Loi R, Yang J, Diefendorff JM. 2009. Four-factor justice and daily job satisfaction: a multilevel investigation.
Lyubomirsky S, King L, Diener E. 2005. The benets of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to
success? Psychol. Bull. 131:80355
Magnusson D. 1999. Holistic interactionism: a perspective for research on personality development. In

Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, ed. LA Pervin, OP John, pp. 21947. New York: Guilford.
2nd ed.
Mattson RE, Paldino D, Johnson MD. 2007. The increased construct validity and clinical utility of assessing
relationship quality using separate positive and negative dimensions. Psychol. Assess. 19:14651
Mayer D, Nishii L, Schneider B, Goldstein H. 2007. The precursors and products of justice climates: group
leader antecedents and employee attitudinal consequences. Pers. Psychol. 60:92963
Meglino BM, Korsgaard MA. 2007. The role of other orientation in reactions to job characteristics. J. Manage.
33:5783
Meyer JP, Becker TE, Vandenberghe C. 2004. Employee commitment and motivation: a conceptual analysis
and integrative model. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:9911007
Meyer JP, Stanley DJ, Herscovitch L, Topolnytsksy L. 2002. Affective, continuance, and normative commit-
ment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. J. Vocat. Behav.
61:2052
Miner AG, Glomb TM. 2010. State mood, task performance, and behavior at work: a within-persons approach.
Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 112:4357
Miner AG, Glomb TM, Hulin C. 2005. Experience sampling mood and its correlates at work. J. Occup. Organ.
Psychol. 78:17193
Miner JB, Dachler HP. 1973. Personnel attitudes and motivation. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 24:379402
Mischel W, Shoda Y. 1998. Reconciling processing dynamics and personality dispositions. Annu. Rev. Psychol.
49:22958
Morgeson FP, Humphrey SE. 2006. The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): developing and validating a
comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:132139
Netemeyer RG, Maxham JG, Lichtenstein DR. 2010. Store manager performance and satisfaction: effects on
store employee performance and satisfaction, store customer satisfaction, and store customer spending
growth. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:53045
Neuman GA, Edwards JE, Raju NS. 1989. Organizational development interventions: a meta-analysis of their
effects on satisfaction and other attitudes. Pers. Psychol. 42:46189
Ng TWH, Feldman DC, Lam SSK. 2010. Psychological contract breaches, organizational commitment, and
innovation-related behaviors: a latent growth modeling approach. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:74451
Olson JM, Zanna MP. 1993. Attitudes and attitude change. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 44:11754
OReilly CA. 1991. Organizational behavior: where weve been, where were going. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 42:427
58
OReilly CA, Chatman J. 1986. Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: the effects of
compliance, identication, and internalization of prosocial behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 71:49299

Organ DW, Ryan K. 1995. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational
citizenship behavior. Pers. Psychol. 48:775802
Parsons CK, Hulin CL. 1982. An empirical comparison of item response theory and hierarchical factor analysis
in applications to the measurement of job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 67:82634
Power MJ. 2006. The structure of emotion: an empirical comparison of six models. Cogn. Emot. 20:694713
Rentsch JR, Steel RP. 1992. Construct and concurrent validation of the Andrews and Withey job satisfaction
questionnaire. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 52:35767
Rich BL, Lepine JA, Crawford ER. 2010. Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job performance. Acad.
Manage. J. 53:61735
Tests underlying causal Riketta M. 2008. The causal relation between job attitudes and performance: a meta-analysis of panel
directions of the studies. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:47281
relationship between Rizzo JR, House RJ, Lirtzman SI. 1970. Role conict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Admin. Sci. Q.
job attitudes and 15:15063
performance.
Schaubroeck J, Shaw JD, Duffy MK, Mitra A. 2008. An under-met and over-met expectations model of
employee reactions to merit raises. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:42434
Schleicher DJ, Watt JD, Greguras GJ. 2004. Reexamining the job satisfaction-performance relationship: the
complexity of attitudes. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:16577
Schneider B, Hanges PJ, Smith DB, Salvaggio AN. 2003. Which comes rst: employee attitudes or organiza-
tional nancial and market performance? J. Appl. Psychol. 88:83651
A study that illustrates Seibert SE, Silver SR, Randolph WA. 2004. Taking empowerment to the next level: a multiple-level
the insights produced model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Acad. Manage. J. 47:33249
by multilevel Shipton HJ, West MA, Parkes CL, Dawson JF, Patterson MG. 2006. When promoting positive feelings pays:
conceptualizations of aggregate job satisfaction, work design features, and innovation in manufacturing organizations. Eur. J.
job attitudes.
Work Organ. Psychol. 15:40430
Sinclair RR, Tucker JS, Cullen JC, Wright C. 2005. Performance differences among four organizational
commitment proles. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:128087
Smith PC, Kendall L, Hulin CL. 1969. The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement: A Strategy for
the Study of Attitudes. Chicago: Rand McNally
Reviews theoretical Solinger ON, van Olffen W, Roe RA. 2008. Beyond the three-component model of organizational
bases for attitudes commitment. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:7083
research, with a special Staw BM. 1984. Organizational behavior: a review and reformulation of the elds outcome variables. Annu.
focus on bringing Rev. Psychol. 35:62766
commitment research
Staw BM, Bell NE, Clausen JA. 1986. The dispositional approach to job attitudes: a lifetime longitu-
more in line with
dinal test. Admin. Sci. Q. 31:43753
general attitudes
research.
Staw BM, Ross J. 1985. Stability in the midst of change: a dispositional approach to job attitudes. J. Appl.
Psychol. 70:46980
Takeuchi R, Chen G, Lepak DP. 2009. Through the looking glass of a social system: cross-level effects of
An early and important
high-performance work systems on employees attitudes. Pers. Psychol. 62:129
paper suggesting the
importance of
Tepper BJ. 2000. Consequences of abusive supervision. Acad. Manage. J. 43:17890
personality to job Totterdell P, Wall T, Holman D, Diamond H, Epitropaki O. 2004. Affect networks: a structural analysis of
attitudes. the relationship between work ties and job-related affect. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:85467
Trevor CO. 2001. Interactions among actual ease-of-movement determinants and job satisfaction in the
prediction of voluntary turnover. Acad. Manage. J. 44:62138
Trougakos JP, Jackson CL, Beal DJ. 2011. Service without a smile: comparing the consequences of neutral
and positive display rules. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:35062
Tsai W, Chen C, Liu H. 2007. Test of a model linking employee positive moods and task performance.
Wanberg CR, Glomb TM, Song Z, Sorenson S. 2005. Job-search persistence during unemployment: a 10-
wave longitudinal study. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:41130
Watson D. 2000. Mood and Temperament. New York: Guilford
Watson D, Slack AK. 1993. General factors of affective temperament and their relation to job satisfaction over
time. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 54:181202

Wegge J, van Dick R, Fisher GK, West MA, Dawson JF. 2006. A test of basic assumptions of Affective Events
Theory (AET) in call centre work. Br. J. Manage. 17:23754
Weiss HM, Cropanzano R. 1996. Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion of the structure, A seminal article
causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Res. Organ. Behav. 19:174 providing a framework
Weiss HM, Nicholas JP, Daus CS. 1999. An examination of the joint effects of affective experiences and job for the study of moods
beliefs on job satisfaction and variations in affective experiences over time. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. and emotions in job
attitudes research.
Process. 78:124
Williams ML, McDaniel MA, Nguyen NT. 2006. A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of
pay level satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:392413
Wright TA, Bonett DG. 2002. The moderating effects of employee tenure on the relation between organiza-
tional commitment and job performance: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:118390
Zhou J, George JM. 2001. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging the expression of voice.
Acad. Manage. J. 44:68296

PS63-FrontMatter ARI 10 November 2011 9:52
Annual Review of
Psychology
Volume 63, 2012 Contents
Prefatory
Working Memory: Theories, Models, and Controversies
Alan Baddeley p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Developmental Psychobiology
Learning to See Words
Brian A. Wandell, Andreas M. Rauschecker, and Jason D. Yeatman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p31

Memory
Remembering in Conversations: The Social Sharing
and Reshaping of Memories
William Hirst and Gerald Echterhoff p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p55
Judgment and Decision Making
Experimental Philosophy
Joshua Knobe, Wesley Buckwalter, Shaun Nichols, Philip Robbins,
Hagop Sarkissian, and Tamler Sommers p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p81
Brain Imaging/Cognitive Neuroscience
Distributed Representations in Memory: Insights from Functional
Brain Imaging
Jesse Rissman and Anthony D. Wagner p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 101
Neuroscience of Learning
Fear Extinction as a Model for Translational Neuroscience:
Ten Years of Progress
Mohammed R. Milad and Gregory J. Quirk p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 129
Comparative Psychology
The Evolutionary Origins of Friendship
Robert M. Seyfarth and Dorothy L. Cheney p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 153
Emotional, Social, and Personality Development
Religion, Morality, Evolution
Paul Bloom p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 179
vi
Adulthood and Aging

Consequences of Age-Related Cognitive Declines
Timothy Salthouse p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 201
Development in Societal Context
Child Development in the Context of Disaster, War, and Terrorism:
Pathways of Risk and Resilience
Ann S. Masten and Angela J. Narayan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 227
Social Development, Social Personality, Social Motivation, Social Emotion
Social Functionality of Human Emotion
Paula M. Niedenthal and Markus Brauer p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 259
Social Neuroscience
Mechanisms of Social Cognition
Chris D. Frith and Uta Frith p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 287

Personality Processes
Personality Processes: Mechanisms by Which Personality Traits
Get Outside the Skin
Sarah E. Hampson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 315
Work Attitudes
Job Attitudes
Timothy A. Judge and John D. Kammeyer-Mueller p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 341
The Individual Experience of Unemployment
Connie R. Wanberg p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 369
Job/Work Analysis
The Rise and Fall of Job Analysis and the Future of Work Analysis
Juan I. Sanchez and Edward L. Levine p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 397
Education of Special Populations
Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) and Reading Fluency:
Implications for Understanding and Treatment of Reading Disabilities
Elizabeth S. Norton and Maryanne Wolf p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 427
Human Abilities
Intelligence
Ian J. Deary p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 453
Research Methodology
Decoding Patterns of Human Brain Activity
Frank Tong and Michael S. Pratte p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 483
Contents vii
Human Intracranial Recordings and Cognitive Neuroscience

Roy Mukamel and Itzhak Fried p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 511
Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research
and Recommendations on How to Control It
Philip M. Podsakoff, Scott B. MacKenzie, and Nathan P. Podsakoff p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 539
Neuroscience Methods
Neuroethics: The Ethical, Legal, and Societal Impact of Neuroscience
Martha J. Farah p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 571
Indexes
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 5363 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 593

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 5363 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 598
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Psychology articles may be found at

http://psych.AnnualReviews.org/errata.shtml
viii Contents

Jobattitudes PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jobattitudes PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jobattitudes PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PS63CH14-Judge ARI 31 October 2011 12:16

Our comprehensive search

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012. 63:34167 Keywords

Contents Early Inuences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352

DISCRETE JOB ATTITUDES . . 346 Organizational Practices . . . . . . . 356

Global Job Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . 347

INTRODUCTION attitudes research. These reviews tended to

342 Judge Kammeyer-Mueller

www.annualreviews.org Job Attitudes 343

been noted in social attitudes research. First,

344 Judge Kammeyer-Mueller

www.annualreviews.org Job Attitudes 345

by what (What role do discrete emotional

346 Judge Kammeyer-Mueller

www.annualreviews.org Job Attitudes 347

348 Judge Kammeyer-Mueller

www.annualreviews.org Job Attitudes 349

A meta-analysis of this literature found that STATES AND TRAITS IN JOB

ory, termed Affective Events Theory (AET),

350 Judge Kammeyer-Mueller

between-person and within-person variation in or discrete emotional states to job attitudes

www.annualreviews.org Job Attitudes 351

352 Judge Kammeyer-Mueller

Specific Dispositions might ask what either taxonomy adds beyond

and occupational quality variables (Watson &

isfaction: (a) CSEs/neuroticism (all four core

www.annualreviews.org Job Attitudes 353

uational antecedents of job attitudes that has

istics model. Most research has examined how

354 Judge Kammeyer-Mueller

satisfaction, job involvement, and organiza- Leadership

www.annualreviews.org Job Attitudes 355

356 Judge Kammeyer-Mueller

www.annualreviews.org Job Attitudes 357

formance has long been of interest to organi-

that there is indeed a substantial relationship

358 Judge Kammeyer-Mueller

to positive behavioral decisions at work in the

titudes are expected to relate to a broad class of

and unit-level absence is also stronger when the

360 Judge Kammeyer-Mueller

predicted by other meaningful concepts).

in predicting overall job satisfaction.

www.annualreviews.org Job Attitudes 361

362 Judge Kammeyer-Mueller

www.annualreviews.org Job Attitudes 363

364 Judge Kammeyer-Mueller

Magnusson D. 1999. Holistic interactionism: a perspective for research on personality development. In

www.annualreviews.org Job Attitudes 365

366 Judge Kammeyer-Mueller

www.annualreviews.org Job Attitudes 367

Volume 63, 2012 Contents

Brian A. Wandell, Andreas M. Rauschecker, and Jason D. Yeatman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p31

Adulthood and Aging

Chris D. Frith and Uta Frith p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 287

Human Intracranial Recordings and Cognitive Neuroscience

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 5363 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 593

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Psychology articles may be found at

You might also like