Job Attitudes - m.timothy-judge.comm.timothy-judge.com/documents/Jobattitudes.pdf · We then...

PS63CH14-Judge ARI 31 October 2011 12:16

Job AttitudesTimothy A. Judge1 and John D. Kammeyer-Mueller2

1Mendoza College of Business, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556;email: [email protected] of Management, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611;email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2012. 63:341–67

The Annual Review of Psychology is online atpsych.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100511

Copyright c© 2012 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

0066-4308/12/0110-0341$20.00

Keywords

job attitudes, job satisfaction, mood, emotions, personality,performance

Abstract

Job attitudes research is arguably the most venerable and popular topicin organizational psychology. This article surveys the field as it hasbeen constituted in the past several years. Definitional issues are ad-dressed first, in an attempt to clarify the nature, scope, and structureof job attitudes. The distinction between cognitive and affective basesof job attitudes has been an issue of debate, and recent research usingwithin-persons designs has done much to inform this discussion. Recentresearch has also begun to reformulate the question of dispositional orsituational influences on employee attitudes by addressing how thesefactors might work together to influence attitudes. Finally, there hasalso been a continual growth in research investigating how employeeattitudes are related to a variety of behaviors at both the individual andaggregated level of analysis.

341

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Contents

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342WHAT ARE JOB

ATTITUDES? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343Link Between Job Attitudes

and Social Attitudes . . . . . . . . 343Definition of Job Attitudes . . . . . 344Multifaceted Nature of Job

Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345Recent Emphasis on Affect . . . . . 345Multilevel, Experience-

Sampling Designs . . . . . . . . . . 346DISCRETE JOB ATTITUDES . . 346

Defining the Construct Space . . 346Global Job Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . 347Facets of Job Satisfaction . . . . . . 348Organizational Commitment . . 349Attitudes Toward Behaviors. . . . 350

STATES AND TRAITS IN JOBATTITUDES RESEARCH . . . 350Affective Events Theory . . . . . . . 350Recent Research on

Within-Individual Variationin Job Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . 351

DISPOSITIONALANTECEDENTS OF JOBATTITUDES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352

Early Influences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352Specific Dispositions . . . . . . . . . . 353Core Self-Evaluations . . . . . . . . . 353Integration of State

and Trait Perspectives . . . . . . 354SITUATIONAL

ANTECEDENTS OFJOB ATTITUDES . . . . . . . . . . . 354Job Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . 354Social Environment

Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355Organizational Practices . . . . . . . 356Time and Job Attitudes . . . . . . . . 356

OUTCOMES OF JOBATTITUDES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357Task Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 358Creative Performance . . . . . . . . . 358Citizenship Behavior . . . . . . . . . . 359Withdrawal/

Counterproductivity . . . . . . . . 359Organizational

Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360

INTRODUCTION

Job attitudes are one of the oldest, most popu-lar, and most influential areas of inquiry in allof organizational psychology. As of this writing,the PsycINFO database reveals 33,348 recordspertaining to “job attitudes,” “work attitudes,”“job satisfaction,” or “organizational commit-ment.” Of these entries, one of those terms ap-pears in the title of 6,397 entries, and the trendappears to be accelerating. We are thereforepleased—and a bit daunted—to provide the firstreview of this literature for the Annual Reviewof Psychology. Previous reviewers (e.g., Brief &Weiss 2002, Miner & Dachler 1973, O’Reilly1991, Staw 1984) have made reference to job

attitudes research. These reviews tended totreat the job attitudes literature in brief, or inservice of another topic. In this review, we focusexclusively on job attitudes.

Despite this exclusive focus on job attitudes,given the breadth and depth of job attitudes re-search, we must place several bounds on thisreview. As is the tradition of the Annual Re-view of Psychology, we purposely orient our re-view with a recency bias in that we considernewer and current topics to a greater degreethan older ones. Similarly, most of our citationsare relatively recent works (articles publishedin the past 10 years). However, our focus onthe current status of the job attitudes literaturedoes not mean that we ignore the traditional

342 Judge · Kammeyer-Mueller

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


contributions of job attitudes research. Fi-nally, our bibliography is selective rather thanexhaustive.

In organizing this review, we first discuss thenature of and define job attitudes in the contextof the larger social attitudes literature. We de-vote a substantial amount of space to discussionsof discrete job attitudes, including job satisfac-tion, organizational commitment, and other at-titudes. We then discuss states and traits in jobattitudes research, including emotions and dis-positional influences. We examine situationalantecedents, including a discussion of how joband organizational characteristics and the socialenvironment affect job attitudes. We concludeby reviewing research linking job attitudes toprominent work behaviors and outcomes.

WHAT ARE JOB ATTITUDES?

Link Between Job Attitudesand Social Attitudes

The substantive nature of job attitudes flowsfrom the broader literature on social attitudes,so we begin our review by discussing howthese literatures are related. A job attitude,of course, is a type of attitude, and thereforeit is important to place job attitudes researchin the broader context of social attitudesresearch. As noted by Olson & Zanna (1993,p. 119), “Despite the long history of researchon attitudes, there is no universally agreed-upon definition.” Perhaps the most widelyaccepted definition of an attitude, however,was provided by Eagly & Chaiken (1993, p. 1):“A psychological tendency that is expressedby evaluating a particular entity with somedegree of favor or disfavor.” Thus, the conceptof evaluation is a unifying theme in attitudesresearch. One problem for attitudes researchis that individuals may form an evaluationof (and thus hold an attitude about) a nearlylimitless number of entities. Some of theseattitudes may border on the trivial, at least ina general psychological sense (we may havean attitude about a famous actor, about oakwood, or about the color green), or may be

Job satisfaction: anevaluative state thatexpresses contentmentwith and positivefeelings about one’sjob

Organizationalcommitment: anindividual’spsychological bondwith the organization,as represented by anaffective attachment tothe organization, afeeling of loyaltytoward it, and anintention to remain aspart of it

Job attitudes:evaluations of one’sjob that express one’sfeelings toward, beliefsabout, and attachmentto one’s job

Attitude:a psychologicaltendency that isexpressed byevaluating a particularentity with somedegree of favor ordisfavor (of which jobattitudes are examples)

sufficiently segmented that they are only ofspecialized interest (e.g., an attitude aboutprivate enterprise, about expressionist art, etc.).Given this multiplicity of attitude objects, whyis it justified to consider job attitudes as animportant and central aspect of social attitudes?

There are three ways to answer this ques-tion. First, though it is reasonable, perhaps evennecessary, to view job attitudes as social atti-tudes, there are important differences betweenthese research traditions; the differences maytell us as much about social attitudes as theydo about job attitudes. Though the attitudesliterature has revealed many important and in-teresting insights, on the whole, the literatureis limited in the range of populations, settings,and content or targets of the attitudes. As Judgeet al. (2011) have noted, the limitations are inthe form of what (e.g., overwhelmingly, politi-cal or cultural attitudes or identities as opposedto contextual attitudes about one’s job, one’slife, one’s family, etc.), with whom (e.g., heavyreliance on college undergraduates, which maylimit the scope and nature of the investigations),and how (e.g., behavior is often not studied or isstudied in a sterile, though well-controlled, ex-perimental context) attitudes are studied. Thatthe job attitudes literature provides differentcontexts, populations, and methods for studiessuggests that social attitudes researchers wouldbenefit as much from reading the job attitudesliterature as the converse.

Second, job attitudes are important insofaras jobs are important entities. Even in times ofeconomic duress, the vast majority of the adultpopulation age 25–75 is employed in some ca-pacity (most adults have a job). Although thetime people spend working obviously variesgreatly by the person, the average person spendsmore time working than in any other wakingactivity. But the meaning of work to individu-als goes far beyond time allocation. As Hulin(2002) noted, people’s identities often hingeon their work, as evidenced by how the typ-ical person responds to the question, “Whatdo you do?” or “What are you?” Job attitudesare also closely related to more global measuresof life satisfaction ( Judge & Watanabe 1993).

www.annualreviews.org • Job Attitudes 343

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Job attitudes matter because jobs matter—topeople’s identities, to their health, and to theirevaluations of their lives.

Third and finally, like any attitude (Olson &Zanna 1993), job attitudes matter to the extentthey predict important behavior. This hasbeen the dominant assumption in job attitudesresearch to such an extent that it is relativelyrare to find an article in the top organizationaljournals that does not link job attitudes tobehaviors. Although it certainly is not ourargument that job attitudes are irrelevant tobehavior—as we note, the evidence is clear thatthey are relevant—we also think job attituderesearch would benefit from some nuances inthe attitude-behavior relationship that havebeen noted in social attitudes research. First,behavior may shape attitudes. This has been aprominent area of investigation in the attitudesliterature generally, but curiously relativelylittle effort has been made on this front injob attitudes research ( Judge et al. 2011).Second, as some have argued in the attitudesliterature (e.g., Fazio & Olson 2003), thetripartite nature of attitudes—affect, cognition,and behavior—although an important heuris-tic representation, has its problems. Mostsignificantly, research suggests that attitudescan form as a result of any one of these threefactors in isolation, and that an affectivelybased attitude, for example, functions quitedifferently from a cognitively based attitude.Another problem is the assumption that allthree components must be consistent with oneanother, which also is not supported by reviewsof the literature that show even strongly heldattitudes may not be manifested in behavior.Affect and cognitive components of attitudescan be at odds with one another and, as we notebelow, are quite difficult to separate in practice.

While keeping these concerns in mind,we address the departure of the study of jobattitudes from the original tripartite definitionsof social attitudes that emphasize cognitive,affective, and behavioral elements of attitudespace but try to separate these aspects fromone another as appropriate. Past studies on jobsatisfaction have focused on judgment-based,

cognitive evaluations of jobs on characteristicsor features of jobs and generally ignored affec-tive antecedents of evaluations of jobs as wellas the episodic events that happen on jobs. Ac-cordingly, we devote considerable space in thisreview to the affective nature of job satisfactionand how consideration of job affect necessitatesrevision in how we conceptualize and measurejob attitudes, how we relate the concept toother variables, and how we study job attitudesand affect. Other topics—such as job attitudesat the between-unit level of analysis and thecontrast between job attitudes and relatedphenomena like descriptions of a situation andmotivation for behavior—are also discussed.

Definition of Job Attitudes

We define job attitudes as follows: Job attitudesare evaluations of one’s job that express one’sfeelings toward, beliefs about, and attachmentto one’s job. This definition encompasses boththe cognitive and affective components of theseevaluations while recognizing that these cogni-tive and affective aspects need not be in exactcorrespondence with one another (Schleicheret al. 2004). Although this definition is relativelysimple, there are nuances and complexities thatunderlie it.

In this definition, we consider “job” a broadterm that encompasses one’s current position(obvious), one’s work or one’s occupation (lessobvious), and one’s employer (less obviousstill). One’s attitudes toward one’s work neednot be isomorphic with one’s attitudes towardone’s employer, and indeed these often diverge.Moreover, within each of these targets thereare more specific targets whose boundaries arenecessarily fuzzy. For example, is an attitude to-ward one’s advancement opportunities an eval-uation of one’s job, one’s occupation, or one’semployer? To be sure, job attitudes have somehierarchical structure with global attitudes asa composite of lower-order, more specific at-titudes (Harrison et al. 2006, Parsons & Hulin1982). Yet delineating this structure across verydifferent types of work, careers, and employersis difficult. It is possible that the structure of job


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


attitudes for an associate professor of medievalhistory at a prestigious university, a drive-upwindow worker at Burger King, and a stone-mason are the same, but we are agnostic.

Multifaceted Nature of Job Attitudes

Job attitudes are multifaceted in their compo-sition, in their structure, and in their temporalnature. Employees, of course, do not haveonly one job attitude. The composition ofattitudes employees have about their job andtheir work vary along many dimensions, mostnotably their target (e.g., their pay versus theirsupervision), their specificity (e.g., their mostrecent pay raise versus their job as a whole),and their nature (e.g., evaluative assessmentsversus behavioral propensities). Structurally,job attitudes are hierarchically organized,with perhaps an overall job attitude being themost general factor, followed by still relativelygeneral job attitudes such as overall job satisfac-tion, organizational commitment, and perhapsothers, followed by more specific attitudes suchas job satisfaction facets, specific dimensions oforganizational commitment, and so on.

Are job attitudes latent variables—top-downconstructs that are indicated by their morespecific attitudes—or manifest variables—bottom-up constructs composed of theirlower-order terms? Although clarity in think-ing about concepts is often recommendedin this literature (Bollen 2002), considerableconfusion can be created by drawing false di-chotomies. Specifically, we think job attitudesmay be either manifest or latent, dependingon how the researcher wishes to treat them(see also Ironson et al. 1989). Clearly, whenconsidering the facets of job satisfaction, it is amanifest variable in that overall job satisfactionis composed of more specific satisfactionsin different domains. Just as clearly, though,broad job attitudes can be latent variables in thesense that individuals’ general attitudes abouttheir job cause specific attitudes to be positivelycorrelated. Thus, although it is important forresearchers to consider the issue and to beclear about their treatment of attitudes, we do

not think that conceptualizations or measuresof job attitudes are advanced by forcing falsedichotomies into the literature. One researchermay treat overall job satisfaction as a latentconstruct and another may treat it as manifest.Although this is not a problem, the purposes ofthe research, and the modeling of the data, willof course be different under each approach.

Recent Emphasis on Affect

In our definition of job attitudes, we havepurposely included both cognition (beliefs) andaffect (feelings). We have learned, however, thataffect and cognition are not easily separable.Neuropsychology has shown us that the think-ing and feeling parts of the brain, although sep-arable in architecture, are inextricably linked inoperation (Adolphs & Damasio 2001). Higher-level cognition relies on evaluative input in theform of emotion; cognition and emotion areinterwoven in our psychological functioning.Evidence indicates that when individuals per-form specific mental operations, a reciprocalrelationship exists between cerebral areasspecialized for processing emotions and thosespecialized for processing cognitions (Drevets& Raichle 1998). Even measures of affect aresubstantially cognitive in nature (e.g., Ashbyet al. 1999). As applied to job attitudes, whenwe think about our jobs, we have feelings aboutwhat we think. When we have feelings while atwork, we think about these feelings. Cognitionand affect are thus intimately related, and thisconnection is not easy to separate for psychol-ogy in general and job attitudes in particular.Although an evaluation of the nature of one’sjob may seem affect free in theory, it is practi-cally impossible for one to evaluate one’s payas poor in an affect-free manner. New method-ologies assist in this separation, but we do notbelieve this is a methodological issue. Rather,to a nontrivial degree, cognition and affect areinseparable, a statement that, if true, appliesequally well to social and to job attitudes.

The difficulty of separating cognition andaffect notwithstanding, historically, it is fair tosay that organizational psychology theory and


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Experience-samplingmethodology (ESM):a method of datacollection, where jobattitudes or otherpsychological statesare measuredrepeatedly (such asonce a day or moreoften) over time

measures have implicitly emphasized the cog-nitive nature of job attitudes (and, for reasonsnoted above, their behavioral consequences) tothe neglect of their affective nature ( Judge et al.2011). In recent years, however, the pendulumhas swung in the other direction, and there hasbeen more progress on the affective compo-nents of job satisfaction, especially as they varyover time, with less attention to the importanceof cognitive aspects of satisfaction. The asser-tion that researchers have variously emphasizedcognition or affect may seem at odds with theprevious one: If affect and cognition are in-separable, how can organizational psychologistshave emphasized one over the other? To somedegree, this apparent contradiction is answeredby “what” (What role do discrete emotionalstates play in job attitudes?) and “how” (If jobattitudes are affective in nature, does this neces-sarily alter the way in which they are studied?).We reserve discussion of the “what” questionfor later (see section titled State and Traits inJob Attitudes Research). We now turn to the“how” question.

Multilevel, Experience-SamplingDesigns

If affect is central to a definition of job attitudes,a problem for job attitudes researchers is thataffective reactions are likely to be fleeting andepisodic. Lest researchers become enmeshedin a methodological stalemate—where the at-tempt to study propositions of newly developedtheories is hamstrung by methods and analysesappropriate only to the needs of an older gen-eration of theoretical models—the conceptual-ization and measurement of job attitudes arealtered by the central role of affect. Put anotherway, if job attitudes are, at least in part, affectivereactions, then job attitudes need to be mea-sured in ways that are consistent with the nec-essarily ephemeral nature of affect.

Increasingly, job attitudes researchers haveresponded to this problem through the useof experience-sampling methodology (ESM),where job attitudes are measured once a dayover a period of a week or two, or even several

times a day (e.g., Ilies & Judge 2002, Miner et al.2005, Weiss et al. 1999). One great advantageof ESM designs is that they permit multilevelmodeling of job attitudes, which allows forboth within-individual (state) and between-individual (trait) effects. This research hasshown that when job attitudes are measured onan experience-sampled basis, roughly one-thirdto one-half of the variation in job satisfactionis within-individual variation. Thus, typical“one-shot” between-person research designsmiss a considerable portion of the variance injob satisfaction by treating within-individualvariation as a transient error. We have more tosay on this issue in the section titled States andTraits in Job Attitude Research.

DISCRETE JOB ATTITUDES

Defining the Construct Space

Having covered definitional material related toattitudes in general, we now turn our attentionto discrete job attitudes. Research in organi-zational behavior has been largely conductedthrough the use of Likert scale measures of avariety of attitudes, perceptions, intentions, andmotivations. Although on the surface many ofthese scales are similar in format and are closelycorrelated with one another, a large proportionof these scales do not measure attitudes and thusfall outside the scope of this review. We con-sider how measures of perceptions, intentions,and motivations are different from attitudes be-low, with special attention to where these con-structs might fit in a causal sequence.

First, it is important to differentiate atti-tudes from perceptions and descriptions. Manyvariables are like attitudes, in that they involvecognitive judgments, and may lead to behav-ioral responses. However, these constructs arenot attitudes if they do not include an explicitappraisal or evaluation of the object in questionas it relates to personal values. For example, al-though role clarity scales (e.g., Rizzo et al. 1970)ask respondents to describe the extent to whichtheir organization has clearly defined policiesand procedures, routines, and expectations for


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


behavior, role clarity scales do not ask respon-dents to evaluate whether they find the policies,procedures, routines, and expectations goodor bad, or excessive or insufficient. Thus, theevaluative component central to our definitionof attitudes is missing. Similarly, most measuresof organizational justice (e.g., Colquitt 2001)require respondents to describe how theirorganization treats them but do not requirerespondents to evaluate whether they like thetreatment they receive. These perception-based scales are typically conceptualized asantecedents to attitudes (e.g., role clarity andjustice lead to satisfaction) rather than asattitudes themselves. It is true that the JobDescriptive Index ( JDI) (Smith et al. 1969),as its name implies, asks employees to de-scribe their jobs. However, it is importantto remember that many if not most of thesedescriptions are heavily evaluative in nature(e.g., pay is “BAD,” work is “PLEASANT,”etc.). Most measures of job attitudes are evenmore evaluative.

Second, general attitudes should be differ-entiated from attitudes toward behavior andintentions to engage in behaviors. There is aclear link between attitudes and intentions at aconceptual and empirical level. However, thetheories of reasoned action and planned be-havior (Ajzen 1991), which are the justificationfor much of the research on attitudes and in-tentions, clearly describe attitudes toward anobject, attitudes toward a behavior, and inten-tions to perform a behavior as three distinctconstructs occupying distinct places in a causalchain. Unlike attitudes toward a behavior, in-tentions are shaped by both opportunities toperform an action as well as social norms of oth-ers toward the behavior in question. Consistentwith this differentiation of attitudes from in-tentions and action, a growing body of researchwe consider in a later section has shown thatsituational variables moderate the relationshipbetween attitudes and behavior.

Third, motivational constructs such as effortexpended toward a task and job engagementshould also be differentiated from job attitudes.Most research agrees that engagement reflects

Job DescriptiveIndex ( JDI): perhapsthe most validatedmeasure of jobsatisfaction. Inaddition to aJob-In-General scale,the JDI includes thesatisfaction facets:work, supervision,coworkers, pay, andpromotion

investment or involvement of one’s physical,cognitive, and emotional energy in workperformance (Rich et al. 2010). However,one’s evaluations of these investments is notassessed—only the existence or nonexistenceof these investments. Thus, engagementreflects how one directs one’s energies, ratherthan an attitude toward the behavior, job, ororganization. Motivational energies are likelyto be influenced by, and to influence, attitudes,but the actual energy to achieve ends and one’sattitudes toward the sources and objects ofthese energies are distinct constructs.

In sum, researchers should carefully differ-entiate attitude measures from descriptions ofthe work environment, intentions to act onthe work environment, and motivations. Thesevariables are conceptually closely related to oneanother and are likely to covary, but consid-erable definitional and theoretical work hasbeen devoted to the differentiation of theseconstructs from one another, and researcherswould be well advised to consider their mod-els in light of what theory proposes they shouldmeasure and how these measures will relate toother constructs of interest.

With these thoughts in mind, we define jobsatisfaction as follows: Job satisfaction is an eval-uative state that expresses contentment with,and positive feelings about, one’s job. As is ap-parent in this definition, we include both cogni-tion (contentment) and affect (positive feelings)in our definition. Our definition also impliesthat overall or global job satisfaction resultsfrom a process of evaluation—typically, thatconsists of evaluation of one’s job facets or char-acteristics. This leads to the next section of ourreview—the interplay between global or overalljob satisfaction and job satisfaction facets.

Global Job Attitudes

Another issue that pertains to job attitudes re-search is the level of specificity at which at-titudes are measured. There are studies thatmeasure global attitudes toward one’s job, theorganization, and the social environment asa whole, which can be contrasted with more


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Job performance:employee behaviorsthat are consistentwith role expectationsand that contribute toorganizationaleffectiveness;composed of taskperformance,citizenship behavior,withdrawal/counterproductivity,and creativeperformance

narrowly defined scales that measure specificfacets of job attitudes. Conceptually, the band-width of measures should show fidelity to thevariables expected to correlate with them (Fish-bein & Ajzen 1974). If one wants to under-stand broad phenomena like overall total work-ing conditions or job performance, broad at-titudes such as overall job satisfaction shouldbe examined. Conversely, if one is interested inmore specific phenomena, such as the effect ofcompensation practices on employee attitudesor the impact of attitudes on helping behav-ior, more specific attitudes such as satisfactionwith pay or coworkers should be examined. Themost relevant level of attitudinal specificity willdepend on the bandwidth of the antecedentsand consequences under consideration.

Overall job satisfaction is probably the mostresearched attitude in organizational behavior.This global approach is exemplified by scalessuch as the affect-centric “faces” scale (Kunin1955), Likert scales asking respondents to di-rectly describe their level of satisfaction withwork (Brayfield & Rothe 1951), or the morecognitive “job in general” scale (e.g., Ironsonet al. 1989). These global measures attempt tocapture an overarching level of satisfaction withthe job across a variety of attributes. Theseglobal scales either ask respondents to indi-cate their overall reaction to the job as a wholeor ask them for their summary judgment ofall aspects of the job including work, pay, su-pervision, coworkers, and promotion opportu-nities. The principle of fidelity suggests thatsuch global scales are likely to be best predictedby broad measures of the respondent, suchas affective disposition or aggregate measuresof job characteristics, and to be predictive ofbroad criteria such as job performance or workwithdrawal.

Facets of Job Satisfaction

From an alternative perspective, researchersare often interested in the relative importanceof specific facets of satisfaction. Much of theresearch on facet-level satisfaction has used the

JDI (Smith et al. 1969). The five facets of jobsatisfaction examined in the JDI are satisfactionwith work, supervision, coworkers, pay, andpromotions. These five facets are related to oneanother, but they show discriminant validityas well, with meta-analytic correlations amongdimensions of satisfaction averaging about r =0.2 to r = 0.3 (Kinicki et al. 2002), though ourexperiences with these facets suggest somewhathigher intercorrelations. The MinnesotaSatisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) and theIndex of Organizational Reactions (IOR) alsomeasure satisfaction with the same or similardimensions (e.g., the MSQ has a dimensionof advancement) and include other subdimen-sions as well (e.g., the MSQ has dimensions onjob security and social status, among others).There are substantial correlations betweenthese disparate measures’ scores for eachdimension (Kinicki et al. 2002), though not sohigh as to suggest that there is no meaningfulunique variance attributable to each dimension.Because of the importance of the JDI facetsto job satisfaction research, we now considerthese five satisfaction facets in turn.

Evidence from several lines of inquirysuggests that the facet of job satisfaction thatis most closely related to global measures issatisfaction with the work itself. Of the facets,satisfaction with the work itself also has thestrongest correlations with global measures ofsatisfaction (Ironson et al. 1989, Rentsch &Steel 1992). The antecedents of work satisfac-tion have been the subject of much research.The model of job characteristics described byHackman & Oldham (1976) has received agreat deal of support. This model proposes thatskill variety, task identity, task significance,autonomy, and feedback all contribute to em-ployee satisfaction with their work. Consistentwith this model at a higher level of analysis,recent research has confirmed that employeeempowerment climate in groups is associatedwith higher levels of individual job satisfaction(Seibert et al. 2004). There is also evidence thatindividuals who are higher in other orientationhave weaker relationships between work


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


attributes and job satisfaction, which suggeststhat those who are less likely to pursue theirself-interest in a systematic way are less proneto form satisfaction judgments based on therational, calculating model proposed by jobcharacteristics theory (Meglino & Korsgaard2007).

There are also numerous studies that havefocused specifically on employee satisfactionwith organizational practices such as compen-sation and promotion policies. The dimen-sionality of pay satisfaction questionnaires hasbeen examined, and research suggests that thefour main dimensions of pay satisfaction in-clude pay level, benefits, pay raise, and struc-ture/administration (e.g., Judge & Welbourne1994). Theoretical models of overall pay satis-faction suggest that satisfaction with compensa-tion is based on a small discrepancy between theamount of pay that is received and the amountof pay the worker believes he or she shouldreceive (Williams et al. 2006). Meta-analysisshows that comparisons of one’s own pay toothers have very strong correlations with paysatisfaction, whether the target of comparisonsis internal to the organization (r = 0.56, rc =0.94) or external to the organization (r = 0.57,rc = 1.00) (Williams et al. 2006).

The social context for work is emphasizedby researchers exploring satisfaction withsupervisors and coworkers. Perhaps mirroringa general lack of attention to the social aspectsof the working environment in organizationalbehavior in general, relatively little research hasfocused on coworker satisfaction. In contrastto the nuanced dimensions of pay satisfaction,research has not explored the dimensionalityof relationships with coworkers or supervi-sors. Instead, most researchers are contentto measure a unidimensional satisfactionwith coworkers. However, more theoreticallydeveloped measures of relationship attitudesdeveloped in social psychology and relationshipscience literature suggest that such unidimen-sional measures fail to address the complexityof relationships sufficiently. For example, thePositive and Negative Quality in Marriage

Scale examines a two-dimensional space akin topositive and negative affectivity, demonstratingthat it is possible for a relationship to be highon positive relationship qualities, high onnegative relationship qualities, high on bothpositive and negative relationship qualities, orhigh on neither (e.g., Mattson et al. 2007).

Organizational Commitment

Besides examining satisfaction with one’sjob, other research has examined commit-ment toward the organization. Consistent withSolinger et al. (2008), we define organizationalcommitment as an individual’s psychologicalbond with the organization, as represented byan affective attachment to the organization, in-ternalization of its values and goals, and a be-havioral desire to put forth effort to support it.As an attitude, organizational commitment re-flects a psychological state linking an individualto the organization based on identification withthe organization’s values and goals (e.g., Allen& Meyer 1990, O’Reilly & Chatman 1986).Commitment scales also have multiple dimen-sions, but unlike satisfaction, most have exam-ined the nature of commitment rather than thefocus of commitment (but see Meyer et al. 2004for an exception). Thus, research has primar-ily examined affective, normative, and continu-ance commitment, with an especially large bodyof research focused on affective commitment.Affective commitment scales require respon-dents to describe the extent to which they valuethe organization, feel attached to and includedin the organization, and see the organization’sgoals as similar to their own. Continuance com-mitment scales require respondents to evaluatewhether or not they are able to leave the orga-nization in the near future, or if leaving the jobwould incur too many financial costs. Finally,normative commitment asks respondents to de-scribe their evaluation of whether or not quit-ting a job is a negative behavior. It appears thataffective commitment generally has the highestvalidity in predicting organizational behaviorssuch as job performance (Dunham et al. 1994).


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Affective EventsTheory (AET): anintegrative modelemphasizing the linksbetween job eventsand job affect andhypothesizing linksbetween job affect andjob behaviors that areunique to affect andaffective events

A meta-analysis of this literature found thatdata do not strongly line up with the theoret-ical three-component model of commitment(Meyer et al. 2002). The tripartite typologyof commitment has come under criticism bythose who note that affective commitment isbest understood as an attitude regarding theemploying organization, whereas normativeand continuance commitment are attitudesregarding the specific behaviors of staying orleaving (Solinger et al. 2008). The distinctionbetween attitudes toward the organizationand a behavior may explain why convergentvalidity for scales of commitment is so com-paratively low. Thus, researchers have beenencouraged to refine their thinking aboutorganizational commitment by replacing thethree-component model of commitment withthe tripartite attitudes model from social atti-tudes research that focuses on affect toward theorganization, cognition about the organizationin terms of identification and internalization,and action readiness for generalized behaviorsto support the organization.

Attitudes Toward Behaviors

Besides measures of the job and organization,there has also been a tradition of research onattitudes toward specific behaviors and goals.There is evidence for a structural model thatpositions attitudes toward a behavior as an an-tecedent to intentions, which in turn serve asan antecedent for action. For example, onestudy found that positive attitudes toward vol-untary training and development activities gen-erate intentions to engage in such activities andthat these intentions are related to participationrates (Hurtz & Williams 2009). A similar re-lationship between attitudes toward job searchand intentions to engage in job search was foundin a longitudinal study with unemployed indi-viduals (Wanberg et al. 2005). Consistent withthe bandwidth-fidelity principle mentionedpreviously, it is expected that attitudes towardbehaviors will be more strongly related to thosebehaviors than will generalized attitudes.

STATES AND TRAITS IN JOBATTITUDES RESEARCH

Affective Events Theory

Research in organizational psychology has, inrecent years, considered aspects of stable trait-like attitudes about work and their relationshipwith more ephemeral state attitudes. In anattempt to address organizational psychology’sneglect of affect, Weiss & Cropanzano (1996)proposed a theory of job attitudes that empha-sizes affect in the study of job attitudes (andthe attitude-behavior relationship). This the-ory, termed Affective Events Theory (AET),emphasizes links between job events and jobaffect and hypothesizes links between job affectand job behaviors that are unique to affect andaffective events. Specifically, AET emphasizeslinks between job affect and short-term orstatelike behaviors, such as work withdrawaland organizational citizenship behaviors (non-task behaviors that contribute to the social andpsychological environment of the workplace,such as helping and supporting others) ratherthan the more reasoned long-term behaviors(such as turnover) that have been related to jobsatisfaction.

As noted by Judge et al. (2011), AET is dif-ferentiated from other current approaches by(a) the distinctions between job structure orfeatures and job events, although job features(e.g., organizational policies, which we reviewlater) are likely to influence distributions of jobevents; (b) an emphasis on affect as an importantfeature of job attitudes; and (c) the hypothesizedindependent links between job affect and affect-driven behaviors, on the one hand, and be-tween more evaluation-focused cognitions andjudgment-driven behaviors, on the other. Dis-positions are hypothesized to moderate the linkbetween events and affect.

The promise of AET is clear. Analyses ofaffective events, affect, and the on-the-job con-sequences of affect may answer some questionsabout job attitudes and behaviors on the jobthat are unanswered by the traditional stud-ies of relations between cognitive evaluations


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


and job performance (see, for example, Bealet al. 2005). Indeed, nearly every study pub-lished investigating moods or emotions atwork or within-individual variation in job at-titudes prominently features AET as a generalframework.

Recent Research on Within-IndividualVariation in Job Attitudes

As we have noted, job attitudes have both sta-ble (between-individual variation) and dynamic(within-individual variation over time) qual-ities. We should therefore expect significantbetween-person and within-person variation injob attitudes. We also expect significant co-variation between job attitudes and cofluctua-tions in affect and similarly time-variant states(exogenous events, moods or emotions) thatshould predict it. Similarly, within-individualvariation in job attitudes should be reflectedin within-individual variation in job behaviors.This dynamic nature of job affects and job be-haviors is illustrated by Organ & Ryan (1995),who note that predictions of organizational cit-izenship behaviors (OCBs) from affective states“. . . will somehow have to reckon with the prob-lem of detecting discrete episodes of OCB (ratherthan subjective reactions that presumably re-flect aggregations or trends of OCB over time)and the psychological states antecedent to or concur-rent with those episodes” (p. 781, emphasis added).As we noted above, this problem has been ad-dressed by ESM designs, which provide ecolog-ical momentary assessments of job attitudes andjob behaviors. It is striking that most of thesestudies show nearly as much within-person vari-ability in job attitudes as in moods and emo-tions. This certainly suggests support for theimportance of affect to job attitudes. As notedby Judge et al. (2011), “It is not premature toconclude that ESM has become an expected el-ement of the research.”

It is not the case that one expects between-individual and within-individual relationshipsto operate in opposite directions or evento operate in the same direction but withdramatically different magnitudes. Rather,

Moods andemotions: affectivestates that areimportant to jobsatisfaction and thatmay be distinguishedfrom one another interms of generality,duration, and eventspecificity

our argument is that no inferences about thewithin-person level should be made solely onthe basis of data collected at the between-person level. Chen et al. (2005) maintain that,because researchers know so little about howconstructs operate at levels of analysis otherthan the one at which they are typically studied,assessments of the similarity of relationshipsbetween analogous constructs across levels “canand should play an integral role in the validationof multilevel constructs and theories” (p. 376).

The recent literature on within-person vari-ation in job attitudes can be grouped into threeoverlapping categories. Studies that link moodsor discrete emotional states to job attitudescomprise the first category. Within this cat-egory of studies, two further differentiationsmust be made. First is the issue of whethermoods/emotions are antecedents (e.g., Bonoet al. 2007, Ilies & Judge 2004, Judge et al.2006, Weiss et al. 1999) or consequences (e.g.,Judge & Ilies 2004) of job attitudes, with the for-mer greatly outnumbering the latter. Of coursethere are reasons why either direction of influ-ence might occur. Demonstrating causal direc-tions in such studies is difficult, though somestudies are noteworthy for their use of laggeddesigns, whereby job attitudes on Time 1 areused to predict affect on Time 2 (e.g., Judge &Ilies 2004) or affect at Time 1 is used to predictjob attitudes at Time 2 (Ilies & Judge 2002).Another differentiation is the issue of whetherbroad mood factors (generally as represented bypositive and negative affect) or discrete emo-tions are studied. Emotion researchers havestruggled in vain to delineate an accepted tax-onomy of “core” emotions (see Power 2006).Another challenge is that discrete emotions, al-though theoretically separable, are empiricallyless so. This is especially true with respect topositive emotions (Watson 2000). On the otherhand, broad mood factors have controversies oftheir own, such as disagreements over the struc-ture of mood: either the positive affect/negativeaffect rotation or the hedonic tone/arousalrotation.

The second category of studies investi-gates within-person variability in job attitudes


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Multilevel models:models where multipleobservations of jobattitudes are nestedwithin individuals, topredict or be predictedby otherwithin-individualstates, and whereinthese within-individualrelationships arepredicted bybetween-individualdifferences

without including moods or emotions. Suchstudies have typically examined antecedents ofjob satisfaction. For example, one study foundthat daily interpersonal and informational jus-tice were related to daily levels of job satisfac-tion (Loi et al. 2009). Another repeated mea-sures study found that dispositional affect influ-enced employees’ typical levels of satisfactionand moderated how sensitive employee job at-titudes were to workplace events (Bowling et al.2005).

The third category of studies linkswithin-individual variation in job attitudes towithin-individual variation in work behaviors.Although there is a growing body of within-person research showing how affect is relatedto job performance (e.g., Miner & Glomb2010, Trougakos et al. 2011, Tsai et al. 2007),comparatively less research has investigatedhow variability in job attitudes is related to per-formance. Studies have shown that variations injob attitudes are related to higher levels of orga-nizational citizenship (Ilies et al. 2006). Otherresearch has found a relationship between vari-ations in job attitudes and workplace deviance( Judge et al. 2006). However, it is unclearwhether these findings are primarily the resultsof affect or if other components of attitudessuch as appraisals, beliefs, or attitudes towardbehaviors will also play a complementary role.This is clearly an area where more research isneeded.

Before ending this section, we note an-other important distinction. Previously wementioned multilevel models of job attitudes.Here we define multilevel models as modelswhere multiple observations of job attitudesare nested within individuals, to predict or bepredicted by other within-individual states, andwherein these within-individual relationshipsare predicted by between-individual differ-ences. Although all ESM studies and multilevelmodels are often treated as synonymous in jobattitude research, that is not necessarily a validcommingling. It is true that most ESM studiesare multilevel in that both within- and between-person effects are modeled. However, that isnot inherently the case. More importantly,

some multilevel models of job attitudes are notbased on, or tested with, ESM designs. Forexample, if within-individual variation in jobattitudes is studied over a very long period oftime (say, yearly measurements over 10 years),both within- and between-individual variationwould likely to be modeled, but it is unlikelydata were collected using an ESM design.

DISPOSITIONAL ANTECEDENTSOF JOB ATTITUDES

Early Influences

The importance of personality to job satis-faction was explicitly recognized in the ear-liest writings on job attitudes (e.g., Hoppock1935). These early findings, however, appearedto quickly fall out of favor, coinciding with thenadir of personality research in the 1970s and1980s. This state of affairs changed with thepublication of two seminal studies by Staw andcolleagues, a study by Arvey and colleagues, andan integrative piece by Adler & Weiss (1988).Staw & Ross (1985) found that measures of jobsatisfaction were reasonably stable over time,even when individuals changed employers oroccupations. Critics of the study noted that it isdifficult to establish a dispositional basis of jobsatisfaction unless one actually measures dispo-sitions, and that other, nondispositional factorsmight explain job attitude stability. Staw et al.(1986) corrected this deficiency: Using a uniquelongitudinal data set and childhood ratings ofpersonality, Staw et al. reported results showingthat affective disposition assessed at ages 12–14correlated 0.34 (p < 0.05) with overall job sat-isfaction assessed at ages 54–62. In a similarlyprovocative study, Arvey et al. (1989) foundsignificant consistency in job satisfaction levelsbetween 34 pairs of monozygotic twins rearedapart from early childhood. Judged from thevantage point of today, these studies may seemless revolutionary than they were at the time. Itis not much of an overstatement to argue that inthe late 1980s, dispositional explanations wereeschewed or, more likely, ignored entirely inthe literature.


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Specific Dispositions

Although much early research on the im-portance of dispositions was able to describewhether there was a dispositional aspect tojob satisfaction, this research did not specifywhich theoretically derived personality dispo-sitions would be most likely related to consis-tencies in job attitudes. Subsequent researchhas attempted to clarify this omission. Onestudy found that the dispositional taxonomyof positive and negative affectivity was relatedto job satisfaction over a period of severalmonths, even after accounting for job changesand occupational quality variables (Watson &Slack 1993). Subsequent meta-analytic researchdemonstrated that the five-factor model ofpersonality could also explain variations in jobsatisfaction, with neuroticism (rc = −0.29), ex-traversion (rc = 0.25), and conscientiousness(rc = 0.26) showing especially strong relation-ships with job satisfaction ( Judge et al. 2002).

Core Self-Evaluations

In a different approach to dispositional influ-ences on job attitudes, Judge et al. (1997) focuson core self-evaluations (CSEs), fundamentalbeliefs individuals hold about themselves, theirfunctioning, and the world. CSEs are hierar-chical, with specific traits comprising a broad,general trait. Judge et al. (1997) identified fourspecific traits as indicators of CSEs based onthese evaluative criteria: (a) self-esteem, (b)generalized self-efficacy, (c) neuroticism, and(d ) locus of control. Increasingly, research hasutilized direct measures of CSEs. Though CSEresearch has expanded well beyond job satis-faction research, there have been more than50 studies of the link between CSEs and jobsatisfaction. Judge & Bono (2001) completed ameta-analysis of 169 independent correlationsbetween each of the four core traits and jobsatisfaction. When the four meta-analyses arecombined into a single composite measure, theoverall core trait correlates rc = 0.37 with jobsatisfaction.

Given the various ways of considering af-fective disposition noted in this review, one

might ask what either taxonomy adds beyondPA/NA (Watson 2000), the affective predispo-sition scale ( Judge & Hulin 1993), or the BigFive personality model. This is a particularlyrelevant question given that CSEs are not un-correlated with traits from these taxonomies.Judge et al. (2008) found that of the three tax-onomic structures (five-factor model, PA/NA,and CSEs), CSEs were the most useful pre-dictor of job satisfaction. Altogether, the threeframeworks explained 36% of the variance inself-reported job satisfaction and 18% of thevariance when using reports by significant oth-ers. Judge et al. (2008) further showed that theseframeworks could be reduced to three sets offactors for the purposes of predicting job sat-isfaction: (a) CSEs/neuroticism (all four coretraits, plus NA), (b) extraversion (including PA),and (c) conscientiousness. Their results showedthat when these three factors were related tojob satisfaction, however, only the first factor—CSE—consistently influenced job satisfactionacross studies.

Best et al. (2005) presented further evidencefor the influence of CSE on job satisfactionvia appraisals of the work environment. Theauthors found that CSE was negatively re-lated to perceptions of organizational obstaclesto goal fulfillment (perceived organizationalconstraint). Perceived organizational constraintmediated between CSE and burnout, whichnegatively predicted job satisfaction. These re-sults suggest that employees high in CSE areless likely to view their job tasks and organiza-tional environment as stressful, shielding themfrom burnout and its deleterious effects on jobsatisfaction.

Studies that focus only on perceptual mea-sures of job characteristics make it impossibleto distinguish whether high-CSE individualssimply hold a rosier picture of objectiveattributes or whether they actually select intojobs with better attributes. To address this is-sue, Judge et al. (2000) examined the mediatingrole of objective job complexity, ascertainedby coding job titles, as well as subjective jobcharacteristics. They found that both subjec-tive and objective indicators of job complexity


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


were partial mediators of the relationship be-tween CSE—measured in childhood and earlyadulthood—and later job satisfaction for indi-viduals between the ages of 41 and 50. These re-sults suggest that CSEs influence not only howfavorably people view their jobs, but also the ac-tual level of complexity of the jobs they obtain.

In addition to selecting into more challeng-ing jobs, people with a high CSE may findtheir work more satisfying because they choosepersonally meaningful goals. Self-concordancetheory posits that goals pursued for fun or onthe basis of personally relevant values increasesubjective well-being and goal attainment.Judge et al. (2005) proposed that individualswith positive self-concept should be lessvulnerable to external pressures and thereforemore likely to set self-concordant goals. Self-concordant goals partially mediated betweenCSEs and life satisfaction and between CSEsand goal attainment. It appears that CSEs dolead to the pursuit of self-concordant goals,which increases life satisfaction and goal attain-ment. The authors concluded that CSEs “mayserve more like a trigger than an anchor. Peoplewith positive CSEs strive for ‘the right reasons,’and therefore ‘get the right results’” (p. 266).

Integration of Stateand Trait Perspectives

The foregoing description of research on jobattitudes as temporary states of being does notnecessarily mean that research investigating jobattitudes as more traitlike (i.e., influenced bystable individual dispositions and unchangingjob characteristics) is no longer relevant. Aninteractionist perspective on job attitudes sug-gests that dispositions have their effects on be-havior through the interaction of individualsand the work environment (Magnusson 1999).People respond to their dispositionally influ-enced perceptions of the environment, so it isstill possible for personality to affect attitudeseven when situations are found to be important(Mischel & Shoda 1998). Thus, the questionof whether attitudes can be attributed to statesor traits is poorly posed; rather, the question

involves how situations contribute to the ex-pression of traits and how traits contribute tothe reactions to situations.

SITUATIONAL ANTECEDENTSOF JOB ATTITUDES

Job Characteristics

As the preceding section notes, there is strongevidence that perceptions of jobs are influ-enced by dispositions of the individual worker.However, there is also evidence that situa-tions influence attitudes. One tradition of sit-uational antecedents of job attitudes that hasalready been mentioned is the job character-istics model. Most research has examined howsubjective perceptions of work characteristicsare related to employee attitudes, convincinglydemonstrating that employee self-reports ofthe five core characteristics (skill variety, taskidentity, task significance, autonomy, and feed-back) identified by Hackman & Oldham (1976)are related to higher levels of job satisfaction.However, data measured from self-reports can-not be readily distinguished from the influ-ence of dispositions, since evidence already dis-cussed shows that personality traits are relatedto perceptions of job characteristics. When self-report and job analyst–based job characteristicsare studied in tandem, the self-reported, moresubjective perceptions of job characteristics aremore closely related to job satisfaction than areanalyst-based, more objective estimates of jobcharacteristics ( Judge et al. 2000). Organiza-tional interventions to increase these sourcesof satisfaction via job enlargement have beenshown to be effective at improving job satis-faction in the past (e.g., Neuman et al. 1989),which does bolster the argument that objectivejob characteristics influence job attitudes, al-though recent research on this topic is lacking.

Social Environment Characteristics

Although the features of the work itself haveclearly been linked to higher levels of jobsatisfaction and engagement, such models omitthe importance of the social environment.


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Surprisingly, it is only in recent years thatresearchers have systematically demonstratedthat social environment variables, such as rela-tionships with coworkers and supervisors, canbe as closely related to overall job satisfactionas job conditions are related to satisfaction. Acomprehensive investigation of the relation-ships between job characteristics and workattitudes found that perceived social supportpredicted satisfaction levels above and beyondcharacteristics of the work itself (Morgeson& Humphrey 2006). Meta-analysis showsthat there is a consistent positive relationshipbetween coworker support behaviors and jobsatisfaction, job involvement, and organiza-tional commitment (Chiaburu & Harrison2008). This meta-analysis also found that therelationship between coworker support andthe attitudes of satisfaction and commitmentwas stronger than the relationship betweencoworker antagonism and these attitudinalconstructs.

Another method for examining the relation-ship between social characteristics of the workenvironment and job attitudes is to examinesocial network ties. Evidence from one studyof network ties found that job-related affectscores tended to be similar among individu-als who interacted with one another frequently(Totterdell et al. 2004). These results reinforcethe notion that attitudes toward work are sig-nificantly related to the social relationships onehas.

The demographic makeup of one’s work-group has also been a concern for researchers.Theory suggests that individuals who are de-mographically dissimilar from their coworkersmay feel less accepted and therefore experiencemore negative job attitudes. Some research hasshown that ethnic dissimilarity is negativelyrelated to organizational commitment, but it isnot related to job satisfaction (Liao et al. 2004).On the other hand, this same study found thatdifferences from coworkers in extraversion andopenness to experience are negatively relatedto satisfaction with coworkers. Other researchfound that perceived age similarity to one’scoworkers is associated with higher levels

of engagement among older workers if theywere also satisfied with their older coworkers(Avery et al. 2007). One study found that whensupervisors were higher in control orientationthan subordinates, subordinates were moresatisfied with their supervisor compared withsituations in which the supervisor and subor-dinate had similar levels of control orientation(Glomb & Welsh 2005). This is a rather uniqueexample, showing that personality dissimilaritycan sometimes have beneficial effects on jobattitudes.

Leadership

In organizational context, leadership styles andbehaviors can have a particularly powerful ef-fect on employee job attitudes. Leader consid-eration has a meta-analytic correlation of rc =0.78 with subordinate satisfaction ( Judge et al.2004). The strength of this relationship sug-gests that leader consideration behaviors suchas showing concern and respect for followers,looking out for their welfare, and expressing ap-preciation and support are nearly synonymouswith the extent to which followers are satis-fied with their leaders. Initiating structure has asomewhat weaker but still positive correlationof rc = 0.33 with subordinate satisfaction withthe leader.

Having established strong meta-analyticmain-effect relationships between leader-ship and follower attitudes, researchers haveturned their attention toward moderatingrelationships. The aforementioned relation-ship between leader-member exchange andemployee attitudes is stronger when employeesidentify their supervisor with the organization(Eisenberger et al. 2010). Transformationalleadership has been linked to more positiveemployee emotions during the course of theworkday, and transformational leadership canbuffer the relationship between emotion regu-lation and job dissatisfaction (Bono et al. 2007).Longitudinal research also shows that declinesin supervisor support during the period of orga-nizational entry were associated with declinesin job satisfaction ( Jokisaari & Nurmi 2009).


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Conversely, negative leader behaviors, suchas abusive supervision (Tepper 2000), are alsoassociated with negative employee attitudes.

Organizational Practices

There is a substantial body of research withinorganizational psychology examining thenature of organizational practices and their in-fluence on employee job attitudes. The largestbody of research under this area concerns therelationship between organizational justice andemployee attitudes. Much of the research onjustice and pay practices has been grounded indiscrepancy theory, which proposes that dissat-isfaction is the result of a discrepancy betweenthe pay that one thinks one should receiveand the amount of pay one actually receives.Such discrepancies are strongly, negativelyrelated to pay level satisfaction (rc = −0.54) inmeta-analytic research (Williams et al. 2006).Meta-analysis shows that distributive justicecorrelates at rc = 0.79 with pay level satisfac-tion, suggesting that perceptions of distributivejustice are nearly identical to attitudes towardorganizational pay practices (Williams et al.2006). Procedural justice of compensation alsohas a substantial but slightly smaller (rc =0.42) relationship with pay satisfaction.

Surprisingly, meta-analytic evidence sug-gests that the relationship between merit payraises and pay-level satisfaction is quite small(rc = 0.08) (Williams et al. 2006). One studydemonstrated that pay satisfaction following amerit raise was much greater for those whoreceived a high merit raise and who also hadhigh pay-raise expectations (Schaubroeck et al.2008). The authors noted that this result sug-gests that only individuals who believe that paydecisions are connected to performance will bemore satisfied when merit raises are disbursed.Another study showed that pay satisfaction isoften based on whom one compares oneselfto—those who compare their pay to those whomake much more than themselves are less satis-fied than those who compare their pay to thosewho make only slightly more than themselves(Harris et al. 2008).

Besides the main effect of organizationalpractices related to compensation, researchutilizing a polynomial regression approachto assess congruence suggests that the cor-respondence between employee values andorganizational values is associated with morepositive job attitudes (Edwards & Cable 2009).High levels of interpersonal justice are alsosignificantly related to both organizationalcommitment and satisfaction with one’ssupervisor (Liao & Rupp 2005).

Although many studies have correlated in-dividual reports of organizational characteris-tics as predictors of individual attitudes, con-cerns about common method variance haveprompted many researchers to examine thesephenomena using multiple reports of practices.For example, one study found that the favor-ableness of organizational changes, the extentof the change, and the individual relevance ofthe change combined to predict employee com-mitment (Fedor et al. 2006). One other studyshowed that establishment-level reports ofhigh-performance human resources practiceswere associated with higher levels of employeejob satisfaction and organizational commitment(Takeuchi et al. 2009). A study involving cross-level mediation found that the relationship be-tween individual perceptions of organizationaljustice with job attitudes and job satisfactionwas moderated by group-level justice climate(Mayer et al. 2007). These studies, taken to-gether, suggest that collective perceptions ofsituations are predictive of individual attitudesand that there are indeed relationships betweenorganizational characteristics and job attitudes.

Time and Job Attitudes

Some researchers have begun to examinethe role of time itself as a situational shaperof employee attitudes. Researchers in thisdomain examine how employee attitudes tendto change over time from the point of hireto some subsequent point in time, typicallyusing latent growth modeling or hierarchicallinear modeling. One program of researchhas examined the pattern of “honeymoons


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


and hangovers” in employee attitudes fromthe point of hire to several months later (e.g.,Boswell et al. 2005, 2009). These studies showthat early in the employment relationship, mostindividuals have a period of highly positive jobattitudes, followed soon after by a deteriorationin their appraisal of their new jobs.

Other research has investigated the trajec-tory of organizational commitment over time.Most research suggests that like job satisfaction,organizational commitment tends to declineover time among organizational newcomers(Bentein et al. 2005). There is also evidence thatindividuals who perceive that there is a psycho-logical contract breach in their organizationwill have a negative trajectory of organizationalcommitment as well (Ng et al. 2010).

As we have noted, job attitudes often varyover time. Affective events theory specificallyargues for the idea that emotion-laden events inthe workplace can explain the variability in jobsatisfaction people experience on a day-to-daybasis. One cross-sectional study involving 2,091call center representatives found that workemotions can be explained by work featuresand that the relationship between these workfeatures and job satisfaction was mediated byemotions (Wegge et al. 2006). An experience-sampling study of 41 employees found thatnegative events had a strong positive relation-ship with negative moods at work, whereaspositive events had a positive relationship withpositive moods at work (Miner et al. 2005).Another diary study found that interpersonalconflicts with customers acted as an environ-mental trigger that produced more negativeattitudes (Grandey et al. 2002). Collectively,these studies demonstrate again that jobattitudes will differ depending upon when theyare measured.

OUTCOMES OF JOB ATTITUDES

Overview

The final consideration in models of attitudesis their relationship with behavior. Becauseorganizational behavior research is concerned

primarily with the outcomes of employeeattitudes in organizations, the behavioral con-sequences of attitudes are clearly important. Aswe have noted previously, the dominant modellinking attitudes to behaviors is the theoryof planned behavior (Ajzen 1991), whichproposes that general attitudes give rise tospecific attitudes, which in turn can give rise tointentions to perform the behavior in question.A theory-building article also described howcommitment can lead to behavior as a result ofa translation of attitudes toward the organiza-tion, supervisor, and team to the developmentof specific commitments to goals, which inturn facilitates motivation to engage in specificactions (Meyer et al. 2004). Other studiespropose a more emotion-centric view of therelationship between attitudes and behavior.For example, one study suggested that employ-ees’ affect toward the job and organization willlead them to behave in ways that support theorganization, as affect gives cues about the stateof the environment and therefore suggestsappropriate responses (Foo et al. 2009).

Consistent with prior theory, we emphasizethe relationship between job attitudes and the-oretical constructs rather than the relationshipbetween job attitudes and specific behaviors.This decision is consistent with the prior dis-cussion of the bandwidth-fidelity principle aswell as research showing that broad attitudesare poor predictors of specific behaviors but aregood predictors of broad classes of related be-haviors (e.g., Fishbein & Ajzen 1974). As thisprinciple of using broad attitudes to predictbroad outcomes would suggest, one structuralmeta-analysis found that overall job attitude (acombination of satisfaction and commitment)was highly correlated with a broad measure ofseveral aspects of contribution to the work role(Harrison et al. 2006).

We define job performance as employeebehaviors that are consistent with role expec-tations and that contribute to organizationaleffectiveness. Consistent with an accumulatedbody of research, we consider job performanceas a multidimensional construct, composed oftask performance (duties and behaviors that


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


are formally required to perform one’s job),organizational citizenship behavior (behaviorsthat go beyond formal role expectations and aregenerally contextual or interpersonal in nature),and withdrawal/counterproductivity (behav-iors that are responses to dissatisfaction andthat often go against organizational interestsor norms). We also consider creative perfor-mance, as it is not clear that it fits well withinthe aforementioned categories of behaviors.

Task Performance

The link between job satisfaction and job per-formance has long been of interest to organi-zational psychologists. Meta-analysis suggeststhat there is indeed a substantial relationshipbetween job satisfaction and job performance( Judge et al. 2001). Because this evidence comesprimarily from cross-sectional studies, it is notpossible to assess whether it is the case that jobsatisfaction causes job performance or if per-formance leads to satisfaction. To help answerthis question, Riketta (2008) meta-analyzed therelationship between performance and satisfac-tion in longitudinal research and found thatthe evidence was stronger for a satisfaction-to-performance link than for a performance-to-satisfaction link.

Although broad measures of satisfactiongenerally do correlate with job performance,other studies have examined the importanceof facets of satisfaction as predictors of perfor-mance. Different facets of job satisfaction showdifferent relationships with outcomes of inter-est. Of the JDI dimensions, satisfaction withwork has the strongest relationship with mo-tivation, but all dimensions have similar rela-tionships with job performance, with correctedmeta-analytic correlations ranging from rc =0.15 to rc = 0.23 (Kinicki et al. 2002). Otherresearch examining multiple dimensions of paysatisfaction at the school district level of anal-ysis has shown that aggregated pay satisfac-tion is related to student academic competency(Currall et al. 2005).

Given the evidence for a substantive rela-tionship between satisfaction and performance,researchers have begun to explore moderators.

One study explored the relationship betweenaffective satisfaction (as measured by an overallindex of positive and negative emotions aboutthe job) and cognitive satisfaction (as measuredby a cognitive appraisal of the characteristicsof a job) as a potential moderated relation-ship (Schleicher et al. 2004). Their researchshowed that when affective attitudes toward ajob and cognitive appraisal of a job were con-sistent with one another, there was a strongerrelationship between performance and satisfac-tion than when affective and cognitive attitudeswere less related to one another.

The relationship between organizationalcommitment and job performance has beenestablished in a number of studies, although therelationship is not particularly strong (Wright& Bonett 2002). However, not all studiesfind only main effects. Meta-analytic researchdemonstrated that the positive relationship be-tween commitment and performance declinedsignificantly with increasing employee tenure,suggesting that less-tenured employees havea stronger attitude-behavior link (Wright &Bonett 2002). Another study that examineddifferent clusters of affective and continuancecommitment found that moderate levels ofcontinuance commitment and low levels ofaffective commitment were particularly relatedto poorer supervisor ratings of performance(Sinclair et al. 2005). In another study, em-ployees who were low in affective commitmenthad a negative relationship between stress andperformance, whereas employees who werehigh in affective commitment had a positiverelationship between stress and performance(Hunter & Thatcher 2007). This last studydemonstrates that attitudes can moderatethe relationship between other work-relatedconstructs and behaviors.

Creative Performance

The relationship between employee attitudesand creative performance has been the topicof vigorous debate. Although much researchdemonstrates that positive mood statesassociated with job satisfaction encouragemore flexible and open thought processes


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


(e.g., Lyubomirsky et al. 2005), others havecontended that negative moods can generateactive attention and critical thinking requiredfor creativity (George & Zhou 2002). Someintegrative recent work suggests that lookingat positive or negative moods may be puttingemphasis on the wrong portion of the affectcircumplex, insofar as all activated moods,positive or negative, are associated with higherlevels of creativity (De Dreu et al. 2008). Lessresearch has looked at how these affective statespertain to the job attitudes–creativity link,although some work has been done in this area.One study showed that dissatisfied employeeswere more creative when they had high levelsof continuance commitment and had supportfrom the organization and coworkers (Zhou& George 2001). However, another studyfound that aggregate job satisfaction waspositively related to measures of organizationalinnovation two years later (Shipton et al.2006). As such, the form of the relationshipbetween satisfaction and performance remainssomewhat uncertain and may differ at theindividual and group levels.

Citizenship Behavior

Although there is a conceptual reason to expecta moderate relationship between job attitudesand task performance, theory is even morestrongly supportive of a relationship betweencitizenship behaviors and job attitudes (Organ& Ryan 1995). Meta-analysis demonstratesthat overall satisfaction is related to citizenshipbehavior and that this relationship mediatesthe relationship between the personality traitsof agreeableness and conscientiousness withcitizenship (Ilies et al. 2009). Turning tofacets of satisfaction, the relationship betweencitizenship behaviors and the JDI dimensionsof pay, coworkers, and work are roughly equalin magnitude (rc = 0.16 to rc = 0.23), with anespecially strong relationship between supervi-sor satisfaction and citizenship behaviors withrc = 0.45 (Kinicki et al. 2002). Research in aunion context using cross-lagged regressionfound that early union commitment was asso-ciated with voluntary informal participation in

the union ten years later (Fullagar et al. 2004).A meta-analytic path analysis study showedthat job satisfaction and perceived fairnessindependently were related to higher levels oforganizational citizenship behaviors, whereas amodel suggesting that satisfaction mediates therelationship between fairness and citizenshipbehaviors was less well supported (Fassina et al.2008). In sum, research does indeed show thatjob attitudes are related to citizenship.

Withdrawal/Counterproductivity

If positive job attitudes are expected to relateto positive behavioral decisions at work in theform of citizenship behavior, then negative at-titudes are expected to relate to a broad class ofnegative behaviors at work in the form of with-drawal and counterproductivity. The negativebehaviors constituting withdrawal include psy-chological withdrawal, absenteeism, turnoverdecisions, and decisions to retire.

Of the dimensions of the JDI, satisfactionwith the work itself has the strongest rela-tionship with both withdrawal cognitions andturnover intentions (Kammeyer-Mueller et al.2005, Kinicki et al. 2002). Relationships be-tween dimensions of performance and absen-teeism are comparatively weaker for all otherdimensions (Kinicki et al. 2002).

Most empirical tests suggest that job satis-faction is not directly related to turnover, butrather that job satisfaction leads to thoughtsabout quitting and comparison of one’s job toalternatives, which in turn will eventually leadto turnover (e.g., Hom & Kinicki 2001). Re-search has also shown that job satisfaction ismore likely to lead to turnover for individualswho are higher in cognitive ability, education,and occupation-specific training (Trevor 2001).In other words, job satisfaction is more likelyto lead to withdrawal behavior in the form ofturnover when there are opportunities for theattitude to express itself in the form of con-crete behavior. Similar conclusions about therole of opportunity in the satisfaction-turnoverrelationship can be drawn from other researchin this area (Lee et al. 2008). Evidence sug-gests that the relationship between satisfaction


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


and unit-level absence is also stronger when theunemployment rate is low (Hausknecht et al.2008). This might occur because employees areless worried about being fired from their jobswhen there are ample alternatives in the labormarket.

There is also ample evidence that organiza-tional commitment is related to deviance andwork withdrawal. Most research has focusedon the relationship between affective commit-ment and turnover. Multivariate research alsoconsistently shows that attitudes toward thejob and attitudes toward the organization haveindependent and complementary effects onturnover behavior (Kammeyer-Mueller et al.2005). Evidence suggests that steeper declinesin organizational commitment over time are re-lated to increased intention to quit and actu-ally quitting (Bentein et al. 2005). Research alsosuggests that when a group’s mean satisfactionand dispersion of satisfaction scores are low, at-tendance is likely to be particularly low (Dineenet al. 2007).

There are also possible interactions betweencommitment and satisfaction in predictingwork withdrawal. Theory suggests that com-mitted employees who have low levels ofsatisfaction will be less likely to engage in workwithdrawal since they have some level of orga-nizational loyalty, whereas employees with lowlevels of commitment will tend to have lowerattendance across the board. For example, onestudy demonstrated that when organizationalcommitment was low, group-level absenteeismwas high regardless of job satisfaction, butwhen organizational commitment was high,absence was especially low among those whowere most satisfied (Hausknecht et al. 2008).

Organizational Performance

Although there are many reasons to be inter-ested in the relationship between individual-level job attitudes and individual work behavior,organizational leaders are especially interestedin the degree to which employee attitudes arerelated to overall organizational performance.Most organizational interventions to improveemployee attitudes toward their work are

designed to generate higher profits for theorganization as a whole. Do these investmentspay off? Meta-analysis suggests that there areindeed substantial, generalizable relationshipsbetween unit-level employee satisfactionand engagement with customer satisfaction,productivity, profit, turnover, and accidents(Harter et al. 2002). These results also werefound in cross-lagged regression analysesin a diverse sample of individuals from 35companies (Schneider et al. 2003), suggestingthat employee job attitudes are related to sub-sequent organizational performance. Anotherstudy found that manager satisfaction levelswere associated with customer satisfaction andstore performance (Netemeyer et al. 2010).Moreover, this same study found an interactionthat showed that when manager performanceand manager satisfaction were high, employeeand store performance were higher.

CONCLUSION

Although research on job attitudes has beenat the core of the field of organizational psy-chology since its inception, new methods forconceptualizing and investigating job attitudescontinue to enliven the field. In particular, theincreased focus on within-persons studies hashelped to significantly clarify the questions ofstates and traits in job attitudes research andto highlight the role of emotions and affectiveevents as influences on job attitudes. A sizeablebody of research has demonstrated that job atti-tudes are related to a variety of organizationallyrelevant behaviors including task performance,citizenship, creative performance, and organi-zational profitability.

As this review has also shown, new models ofjob attitudes involving within-person variabilityand team/organizational levels of analyses con-tinue to enrich our understanding of core jobattitudes. New models that demonstrate howsituational perceptions mediate the relationshipbetween dispositions and behavior, and mod-els that demonstrate how dispositions moderatethe relationship between situations and behav-ior, would be welcome.


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


SUMMARY POINTS

1. A job attitude is a social attitude; it may be one of the more central social attitudesbecause most individuals spend a majority of their waking hours at work, work is centralto 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 studyjob satisfaction. This research has suggested that job satisfaction varies significantly ona day-to-day basis, and this variation is not merely transient error (it predicts and can bepredicted by other meaningful concepts).

5. Of the major job satisfaction facets, work satisfaction appears to be the most importantin 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 relationshipsinvolving 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 socialattitudes inform job attitudes research? Given that job attitudes research has some con-ceptual and methodological advantages, how might accumulated knowledge about jobattitudes inform social attitudes research?

2. Recent evidence clearly indicates that job attitudes and moods/emotions covary. What isthe causal direction: Do workplace attitudes cause moods/emotions, do moods/emotionscause job attitudes, or both?

3. How can state and trait perspectives on job attitudes—each of which has received con-siderable support but for which there is little integrative work—be further integrated?

4. Increasingly, researchers are conceptualizing job attitudes in a temporal context. Some ofthese temporal studies examine job attitudes over a relatively short period of time (dailyvariation over a week) whereas others examine temporal fluctuations over a very longtime period (as long as 20 years). How does the time frame affect our understanding oftemporal variations in job attitudes?


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


5. Although job satisfaction is the most widely studied job attitude, it is not the only one. Candisparate job attitudes be further integrated in future research under multidimensionalframeworks?

6. Are there viable alternatives to self-report measures of job attitudes? How might ourknowledge of job attitudes be informed by alternative measurement methodologies?

7. What interventions and organizational practices best influence job satisfaction, and arethese interventions time bound (tend to degrade over time)?

8. If overall job satisfaction (or an even broader job attitude concept itself indicated byjob satisfaction) predicts broad behavioral composites, does the specificity of emotionsexperienced at work mean they best predict more specific, time-variant behaviors?

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings thatmight 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. InInternational Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, ed. CL Cooper, IT Robertson, pp. 307–30.Chichester, UK: Wiley

Adolphs R, Damasio AR. 2001. The interaction of affect and cognition: a neurobiological perspective. InHandbook of Affect and Social Cognition, ed. JP Forgas, pp. 27–49. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

Ajzen I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50:179–211Allen NJ, Meyer JP. 1990. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative com-

mitment to the organization. J. Occup. Psychol. 63:1–18Arvey RD, Bouchard TJ, Segal NL, Abraham LM. 1989. Job satisfaction: environmental and genetic compo-

nents. J. Appl. Psychol. 74:187–92Ashby FG, Isen AM, Turken AU. 1999. A neuro-psychological theory of positive affect and its influence on

cognition. Psychol. Rev. 106:529–50Avery 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. 92:1542–56Beal DJ, Weiss HM, Barros E, MacDermid SM. 2005. An episodic process model of affective influences on

performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:1054–68Bentein 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. 90:468–82Best RG, Stapleton LM, Downey RG. 2005. Core self-evaluations and job burnout: the test of alternative

models. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 10:441–51Bollen KA. 2002. Latent variables in psychology and the social sciences. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 53:605–34Bono JE, Foldes HJ, Vinson G, Muros JP. 2007. Workplace emotions: the role of supervision and leadership.

J. Appl. Psychol. 92:1357–67Boswell WR, Boudreau JW, Tichy J. 2005. The relationship between employee job change and job satisfaction:

the honeymoon-hangover effect. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:882–92Boswell 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. 94:844–58Bowling 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. 90:1044–53


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Brayfield AH, Rothe HF. 1951. An index of job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 35:307–11An important review of,and a call for moreresearch on, moods andemotions inorganizational research.

Brief AP, Weiss HM. 2002. Organizational behavior: affect in the workplace. Annu. Rev. Psychol.53:279–307

Chen G, Bliese PD, Mathieu JE. 2005. Conceptual framework and statistical procedures for delineating andtesting multilevel theories of homology. Organ. Res. Methods 8:375–409

A meta-analysisshowing the importanceof coworkers to jobattitudes.

Chiaburu DS, Harrison DA. 2008. Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysisof coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:1082–103

Colquitt JA. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. J. Appl.Psychol. 86:386–400

Currall SC, Towler AJ, Judge TA, Kohn L. 2005. Pay satisfaction and organizational outcomes. Pers. Psychol.58:613–40

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. 94:739–56

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 flow during emotionalversus higher cognitive processes: implications for interactions between emotion and cognition. Cogn.Emot. 12:353–85

Tests relative validity ofthree organizationalcommitmentdimensions based onmeta-analytic data.

Dunham RB, Grube JA, Castaneda MB. 1994. Organizational commitment: the utility of an integrativedefinition. J. Appl. Psychol. 79:370–80

Eagly AH, Chaiken S. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Belmont, CA: WadsworthEdwards JR, Cable DM. 2009. The value of value congruence. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:654–77Eisenberger R, Karagonlar G, Stinglhamber F, Neves P, Becker TE, et al. 2010. Leader-member exchange

and affective organizational commitment: the contribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment.J. Appl. Psychol. 95:1085–103

Fassina NE, Jones DA, Uggerslev KL. 2008. Relationship clean-up time: using meta-analysis and path analysisto clarify relationships among job satisfaction, perceived fairness, and citizenship behaviors. J. Manage.34:161–88

Fazio RH, Olson MA. 2003. Attitudes: foundations, functions, and consequences. In The Handbook of SocialPsychology, ed. MA Hogg, J Cooper, pp. 139–60. London: Sage

Fedor DB, Caldwell S, Herold DM. 2006. The effects of organizational changes on employee commitment:a multilevel investigation. Pers. Psychol. 59:1–29

Fishbein M, Ajzen I. 1974. Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single and multiple behavioral criteria.Psychol. Rev. 81:59–74

Foo MD, Uy MA, Baron RA. 2009. How do feelings influence effort? An empirical study of entrepreneurs’affect and venture effort. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:1086–94

Fullagar CJ, Gallagher DG, Clark PF, Carroll AE. 2004. Union commitment and participation: a 10-yearlongitudinal study. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:730–37

George JM, Zhou J. 2002. Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don’t: the role ofcontext and clarity of feelings. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:687–97

Glomb TM, Welsh ET. 2005. Can opposites attract? Personality heterogeneity in supervisor-subordinatedyads as a predictor of subordinate outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:749–57

Grandey AA, Tam AP, Brauburger AL. 2002. Affective states and traits in the workplace: diary and surveydata from young workers. Motiv. Emot. 26:31–55

Hackman JR, Oldham GR. 1976. Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Organ. Behav. Hum.Perf. 16:250–79

Harris MM, Anseel F, Lievens F. 2008. Keeping up with the Joneses: a field study of the relationships amongupward, lateral, and downward comparisons and pay level satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:665–73

Provides support for anoverall job attitudefactor and tests modelsof its relationship towithdrawal.

Harrison DA, Newman DA, Roth PL. 2006. How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic compar-isons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Acad. Manage. J. 49:305–25


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


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. 87:268–79

Hausknecht JP, Hiller NJ, Vance RJ. 2008. Work-unit absenteeism: effects of satisfaction, commitment, labormarket conditions, and time. Acad. Manage. J. 51:1223–45

Hom PW, Kinicki AJ. 2001. Toward a greater understanding of how dissatisfaction drives employee turnover.Acad. Manage. J. 44:975–87

Hoppock R. 1935. Job Satisfaction. New York: HarperHulin CL. 2002. Lessons from industrial and organizational psychology. In The Psychology of Work: Theoretically

Based Empirical Research, ed. JM Brett, F Drasgow, pp. 3–22. Mahwah, NJ: ErlbaumHunter LW, Thatcher SMB. 2007. Feeling the heat: effects of stress, commitment, and job experience on job

performance. Acad. Manage. J. 50:953–68Hurtz GM, Williams KJ. 2009. Attitudinal and motivational antecedents of participation in voluntary employee

development activities. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:635–53Ilies R, Fulmer IS, Spitzmuller M, Johnson MD. 2009. Personality and citizenship behavior: the mediating

role of job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:945–59Ilies R, Judge TA. 2002. Understanding the dynamic relationships among personality, mood, and job satis-

faction: a field experience sampling study. Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. Process. 89:1119–39Ilies 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. 13:367–89Ilies 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. 49:561–75Ironson GH, Smith PC, Brannick MT, Gibson WM, Paul KB. 1989. Construction of a Job in General scale:

a comparison of global, composite, and specific measures. J. Appl. Psychol. 74:193–200Jokisaari M, Nurmi J. 2009. Change in newcomers’ supervisor support and socialization outcomes after orga-

nizational entry. Acad. Manage. J. 52:527–44Judge TA, Bono JE. 2001. Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy,

locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: a meta-analysis.J. Appl. Psychol. 86:80–92

Judge TA, Bono JE, Erez A, Locke EA. 2005. Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: the role ofself-concordance and goal attainment. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:257–68

Judge TA, Bono JE, Locke EA. 2000. Personality and job satisfaction: the mediating role of job characteristics.J. Appl. Psychol. 85:237–49

Judge TA, Heller D, Klinger R. 2008. The dispositional sources of job satisfaction: a comparative test.Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 57:361–72

Judge TA, Heller D, Mount MK. 2002. Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: a meta-analysis.J. Appl. Psychol. 87:530–41

Judge TA, Hulin CL. 1993. Job satisfaction as a reflection of disposition: a multiple source casual analysis.Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 56:388–421

Judge TA, Hulin CL, Dalal RS. 2011. Job satisfaction and job affect. In The Oxford Handbook of Industrial andOrganizational 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. 89:661–73

Judge TA, Locke EA, Durham CC. 1997. The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: a core evaluationsapproach. Res. Organ. Behav. 19:151–88

Judge TA, Piccolo RF, Ilies R. 2004. The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structurein leadership research. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:36–51

Judge TA, Scott BA, Ilies R. 2006. Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: test of a multilevel model.J. Appl. Psychol. 91:126–38Provides comprehensive

quantitative review ofthe job satisfaction–jobperformancerelationship.

Judge TA, Thoresen CJ, Bono JE, Patton GK. 2001. The job satisfaction–job performance relation-ship: a qualitative and quantitative review. Psychol. Bull. 127:376–407

Judge TA, Watanabe S. 1993. Another look at the job satisfaction–life satisfaction relationship. J. Appl. Psychol.78:939–48


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Judge TA, Welbourne TM. 1994. A confirmatory investigation of the dimensionality of the Pay SatisfactionQuestionnaire. J. Appl. Psychol. 79:461–66

Kammeyer-Mueller JD, Wanberg CR, Glomb TM, Ahlburg D. 2005. The role of temporal shifts in turnoverprocesses: It’s about time. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:644–58

Kinicki AJ, McKee-Ryan FM, Schriesheim CA, Carson KP. 2002. Assessing the construct validity of the JobDescriptive Index: a review and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:14–32

Kunin T. 1955. The construction of a new type of attitude measure. Pers. Psychol. 8:65–77Lee TH, Gerhart B, Weller I, Trevor CO. 2008. Understanding voluntary turnover: path-specific job satis-

faction effects and the importance of unsolicited job offers. Acad. Manage. J. 51:651–71Liao H, Joshi A, Chuang A. 2004. Sticking out like a sore thumb: employee dissimilarity and deviance at work.

Pers. Psychol. 57:969–1000Liao H, Rupp DE. 2005. The impact of justice climate and justice orientation on work outcomes: a cross-level

multifoci framework. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:242–56Loi R, Yang J, Diefendorff JM. 2009. Four-factor justice and daily job satisfaction: a multilevel investigation.

J. Appl. Psychol. 94:770–81Lyubomirsky S, King L, Diener E. 2005. The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to

success? Psychol. Bull. 131:803–55Magnusson D. 1999. Holistic interactionism: a perspective for research on personality development. In

Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, ed. LA Pervin, OP John, pp. 219–47. New York: Guilford.2nd ed.

Mattson RE, Paldino D, Johnson MD. 2007. The increased construct validity and clinical utility of assessingrelationship quality using separate positive and negative dimensions. Psychol. Assess. 19:146–51

Mayer D, Nishii L, Schneider B, Goldstein H. 2007. The precursors and products of justice climates: groupleader antecedents and employee attitudinal consequences. Pers. Psychol. 60:929–63

Meglino BM, Korsgaard MA. 2007. The role of other orientation in reactions to job characteristics. J. Manage.33:57–83

Meyer JP, Becker TE, Vandenberghe C. 2004. Employee commitment and motivation: a conceptual analysisand integrative model. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:991–1007

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.61:20–52

Miner AG, Glomb TM. 2010. State mood, task performance, and behavior at work: a within-persons approach.Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 112:43–57

Miner AG, Glomb TM, Hulin C. 2005. Experience sampling mood and its correlates at work. J. Occup. Organ.Psychol. 78:171–93

Miner JB, Dachler HP. 1973. Personnel attitudes and motivation. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 24:379–402Mischel W, Shoda Y. 1998. Reconciling processing dynamics and personality dispositions. Annu. Rev. Psychol.

49:229–58Morgeson 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. 91:1321–39Netemeyer RG, Maxham JG, Lichtenstein DR. 2010. Store manager performance and satisfaction: effects on

store employee performance and satisfaction, store customer satisfaction, and store customer spendinggrowth. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:530–45

Neuman GA, Edwards JE, Raju NS. 1989. Organizational development interventions: a meta-analysis of theireffects on satisfaction and other attitudes. Pers. Psychol. 42:461–89

Ng TWH, Feldman DC, Lam SSK. 2010. Psychological contract breaches, organizational commitment, andinnovation-related behaviors: a latent growth modeling approach. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:744–51

Olson JM, Zanna MP. 1993. Attitudes and attitude change. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 44:117–54O’Reilly CA. 1991. Organizational behavior: where we’ve been, where we’re going. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 42:427–

58O’Reilly CA, Chatman J. 1986. Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: the effects of

compliance, identification, and internalization of prosocial behavior. J. Appl. Psychol. 71:492–99


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Organ DW, Ryan K. 1995. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizationalcitizenship behavior. Pers. Psychol. 48:775–802

Parsons CK, Hulin CL. 1982. An empirical comparison of item response theory and hierarchical factor analysisin applications to the measurement of job satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 67:826–34

Power MJ. 2006. The structure of emotion: an empirical comparison of six models. Cogn. Emot. 20:694–713Rentsch JR, Steel RP. 1992. Construct and concurrent validation of the Andrews and Withey job satisfaction

questionnaire. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 52:357–67Rich BL, Lepine JA, Crawford ER. 2010. Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job performance. Acad.

Manage. J. 53:617–35Tests underlying causaldirections of therelationship betweenjob attitudes andperformance.

Riketta M. 2008. The causal relation between job attitudes and performance: a meta-analysis of panelstudies. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:472–81

Rizzo JR, House RJ, Lirtzman SI. 1970. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Admin. Sci. Q.15:150–63

Schaubroeck J, Shaw JD, Duffy MK, Mitra A. 2008. An under-met and over-met expectations model ofemployee reactions to merit raises. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:424–34

Schleicher DJ, Watt JD, Greguras GJ. 2004. Reexamining the job satisfaction-performance relationship: thecomplexity of attitudes. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:165–77

Schneider B, Hanges PJ, Smith DB, Salvaggio AN. 2003. Which comes first: employee attitudes or organiza-tional financial and market performance? J. Appl. Psychol. 88:836–51

A study that illustratesthe insights producedby multilevelconceptualizations ofjob attitudes.

Seibert SE, Silver SR, Randolph WA. 2004. Taking empowerment to the next level: a multiple-levelmodel of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Acad. Manage. J. 47:332–49

Shipton HJ, West MA, Parkes CL, Dawson JF, Patterson MG. 2006. When promoting positive feelings pays:aggregate job satisfaction, work design features, and innovation in manufacturing organizations. Eur. J.Work Organ. Psychol. 15:404–30

Sinclair RR, Tucker JS, Cullen JC, Wright C. 2005. Performance differences among four organizationalcommitment profiles. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:1280–87

Smith PC, Kendall L, Hulin CL. 1969. The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement: A Strategy forthe Study of Attitudes. Chicago: Rand McNally

Reviews theoreticalbases for attitudesresearch, with a specialfocus on bringingcommitment researchmore in line withgeneral attitudesresearch.

Solinger ON, van Olffen W, Roe RA. 2008. Beyond the three-component model of organizationalcommitment. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:70–83

Staw BM. 1984. Organizational behavior: a review and reformulation of the field’s outcome variables. Annu.Rev. Psychol. 35:627–66

An early and importantpaper suggesting theimportance ofpersonality to jobattitudes.

Staw BM, Bell NE, Clausen JA. 1986. The dispositional approach to job attitudes: a lifetime longitu-dinal test. Admin. Sci. Q. 31:437–53

Staw BM, Ross J. 1985. Stability in the midst of change: a dispositional approach to job attitudes. J. Appl.Psychol. 70:469–80

Takeuchi R, Chen G, Lepak DP. 2009. Through the looking glass of a social system: cross-level effects ofhigh-performance work systems on employees’ attitudes. Pers. Psychol. 62:1–29

Tepper BJ. 2000. Consequences of abusive supervision. Acad. Manage. J. 43:178–90Totterdell P, Wall T, Holman D, Diamond H, Epitropaki O. 2004. Affect networks: a structural analysis of

the relationship between work ties and job-related affect. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:854–67Trevor CO. 2001. Interactions among actual ease-of-movement determinants and job satisfaction in the

prediction of voluntary turnover. Acad. Manage. J. 44:621–38Trougakos JP, Jackson CL, Beal DJ. 2011. Service without a smile: comparing the consequences of neutral

and positive display rules. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:350–62Tsai W, Chen C, Liu H. 2007. Test of a model linking employee positive moods and task performance.

J. Appl. Psychol. 92:1570–83Wanberg CR, Glomb TM, Song Z, Sorenson S. 2005. Job-search persistence during unemployment: a 10-

wave longitudinal study. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:411–30Watson D. 2000. Mood and Temperament. New York: GuilfordWatson D, Slack AK. 1993. General factors of affective temperament and their relation to job satisfaction over

time. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 54:181–202


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Wegge J, van Dick R, Fisher GK, West MA, Dawson JF. 2006. A test of basic assumptions of Affective EventsTheory (AET) in call centre work. Br. J. Manage. 17:237–54

A seminal articleproviding a frameworkfor the study of moodsand emotions in jobattitudes research.

Weiss HM, Cropanzano R. 1996. Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion of the structure,causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Res. Organ. Behav. 19:1–74

Weiss HM, Nicholas JP, Daus CS. 1999. An examination of the joint effects of affective experiences and jobbeliefs on job satisfaction and variations in affective experiences over time. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis.Process. 78:1–24

Williams ML, McDaniel MA, Nguyen NT. 2006. A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences ofpay level satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:392–413

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. 87:1183–90

Zhou J, George JM. 2001. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging the expression of voice.Acad. Manage. J. 44:682–96


Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

PS63-FrontMatter ARI 10 November 2011 9:52

Annual Review ofPsychology

Volume 63, 2012 Contents

Prefatory

Working Memory: Theories, Models, and ControversiesAlan Baddeley � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Developmental Psychobiology

Learning to See WordsBrian A. Wandell, Andreas M. Rauschecker, and Jason D. Yeatman � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �31

Memory

Remembering in Conversations: The Social Sharingand Reshaping of MemoriesWilliam Hirst and Gerald Echterhoff � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �55

Judgment and Decision Making

Experimental PhilosophyJoshua Knobe, Wesley Buckwalter, Shaun Nichols, Philip Robbins,

Hagop Sarkissian, and Tamler Sommers � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �81

Brain Imaging/Cognitive Neuroscience

Distributed Representations in Memory: Insights from FunctionalBrain ImagingJesse Rissman and Anthony D. Wagner � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 101

Neuroscience of Learning

Fear Extinction as a Model for Translational Neuroscience:Ten Years of ProgressMohammed R. Milad and Gregory J. Quirk � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 129

Comparative Psychology

The Evolutionary Origins of FriendshipRobert M. Seyfarth and Dorothy L. Cheney � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 153

Emotional, Social, and Personality Development

Religion, Morality, EvolutionPaul Bloom � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 179

vi

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Adulthood and Aging

Consequences of Age-Related Cognitive DeclinesTimothy Salthouse � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 201

Development in Societal Context

Child Development in the Context of Disaster, War, and Terrorism:Pathways of Risk and ResilienceAnn S. Masten and Angela J. Narayan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 227

Social Development, Social Personality, Social Motivation, Social Emotion

Social Functionality of Human EmotionPaula M. Niedenthal and Markus Brauer � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 259

Social Neuroscience

Mechanisms of Social CognitionChris D. Frith and Uta Frith � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 287

Personality Processes

Personality Processes: Mechanisms by Which Personality Traits“Get Outside the Skin”Sarah E. Hampson � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 315

Work Attitudes

Job AttitudesTimothy A. Judge and John D. Kammeyer-Mueller � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 341

The Individual Experience of UnemploymentConnie R. Wanberg � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 369

Job/Work Analysis

The Rise and Fall of Job Analysis and the Future of Work AnalysisJuan I. Sanchez and Edward L. Levine � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 397

Education of Special Populations

Rapid Automatized Naming (RAN) and Reading Fluency:Implications for Understanding and Treatment of Reading DisabilitiesElizabeth S. Norton and Maryanne Wolf � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 427

Human Abilities

IntelligenceIan J. Deary � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 453

Research Methodology

Decoding Patterns of Human Brain ActivityFrank Tong and Michael S. Pratte � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 483

Contents vii

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Human Intracranial Recordings and Cognitive NeuroscienceRoy Mukamel and Itzhak Fried � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 511

Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Researchand Recommendations on How to Control ItPhilip M. Podsakoff, Scott B. MacKenzie, and Nathan P. Podsakoff � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 539

Neuroscience Methods

Neuroethics: The Ethical, Legal, and Societal Impact of NeuroscienceMartha J. Farah � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 571

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 53–63 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 593

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 53–63 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 598

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Psychology articles may be found athttp://psych.AnnualReviews.org/errata.shtml

viii Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. P

sych

ol. 2

012.

63:3

41-3

67. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om w

ww

.ann

ualr

evie

ws.

org

by U

nive

rsity

of

Not

re D

ame

on 0

4/23

/12.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Job Attitudes - m.timothy-judge.comm.timothy-judge.com/documents/Jobattitudes.pdf · We then...

Documents

Transcript of Job Attitudes - m.timothy-judge.comm.timothy-judge.com/documents/Jobattitudes.pdf · We then...