The Dispositional Approach To Job Attitudes: A Lifetime Longitudinal Test
Author(s): Barry M. Staw, Nancy E. Bell, John A. Clausen
Source: Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Mar., 1986), pp. 56-77
Published by: Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2392766
Accessed: 07/12/2009 21:26
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cjohn.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Johnson Graduate School of Management, Cornell University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Administrative Science Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
The Dispositional
ApproachTo Job Attitudes: A LifetimeLongitudinalTest
BarryM. Staw, Nancy
E. Bell, and John A.
Clausen
Universityof California,
Berkeley
? 1986 by CornellUniversity.
0001-8392/86/3101-0056/$1.00
Thisresearchwas supportedinpartby
grantAG4178 fromthe NationalInstitute
of Agingto the Instituteof HumanDevelopment(JohnClausen,principalinvestigator)andby a Universityof California
facultyresearchgrantto BarryStaw. Correspondenceregardingthis papershould
be sent to BarryM. Staw, Schoolof Business Administration,
Universityof California,Berkeley,CA94720.
Recent debates between the job enrichment and socialinformation-processing perspectives have led to a trend
toward greater situationalism in organizational research.
This paper, however, argues for a more dispositional
approach in which the role of the person is emphasized.
Using a longitudinal sample, measures of affective disposition from as early as adolescence were used to predict job
attitudes in later life. Results showed that dispositional
measures significantly predicted job attitudes over a time
span of nearly fifty years. The implications of these findings are discussed in terms of both theories of job attitudes
and organizational development activities that attempt to
alter employee job satisfactions
Not only have hundredsof studies on job attitudesattempted
to outlinethe determinantsof job satisfaction,but theories
about how individualsrespondto work have been the center of
some of the most active controversiesin organizationalresearch. Thisemphasis is understandable,given the importance
of job satisfactionto individualwelfare and its correlationwith
other outcomes (e.g., absenteeism and turnover)of concern to
organizations.
At present, the focus of job-attituderesearchrevolves around
the debate between job enrichmentand social-informationprocessing theories. Drawingon Maslow's (1954) theoryof
individualneeds, advocates of job enrichmenthave arguedthat
most worktasks failto challenge individualsadequatelyor
fulfilltheirdesires for growthand stimulation,resultingin
widespreadworkdissatisfactionand unproductivebehavior
(e.g., Herzberg,1966; Hackmanand Oldham,1980; Lawler,
1982). Thus, by redesigningtask characteristics,it is posited,
individualscan become both satisfied and intrinsicallymotivated on the job (Hackmanet al., 1975). So far,the job
enrichmentapproachhas received considerableempiricalsupport,althoughthe bulkof the data has come fromsurveys
using self-reportmeasures of both task characteristicsand job
attitudes, ratherthanfrom studies using objective measures of
job characteristics,(e.g., Taber,Beehr, and Walsh, 1985) or
well-documentedfield experiments (e.g., Goodman,1979).
theory has made two key
Social-information-processing
attacks on the job-enrichmentapproach.First,need theories
were characterizedas ambiguousand unnecessary explanations of workattitudes (Salancikand Pfeffer, 1977). Then,as a
replacementfor need fulfillment,social informationprocessing
was suggested as a mechanismthat determines whether
individualsrespond positivelyor negativelyto task situations
(Salancikand Pfeffer, 1978). Ithas been arguedthat individuals'attitudesare not a functionof deep-seated needs but a
productof how people sociallyconstructthe worldaround
them. Thatis, because tasks are inherentlyambiguous,individualsmay interpretthem inways that are dictated by the
context and meaningof theirown actions. Thus, any information that a task is interesting(perhapsprovidedby others or
throughthe observationof one's own behaviorin its social
context) could be as strong an influenceon job attitudes as the
objective propertiesof the task. Validationof the socialtheory has come most directlyfrom
information-processing
56/AdministrativeScience Quarterly,31 (1986): 56-77
Job Attitudes
laboratorystudies inwhich manipulatedopinionsof others
were shown to influencetask satisfaction(O'Reillyand Caldwell, 1979; Whiteand Mitchell,1979; Weiss and Shaw, 1979)
and indirectlyfromexperimentson overjustificationthat show
the interactionof intrinsicand extrinsicrewardson task attitudes (e.g., Deci, 1975; Lepper,Greene, and Nisbett, 1973;
Staw, Calder,and Hess, 1980).
The Emerging Situational Approach
The debate between job enrichmentand social information
processing has contributedto two recent shifts in theories
about how people reactto work environments.The first
change has been greateremphasis on subjectiveand cognitive
factors, with wider acceptance that interpretationof the work
situationis at least as importantas objective reality.Although
job-enrichmenttheorists have long used perceptualmeasures
in assessing task characteristics(e.g., Hackmanand Oldham,
1975; Sims, Szilagyi,and Keller,1976), individualcognitionhas
historicallybeen treated more as a source of errorvariance
than as an importantcausal factor.Thus,the conflictbetween
the social-information-processing
andjob-enrichmentpositions
has put new life in the search for why a single job can be
perceived in such differentways (O'Reilly,Parlette,and
Bloom, 1980).
The second majorshift injob-attitudetheory has been a move
towardgreaterenvironmentaldeterminism.Not only have
need-based theories come undersevere criticism,but recent
attempts to finda coherent set of individualdifferences that
moderatethe effects of job enrichmenthave not been particularlysuccessful (White,1978). Consequently,fromwhat was
essentially an interactionalpositionemphasizingthe proper
"fit"between individualsand workcontexts (e.g., Hackman
and Oldham,1976), we have now moved furtherin the direction of emphasizingsituationalinfluence.Currentlyemphasized are ways to manipulateor change job attitudesexternally,using eitherobjectiveinfluences derivedfromtask
design or subjective influences derivedfrom social cues. The
best example of such a synthesis is Griffin's(1983) recent field
experimentinwhich bothjob enlargementand social labeling
were shown to increase the satisfactionof workers in two
factorysettings.
Restoring the Dispositional Perspective
Althoughthe confrontationbetween job-enrichmentand
theories has contributedsubsocial-information-processing
stantiallyto our knowledge of job attitudes,there has been, we
believe, an unfortunatebyproductof this debate. Because of
interpretiveand empiricalproblemswith need theory (Wahba
and Bridwell,1976) as well as the recent emphasis on
situationalinfluence,the field has very nearlyeliminated
individual-level
variablesfromthe study of job attitudes.The
field is no longeras interested in what the individualbringsto
the worksetting interms of behavioraltendencies, traits,and
personality(now commonlysubsumed underthe rubricof
personaldispositions)as in how the organizationcan externally
prodthe individualto evoke more positivejob attitudesand
behavior.
57/ASQ, March1986
The currenttrendtowardsituationalismin organizationalresearch correspondsto similarleaningsin psychologyduring
the 1960s and 1970s. Overthese twenty years, dispositional
concepts were criticizedon manygrounds,the most tellingof
which was Mischel's (1968)argumentthat personalityscales
or traitmeasures account for littlevariancein behavioracross
situations. Morerecently,however, a largenumberof counterarguments have surfaced indefense of personalitydeterminants of behavior.Bem and Allen(1974) noted that the behaviorof some but not all individualsis consistent across
situations. Block(1977)arguedthat in-depthassessments of
personalityby trainedspecialists are much more predictive
thanthe paper-and-pencilmeasures of traitsthat are commonlyused. McGowanand Gormly(1976)and Aries, Gold,and
Weigel (1983) posited that personalitytraitsare more predictive of multipleinstances of behaviorthan behaviorin a single
situation.Buss and Craik(1983) noted that personalityconstructs are best used as predictorswhen they are based on
aggregate levels of previousbehavior.Monson, Hesley, and
Chernick(1982) showed that personalityis more predictiveof
behaviorin ambiguoussituationsthan in settings inwhich role
demands are so strong that behavioris externallydetermined
regardlessof personaldispositions.And,finally,Funderand
Ozer(1983) demonstratedthatthe statisticalmagnitudeof
manyof the most famous situationaleffects (e.g., forced
compliance,bystanderintervention,and obedience) is no
greaterthanthat achieved by the more heavilycriticizeddispositionalresearch.Thus, a consensus has startedto emerge
that dispositionalconstructs, when properlymeasuredand
relatedto behaviorsthat are conceptuallyrelevant,may be
useful explanatoryvariablesafterall.
Currentpersonalitytheory has also moved from a defensive
posture, attemptingto justifydispositionalresearch,to a more
constructivestance. Not only has there been a resurgence of
empiricalresearchon dispositionaldeterminantsof behavior
(Buss and Craik,1985), but a growingnumberof studies in
behaviorgenetics are now providingratherconvincingevidence for the heritabilityof many individualcharacteristics
(Buss and Plomin,1984). Studies comparingidenticalvs.
fraternaltwins as well as data on the similarityof twins raised
aparthave, for example, shown very strong indicationsof a
genetic basis for both personalityand mentalabilities(Plomin,
DeFries,and McClearn,1980; Bouchard,1984). Thoughbehaviorgeneticists are carefulnot to deny the role of environment or the interactionof heredityand environment,the main
effect of individualdispositionson attitudesand behavioris
becoming more firmlyestablished.
Inthe context of organizationalbehavior,dispositionalresearch
is also makingsomething of a comeback.AlthoughMaslow's
need theory has been largelydiscreditedand neitherdemographicnorpersonalityvariableshave provedto be strong
determinantsof organizationalbehavior,argumentsare starting to be formulatedfor improvementsinthe use of dispositionalconstructs. Weiss and Adler(1984) have noted, for
example, that dispositionalvariablesmay have been such
weak predictorsof organizationalbehaviorbecause they have
been used largelyin an atheoreticalmannerto explainadditionalvariancein situationalstudies. Off-the-shelfmeasures of
58/ASQ, March1986
Job Attitudes
personalityas well as easily collected demographicfactors are
usuallyadded to surveys and experimentsas ancillaryor
moderatingvariables.Seldom is much thought given to the
theoreticalcorrespondence between dispositionalvariables
and the organizationalbehaviorsthey are intendedto predict.
Norare there manystudies designed inwhich situational
factors are variedso as to help develop the constructvalidityof
dispositionalvariablesor show underwhat conditionsdispositionalfactorswill best explainwork behavior.Thus,as Weiss
and Adler(1984) have argued,a byproductof havingputalmost
all ourtheoreticalenergies intodemonstratingsituational
effects is thatwe may now mistakenlyinferthatdispositional
variableshave littleto contributeto organizationalattitudesand
behavior.
Inthis paperwe outlineevidence for a dispositionalexplanation of job attitudesand attempt to show why it is useful to
restore considerationof the individualto researchon job
satisfaction.The argumentthatjob satisfactioncan have a
dispositionalsource is not necessarilya new idea, but it is one
that has been distinctlyout of favorfor at least twenty years.
The dispositionalpositioncan be tracedto some of the earliest
writingsin organizationalpsychology. Munsterberg(1913:
198), for example, noted that ". . . the feeling of monotony
depends much less uponthe particularkindof workthan upon
the special dispositionof the individual."Hoppock(1935: 5), in
summarizingthe results of the firstextensive study of job
satisfaction,also noted that a multitudeof dispositionaland
demographicfactors ". . . may be just as importantas the job
itself in determiningwhat we tentativelychoose to calljob
satisfaction."And,in the 1940s and 1950s there were many
survey researchstudies that correlatedmiscellaneous demographicand personalityvariablesto job satisfaction(forreviews, see Herzberget al., 1957; Vroom,1964; Locke, 1976).
Thoughfew of these previousattempts to explainjob satisfaction with dispositionalvariablesyielded strong or theoretically
meaningfulresults, we would argue, likeWeiss and Adler
(1984), that it is time to improvedispositionalexplanations
ratherthanabandonthem.
Toward a Dispositional Theory of Job Attitudes
As a startingpointfor reexaminingdispositionalsources of job
satisfaction,it is useful to considerwhether job attitudes have
some consistency over time. We would not go as faras Buss
and Craik(1985) inarguingthat stabilityis the sine qua non for
dispositions,but we would note that examiningtemporal
stabilityis a valuablefirststep informulatingdispositional
explanations.Evidenceof temporalstabilityprovidesat least a
clue, if not evidence, that some dispositionalforces may be
operatingon attitudesand behavior.And, more importantly,
withoutconsideringtemporalconsistency, dispositional
theories must resortto complicatedstage and interactional
models to explainjob attitudes.
Severalfindingssuggest thatjob attitudesdo have some
temporalstability.Schneiderand Dachler(1978),for example,
found strong temporalconsistency in satisfactionscores, with
the correlationsbetween pre-and post-measures of job attitudes averaging.56 for managersand .58 for nonmanagersin a
59/ASQ, March1986
16-monthlongitudinalstudy. Pulakosand Schmitt(1983) also
found that highschool students' pre-employmentexpectations
of satisfactionwere a significantpredictorof subsequent job
attitudes. Finally,some indirectsupportfor temporalconsistency comes fromthe fact that nationalsurvey data have
shown ratherstable levels of job satisfactioneven though
there have been manyobjectivechanges in the qualityof
worklifeover the past decades (Quinn,Staines, and McCollough, 1974; Quinnand Staines, 1979; Weaver, 1980).
Inorderto demonstratedispositionalsources of job satisfaction it is also importantto establish cross-situationalconsistency - to show that behaviorcan be predictedacross disparate contexts as well as withinthem (cf. Mischel, 1968). So far,
the strongest evidence for the cross-situationalconsistency of
job attitudes comes froma recent study by Staw and Ross
(1985). They reanalyzeddata fromthe NationalLongitudinal
Survey(originallydesigned to study laboreconomics issues)
and found stabilityinjob attitudes over time and situation.Over
both three- and five-yeartime intervalsStaw and Ross found
significantconsistency injob satisfactionwhen people worked
for the same employerand in the same occupation.More
importantly,theirreanalysesof the NationalLongitudinalSurvey data showed significantconsistency injob satisfaction
when individualschanged both the employerforwhom they
worked and theiroccupation.
The findingsof temporaland cross-situationalstabilityinjob
attitudes are importantyet preliminarysteps in formulatinga
dispositionalapproachto job attitudes.They create a basis for
what Buss and Craik(1983) have identifiedas an actuarial
approachto dispositionalresearch, providinga summaryof
past attitudesthat is useful for predictionsover time and
situation.Such consistency datado not, however, constitute a
dispositionaltheoryof job attitudes, since they have littleto
say about why individualsmay show stabilityinjob satisfaction. To formulatea dispositionaltheorywe must begin to
understandsome of the mechanisms that underliethese consistency effects.
Job Attitudes As a Function of Affective Disposition
One clue about dispositionalsources of job satisfactionwas
providedlong ago by Fisherand Hanna(1931).They argued
that job dissatisfactionmay be caused as much by the ongoing emotionalstate of the individualas by any objective
propertiesof the job. Intheirdispositionalexplanationof job
attitudes, Fisherand Hanna(1931: vii-viii)proposed an attributionalprocess not too differentfromthe social-informationprocessing ideas now popularin organizationalbehavior:
The emotionallymaldevelopedindividualis almost certainto become
maladjustedsooner or laterto some or several of the variousmajor
apects of his everydaylife. Inasmuchas his feelings and emotions are
inherentaspects of himself,he carriesthem with him,so to speak,
into every situationwhich he enters. Now, since he does not usually
know the reason of his dissatisfaction,does not understandthe
whyforand natureof his maladjustment,it is not surprisingthat he
very frequentlyattaches or attributesit (hisdissatisfaction)to his work
or his workingsituation.
Althoughwe would not labeljobdissatisfactionas a pathology,
we do agree with Fisherand Hannathat the person's internal
60/ASQ,March1986
Job Attitudes
state can serve as an importantstimulusfor the interpretation
of job information.People may bringa positiveor negative
dispositionto the work setting, process informationabout the
job in a way that is consistent with this disposition,and then
experience job satisfactionor dissatisfactionas a result.Thus,
likesocial-information-processing
theory,we would posit that
jobs are ambiguousstimulisubject to the cognitive manipulation of meaning. However,we would argue that the formulation of task attitudes can come as much fromthe internalstate
of the individualas fromany externalcues.
The hypothesis that personaldispositionsaffect job attitudes
could draw at least indirectsupportfromthree separate findings. First,there is substantialindividualvariationin the perception of tasks that have identicalformaljob descriptions
(O'Reilly,Parlette,and Bloom, 1980). Thus, there is probably
enough ambiguityin most job situationsto allow individualsto
interpretthe work inways that fit theirown dispositions.
Second, there is substantialevidence of a relationshipbetween job and life satisfaction(e.g., Orpen,1978; Near, Rice,
and Hunt,1978; Weaver, 1978) as well as a linkbetween job
attitudesand mental health(Kornhauser,1965; Gechmanand
Wiener, 1975; Kahn,1981). Althoughthese data are usually
interpretedas evidence of the effects of job satisfaction,they
can also reflecta more generaldispositionalsyndrome
(Schmittand Pulakos,1986). A thirdpiece of data indirectly
supportingthe dispositionalperspective is the fact that few
well-documentedfield experiments have shown long-term
changes injob attitudes. Oldhamand Hackman(1980) have
arguedthat most organizationalchanges are eithertoo weak to
have an effect or are resisted by traditionalpractices inorganizations.What has not been noted, however, is the possibility
that attitudechanges may not persist over time because of a
tendency for satisfactionto returnto an equilibriumstate
determinedby one's affective disposition(cf. Landy,1978).
Inourview, a primecandidatefor explainingdispositional
sources of job satisfactionis the affective state of the individual. Historicallythere has been substantialinterest in the
psychologicalstates of mood and depression (e.g., Beck,
1967; Zuckerman,1977). However,only recentlyhas it been
noted that positiveor negative affectivitymay constitute an
importanton-goingdispositionof individuals,perhapsintegrating manydisparatepersonalitydimensions (Watsonand Clark,
1984). Recent researchon identicaltwins raisedaparthas also
revealedthat affectivity,likemanyother individualdifferences,
could have a genetic basis that persists over one's lifetime
(Bouchard,1984, 1985). Thus, people's affective dispositions
can be thoughtof as generaltendencies toward positive or
negative evaluationof life stimuli- tendencies that should
influence-theway people perceive work environmentsduring
their lives. We do not, of course, expect that one's affective
dispositionwill dominateperceptionsto the extent thatwork in
a grossly negative setting will be interpretedas a highly
pleasantjob but, rather,that affective dispositionswill constitute a significant(andpreviouslyoverlooked)determinantof
work attitudes.
The present study examines the influenceof affective disposition on job attitudesover long periodsof time. Thisresearch
61/ASQ, March1986
takes advantageof a very unusualdata set, one that extends
over much of the lifetimeof a groupof individualswho have
been extensively tested at several points intime. We used
these data to test whether the affective dispositionof individuals,fromas farbackas juniorand senior highschool years,
can predictjob satisfactionin laterlife.
METHOD
Subjects
Datafor this researchwere taken from the Intergenerational
Studies (IGS)conducted by the Instituteof HumanDevelopment at the Universityof California,Berkeley.The IGSdataare
an aggregationof three separate longitudinalstudies that have
investigatedthe lives of selected individualsfor over fifty
years. Begun inthe late 1920s and early1930s, the three
studies each startedwith differentprincipalinvestigators,samples, and researchgoals, yet there was enough commonalityin
measurement to allow IGSstaff subsequently to combine the
samples intoa single data pool.
The firstof the IGSwas the GuidanceStudy initiatedby Jean
WalkerMacfarlanein 1928. Althoughthis projectwas originally
plannedas a six-yearstudy of children'sproblembehavior,it
was latercontinuedto researchthe interactionof psychological, social, and biologicalfactors in personalitydevelopment.
The study's 248 originalparticipantswere drawnfrom a survey
of every thirdbirthin Berkeleybetween January1, 1928 and
June 30, 1929. Since one of the study's goals was to assess
the impactof guidanceof parentsby professionalstaff, the
participantswere also dividedintoguidanceand control
groups. Extensivepersonalityassessments were taken for the
guidance group;fewer data were gatheredforthe control
subjects untilearlyadulthood.
The BerkeleyGrowthStudy,the second IGS,was started by
Nancy Bayleywith 61 infantsbornduring1928 and 1929. The
initialsample was located by requestingpermissionof obstetricians to visit parentswith new babies and was laterextended
to 74 subjects by including13 additionalbabies bornin the
subsequent three years. Althoughthe originalpurposeof the
BerkeleyGrowthStudywas to trace the intellectual,motor,
and physicaldevelopment of infantsand young children,the
projectwas extended over time with the inclusionof a wide
rangeof psychologicaland social assessments.
The thirdof the IGSwas the OaklandGrowthStudy. Begun in
1931 by HaroldE.Jones, MaryC. Jones, and HerbertR. Stolz,
the OaklandGrowthStudywas designed as a study of normal
adolescence. The projectoriginallyincluded212 subjects recruitedfromthe fifthand sixth grades of five elementary
schools in northeasternOaklandand subsequently enrolledin
a single juniorhighschool. The medianbirthmonth for this
sample is May 1921, thereby makingthe OaklandGrowth
Studysubjects an average of nearlyeight years olderthan
subjects in the Guidanceand BerkeleyGrowthStudies. When
initialmeasures were taken, members of the OaklandGrowth
Studywere 10-12 years in age, butthe most extensive
psychologicalassessments of them were made duringjunior
and senior highschool years.
62/ASQ, March1986
Job Attitudes
Demographically,the Oaklandand BerkeleyGrowthStudies
were limitedto Caucasians,whereas the Guidanceand Control
samples did includesome (English-speaking)minorities.About
40 percent of the OaklandGrowthStudysubjects came from
working-classhomes, whereas about 33 percent of the participants of the Guidanceand BerkeleyGrowthStudies had
working-classbackgrounds.Thisdifference is a reflectionof
the demographiccharacteristicsof Oaklandand Berkeleyat
the time of the studies. At adulthood,approximately90 percent of allthree samples could be characterizedas middle
class. Overtime, some selective attritionoccurredin the
studies, with working-classmen and lower IQparticipantsof
both sexes havingslightlyhigherdrop-outrates (see Eichorn,
1981, for a more thoroughdescriptionof the samples in the
IGS).
Q-Sort Data and Methodology
Because attritionis a majorproblemwith any longitudinal
study, let alone one that spans several decades of people's
lives, it was necessary for IGSresearchersto set up a procedurefor poolingdata across studies. Althoughallof the IGS
investigatedpersonalitydevelopment, the particularmeasures
used to assess individualsvariedacross the projects.An
importantgoal, therefore,was to aggregate availabledata on a
set of common dimensions across the three studies.
Block,in collaborationwith Haan(1971),developed a Q-sort
methodologyas a way of combiningdiverse data fromvarious
assessments intoa set of common personalitycharacteristics.
Althoughthe materialsavailablefrom the three studies were
heterogenous (consistingof interviews,tests, and case records),there was enough informationon most cases (interms
of breadthand depth)for a set of common Q-sortdimensions
to be derived.Using the data archivesfor each subject, trained
personalityraterswere asked to assess individualsusing a set
of descriptivestatements such as "favorsconservativevalues
in a varietyof areas," "initiateshumor,""irritable,"and "seeks
reassurancefromothers." Thejudges placed allof the items in
a forced normaldistributioninwhich lower categories (1-3)
represented qualitiesor traitsleast characteristicof the person, middle-rangescores (4-6) represented moderatelycharacteristictraits,and higherscores (7-9) were most characteristic of the person being rated.The procedureresulted in an
ipsativemeasure of the salience of variousdimensions of each
individual'spersonalityratherthana normativeratingof individualsagainst age or sex peers.
Q-sortswere done separatelyfor each of five time periods.
Two adolescent-subjectsorts were conducted, one for ages
12-14 (earlyadolescence) and anotherfor ages 15-18 (late
adolescence), based on a case assembly of the archivalmaterialavailablefor each study participant.A sort for the firstadult
period(aboutage 30 for Guidancesubjects, 36 for Berkeley
Growthsubjects, and 38 for participantsin the OaklandGrowth
Study)was based on interviews rangingfromfourto six hours
for BerkeleyGrowthsubjects to an average of 12 hoursover
several days for members of the other studies-.Sorts for the
second adultwave (when Guidancesubjects were about age
40 and OaklandGrowthsubjects about 48) were based on
tape-recordedinterviewsaveragingfourhours in length. Due
63/ASQ, March1986
to fundinglimitations,BerkeleyGrowthsubjects were not
interviewedfor the second adultwave. Sorts for the thirdadult
period(aboutage 54 for Guidanceand BerkeleyGrowthsubjects and 62 for OaklandGrowthparticipants)were also based
on tape-recordedinterviewslastingabout two hours.
At least three judges ratedeach adolescent and at least two
ratedeach adultfor the varioustime periods. Combinationsof
judges were systematicallyvariedso that no judge ratedthe
same subject at more than one time period,nordidjudges
have access to informationfromtime periodsother than the
one they were rating.The judges were highlyqualified,consisting of clinicalpsychologists and psychiatricsocial workers,
allwith substantialclinicaland/orresearchexperience. Thorough traininginthe Q-sortmethod was also provided,and
judges' performanceduringthe ratingswas closely monitored.
Judges were given feedback if they appearedto be using any
of the Q-items ina nondifferentiatingmanner(e.g., by consistently placingan item highin allsubjects' profiles),and several
tests were performedto provideassurance against the use of
stereotypic ratings.Nondifferentiatingplacement of items and
stereotypingdid not appearto be problemsin the Q-sorts,and
extra raterswere used if the Q-sortdata were not sufficiently
reliableacross the multiplejudges. The mean reliabilitiesof the
Q-sortsat the varioustime periodsrangedfrom .72 to .78.
Additionalreliabilitydata as well as more extensive explanation
of the Q-sortproceduresused in the IGScan be found in Block
(with Haan,1971) and in Eichornet al. (1981).
Sample Size
Althoughthe Q-sortprocedureallowed the IGSresearchersto
combine three longitudinalstudies, sample sizes are still modest forthe present investigation.The firstlimitingfactoris that
female subjects of the IGS(halfof the three samples) hadvery
limitedwork experience and thus hadto be excluded from
the present analyses. The second problemis that relatively
few IGSparticipantswere assessed for allof the five time
periods. Earlyand late adolescent datawere not availablefor
subjects who were originallyinthe controlgroupof the Guidance Study,since there were insufficientmaterialsfor 0-sorts
to be performedfor these cases. BerkeleyGrowthsubjects
were not assessed in the second adultwave. Finally,although
extensive efforts were made not to lose participantsover any
of the data collectionwaves (whichsometimes involvedinterviewers travelinglong distances to assess those unableto
returnto Berkeley)data for manyindividualsare missing for at
least one of the time periods. Fora study participantto be
includedin every wave of ouranalyses, sufficientdatawould
be necessary forfive personalityQ-sorts,rangingover a period
of 40 to 50 years, as well as two employmentquestionnaires
and an employment interviewadministeredover the last 12
years of the study. Because of these sample limitations,we
present analyses using both the largestavailabledata set as
well as a smallerset of complete longitudinaldata.
Measurement of Affective Disposition
Eighty-threeQ-sortitems were used consistently in the IGS
across the five waves of data collection. Fromthese 83 personalitydescriptionswe isolatedallthose statements that
64/ASQ, March1986
Job Attitudes
appearedto capturesome aspect of affect on a prioritheoretical grounds. Some of these Q-sortstatements pertainedto
intrapersonalaspects of affect, such as "cheerful,""feels lack
of personalmeaning"(reverse scored), and "irritable"(reverse
scored). Otheritems pertainedto interpersonalaspects of
affect, such as "behaves in a givingway," "has hostility
towardothers" (reversescored), and "feels victimized"(reverse scored). Factoranalyses showed that 17 items pertaining to both intra-and interpersonalaffect formeda single
affective factor,in a similarmanneras would be predictedby
Watson and Clark(1984).
The specific affective items and theirfactorloadingsare
shown inTable 1, alongwith the sample size on which each of
the factoranalyses was based. Also shown in the table are the
squared multiplecorrelationsof the variableswith the factors,
eigenvalues, Kaiser'smeasure of samplingadequacy (MSA),
and Cronbach'salphameasure of scale reliability.As illustrated
in the table, factorloadingswere ratherconsistent across the
variouswaves of data collection,averaging.65 across the five
time periods.The averagefactor loadingrangedfroma highof
.71 forthe late-adolescence periodto a low of .62 for the Adult
1 wave. Althoughit would have been preferableto have had a
largersample on which to base the factoranalyses, Kaiser's
measure of samplingadequacy indicatedthatthe datawere
adequate for the factoringtechnique (Kimand Mueller,1978).
Since reliabilities(Cronbach'salpha)rangedfrom .90 to .93 and
the squaredmultiplecorrelationsof the items with the factor
never fell below .95, we can conclude that the 17-itemaffective measure was a reliableindicatorthat retainedits factor
structureover time.
Table1
Items and Factor Loadings for The Affective Disposition Scale
Item
Giving
Thin-skinned
Sympathetic
Punitive
Condescending
Likeable
Warm
Hostile
Distrustful
Botheredby demands
Irritable
Negative
Self-defeating
Satisfiedwith self
Feels victimized
Moody
Cheerful
Squaredmultiple
correlationof
variableswith factor
Eigenvalue
Kaiser'sMSA
N
Cronbach'salpha
Early
adolescence
Time Period
Late
Adult 1
adolescence
Adult 2
Adult 3
.79
-.39
.78
-.61
-.49
.81
.75
-.81
- .74
-.70
-.67
-.76
-.65
.49
-.74
-.46
.64
.76
-.53
.80
-.66
-.53
.83
.70
-.77
-.76
-.70
-.80
-.75
-.70
.55
-.76
-.69
.75
.73
-.62
.83
-.65
-.35
.68
.70
-.65
-.72
-.49
-.67
-.69
-.52
.36
-.66
-.55
.68
.68
-.52
.72
-.57
-.35
.74
.65
-.79
-.67
-.69
-.54
-.67
-.69
.37
-.71
-.48
.64
.78
-.62
.84
-.78
-.63
.78
.85
-.88
-.83
-.62
-.53
-.80
-.58
.26
-.66
-.07
.75
.96
7.78
.88
101
.92
.97
8.64
.89
94
.93
.95
6.81
.87
130
.91
.95
6.72
.87
104
.90
.97
8.21
.92
128
.92
65/ASQ, March1986
As expected, the temporalstabilityof affective disposition
depended on the time periodseparatingdata collectionwaves.
Stabilitywas highest (averaging.48) for the temporallyadjacent periods (e.g., Adult1 and 2 waves) and somewhat lower
for data collections separated by two time periods(averaging
.31) and for measurements dividedby three time periods
(averaging.29). These temporalrelationshipsare in linewith
previouslongitudinalresearchon individualaffect reviewed by
Watson and Clark(1984), as well as with relatedpersonality
scales (e.g., the nurturant/hostile
dimension)developed in
previousresearchusing the IGSsamples (Haan,1981).
Measurement of Job Attitudes
IGSmeasures of job attitudeswere availablefroma questionnairethat was administeredto study participantsduringthe
Adult2 wave of data collectionand fromboth a questionnaire
and structuredinterviewthatwere partof the Adult3 wave of
assessments. Because the questionnairemeasures of job
attitudeswere self-reportsthey were independentof the
Q-sortassessment of personality.The interviewmeasures
were also largelyindependentof the Q-sortdata, since the
staff that conductedthe interviewsdid not have access to any
of the Q-sortassessments, nordid ratersforthe Q-sorts have
access to any specific interviewresponses. Thus, one strength
of this study is an independence of measurement, avoiding
problemsof common-methodbias that so frequentlyplague
researchon job attitudes (cf. Robertsand Glick,1981).
The IGSmeasures of job attitudefor the Adult2 time period
consisted of survey questions on bothjob and careersatisfaction. One measure was a single item assessing careersatisfaction with five response alternatives,rangingfrom "it is a career
Idislikeand wish Icould leave for another"to "ittruly
represents what Ihave wanted to do." A second indicatorof
job attitudeswas a 14-itemfacet satisfactionmeasure inwhich
subjects were asked to ratevariousaspects of theirwork on a
five-pointscale, rangingfrom "likeit very much"to "dislikeit
very much."Thejob facets includedin the measure were
workinghours,amountof tension and stress, income, degree
to which the work involves interests, generalconvenience for
the family,amountof leisuretime, opportunityfor advancement, natureof supervision,meeting and being with people,
use of skillsand abilities,supervisionof others, respect that
others give to the job, freedom to develop ideas, and security
of the job. These items were aggregated intoa facet satisfaction measure. Because facet satisfactionand careersatisfaction were strongly intercorrelated (r = .51, N = 75, p<.001)
they were also combined intoan overalljob-attitudeindex.
Forthe Adult3 time periodthere were five measures of job
attitudes availablein the IGSdata.The Michiganfacet-specific
measure of job satisfaction(Quinnand Staines, 1979) was
administered,in which subjects respondedto 18 positive
statements abouttheirjobs, such as "the job securityis
good," "the chances for promotionare good," and "Ihave an
opportunityto develop my own special abilities."Responses
to these items were aggregated intoa facet job-satisfaction
measure. Inadditionto this facet satisfactionmeasure the IGS
data also includedseveral single-itemscales relatingto job
attitudes.The Michiganfacet-freejob-satisfactionitem was
66/ASQ, March1986
Job Attitudes
included,which simplyasked, "allinall, how satisfied would
you say you are with yourcurrentjob?"Therewas also a
career-satisfactionitem with slightlydifferentwordingfrom
that administeredduringthe Adult2 wave, and a related
questionnaireitem inquiredwhether one would take the job
again,with three alternatives,rangingfrom "definitelywould
take the same job"to "Idefinitelywould not take the same
job." Finally,the structuredinterviewsconducted at the Adult
3 time periodincludeda question about how one felt about
going to work,with alternativescoded from "strongpositive
responses" to "negativefeelings." When these five measures
of job attitudeswere subjected to a factoranalysis,they
revealeda single factorwith loadingsrangingfrom .50 to .78.
Factorscores were used as an overallmeasure of job attitudes
for the Adult3 time period.
RESULTS
The majordata analyses to be reportedby this study are correlationsbetween affective dispositionandjob attitudes.The
firstanalyses displayedare those based on the maximumsamples availablefor each pointintime. The samples differfor
each of the waves of data collection,since comparativelyfew
of the subjects were assessed at allfive time periodson both
affect and job attitudes.
Table2 shows the correlatesof Adult2 job attitudes.The
smallest sample availableforthe correlationsconsisted of 51
men who were assessed on affect duringlate adolescence
and also forAdult2 job attitudes.The largestsample was 76
men who were assessed on both affect and job attitudes during the Adult2 time period.As shown in the table, the results
revealedseveral significantrelationshipsas well as a consistent trend.As mightbe expected, the correlationswere
progressivelystrongeras the time between measurements
decreased. The strongest relationshipresultedfromthe concurrentmeasurement of affect and job attitudes, both assessed at the Adult2 time period.The weakest relationship,
though still marginallysignificant,was the predictionof Adult2
job attitudesfromaffect duringearlyadolescence.
Table 2
Relationships between Affective Disposition and Adult Job Attitudes
Job Attitudes
(Adult 2)
Affective Disposition
Early
adolescence
Late
adolescence
Adult 1
Adult 2
p<. 10, p< 05, *p<.01;
67/AS0, March1986
Facet job
satisfaction
.14
(N = 59)
.16
Career
satisfaction
.19
(N = 58)
.270
Overall job
attitude
(average score)
.20
(N = 59)
.260
(N = 52)
(N = 51)
(N = 52)
.310
(N= 70)
.35000
(N= 76)
.230
(N= 69)
*35000
(N= 75)
(N= 70)
.40000
(N = 76)
one-tailed tests.
.30000
Table3 shows the relationshipbetween affective disposition
and job attitudesfromthe Adult3 time period.The sample
sizes for the variousanalyses rangedfrom 51 for the adolescent years to 101 for the Adult3 time period.As shown inthe
table, the affective dispositionscores from earlyand late
adolescence were generallyrelatedto the dependent measures. The facet job satisfaction,generaljob satisfaction,and
career satisfactionmeasures were allsignificantlypredictedby
affect fromthe adolescent years. The interviewitem measuring workfeelings and the questionnaireitem on whether one
would take the job againdid not show significantrelationships
with adolescent affect. However,the overalljob attitudemeasure (usingfactorscores) was significantlypredictedby affect
from both earlyand late adolescence.
Affective dispositionsfromAdult1 were stronglyrelatedto job
attitudes at the Adult3 time period.Allof the dependent measures at Adult3 were significantlypredictedby Adult1 affect,
and the overalljob attitudemeasure was stronglyrelatedto
affect fromthe Adult1 period.
Table3
Relationships between Affective Disposition and Adult 3 Job Attitudes
Job Attitudes
(Adult3)
Affective Disposition
Early
adolescence
Late
Career
satisfaction
.20
Facet-free
satisfaction
Facet
satisfaction
.20
(N = 51)
*35
(N = 51)
Take
job again
.240
.12
(N = 51)
(N = 51)
.21*35g
.09
Overalljob
Feelings
attitude
about work (factorscore)
.11
(N = 58)
.15
370
(N = 46)
39g
adolescence
(N = 45)
(N = 45)
(N = 45)
(N = 45)
(N = 52)
(N = 40)
Adult1
*45
(N = 72)
.19
(N = 68)
.25g
(N = 90)
*370
(N = 72)
.00
(N = 68)
.200
(N = 90)
260
(N = 72)
.04
(N = 68)
.230
(N = 90)
330
(N = 72)
.13
(N = 68)
.19
(N = 90)
.200
(N = 81)
.08
(N = 75)
.10
(N = 101)
48
(N = 67)
.12
(N = 63)
.230
(N = 81)
Adult2
Adult3
*p<.10, *p<.05, *p<.01;
one-tailedtests.
Of allthe relationshipsshown inTable3, the correlationsbetween Adult2 affect and Adult3 job attitudeswere the
weakest. Onlyone dependent measure was even marginally
relatedto Adult2 affect, and the overalljob attitudemeasure
did not show a significantcorrelation.The concurrentrelationships between Adult3 affect and Adult3 job attitudes
were somewhat stronger.These correlationswere modest in
magnitudebut statisticallysignificantdue to the largersample
sizes associated with the data.
Panel Data
One of the interestingfeatures of the results inTable3 is the
appearancethat earlymeasures of affect are strongerpredictors of Adult3 job attitudesthan lateraffective measures.
However, one cannot be sure of such a trendfromthe array
shown in the table. Because differentsubjects were used to
test each relationship(withmissing datafor manyof the
waves), any comparisonof correlationsinvolvesdifferentindi68/ASQ, March 1986
Job Attitudes
vidualssampled. Therefore,the correlationsreportedinTables
2 and 3 should be interpretedas separate tests of the hypothesis thatjob attitudes can be predictedfromaffective disposition ratherthan an answer to the question of whether affect
measured from one life stage is a strongerpredictorthanthat
fromanotherperiod.
Table4 presents data froma constant sample across the five
time periods, using the overalljob attitudemeasures as the
primarydependent variable.Results were consistent with the
data presented inTables 2 and 3. Adult2 job attitudeswere
shown to be most stronglypredictedby Adult2 affect, with
adolescent affect the weakest predictorof Adult2 attitudes. In
contrast,Adult3 job attitudeswere more stronglypredictedby
adolescent and Adult1 affect than by affect measured during
the Adult2 and 3 waves. Thus,the datawere inconclusivein
establishingwhether earlyor late affective measures are the
strongest predictorsof subsequent job attitudes; overall,they
appearapproximatelyequal in strength.
Table4
Relationships between Affective Disposition and Job Attitudes During
Adult 2 and Adult 3 Time Periods Using a Constant Sample
Job Attitudes
Adult 2
Adult 3
overall job
overall job
attitude
attitude
Affective Disposition
Earlyadolescence
Lateadolescence
Adult1
Adult2
Adult 3
(N = 52)
.270
.260
.310
.380
-
(N = 31)
.34a
.360
.480
.01
.24
*p<. 10, *p<.05, 00p<.01; one-tailedtests.
DISCUSSION
The data fromTables 2 and 3 show distinctevidence that
affective dispositionis a significantpredictorof job satisfaction. The correlationsare not of such magnitudeas to determine more thana minorityof the variance,but they are at least
as strong as those routinelyreportedfromcross-sectional
studies using a single questionnaire.This is by itself surprising,
given that the data reportedhere span almost fiftyyears in
time, with nearlyall of the data collections at least ten years
apart.
The second surprisingfindingfromthe relationshipsreported
in Tables 2 and 3 is the lackof a consistent patternof decay.
Onlythe antecedents of Adult2 attitudes showed the normally
expected patterninwhich earlymeasures of affect would be
weaker than subsequent indicatorsin predictingjob satisfaction. We do not have any firmexplanationfor these results
except to note that they are not unusualfor research using the
IntergenerationalStudies. Clausen(1968),for example, found
that adolescent personalityvariableswere strong predictorsof
some forms of adultbehavior(e.g., smoking),with at least as
69/ASO, March 1986
much explanatorypower as personalitytraitsmeasured from
adultyears. Ininterpretingsuch a patternit is possible to argue
that adolescent dispositionsset in motiona set of behaviorsor
choices that laterproduceimportantconsequences for the individual.Itis also possible that adolescent assessments are
somehow more validindicatorsof individualdispositionthan
data taken from latertime periods, perhapsbecause adolescent behaviorsare less disguised or socializedintoacceptable
forms thanthose of adults. Finally,because the adolescent and
Adult1 personalityassessments were based on a greater
amount of personalitydata (inthe case files) than the Adult2
and 3 measurements, they may be more representativeof the
affective dispositionof individuals.
Sources of Affective Disposition
Ourresults showed that it is possible to constructinternally
consistent measures of affective disposition,even when these
measures are constructed post hoc from priorpsychological
assessments. LikeWatson and Clark(1984),we found a range
of personaland interpersonaldimensions forminga coherent
set of individualcharacteristicsthat retainedits factorstructure
over time and that possessed some temporalstability(being
statisticallysignificantfor up to 40-year intervals).
Evidenceof stabilityin affect does not mean that this disposition is unchangeableor not subject to contextualinfluence. Itis
unclearfromourdata how the affect of individualsoriginated,
from either genetic or social sources, and how it may be influenced by externalfactors over one's lifetime. Itis also unclear
whether the constructof affect remainsa constant entity over
time. When assessing personalityin a longitudinalstudy one
cannot, as noted by Haan(1981), assume that scores for a
personalityvariableare necessarily equivalentfor childhood
and adultyears. Since the Q-sortswere based on disparate
sets of interviewdata, it is possible that what was interpreted
by judges as affect fromthe adultyears is not a simple extension of affect fromadolescence. Therefore,it may be useful to
interpretthe present results as showing relationshipsbetween
job attitudesand separate (thoughrelated)affective constructs. Of course, even with such a restrictedinference, it is
still possible to conclude fromthe IGSdatathat affective measures, fromas farbackas adolescence, are useful predictorsof
subsequent work attitudes.
While it is possible to speculate about alternativeinterpretations of these results, it is importantto realizethat few organizationalstudies have presented longitudinaldata beyond
several years in duration(Bray,Campbell,and Grant,1974 is a
rareexception). It is also importantto note that the measurement of affect for each life stage was, inthis study, assessed
by a differentraterand that satisfactionwas measured on
entirelydifferentinstrumentsfrom any of the affective measures. Too often organizationalresearchstems from measurements taken from single self-reportinstruments,thereby inflating the magnitudeof results, as in the correlationof job and life
satisfactionor the common practiceof relatingperceivedtask
characteristicsto job attitudes (cf. Robertsand Glick,1981).
Thus, the present findingscan be viewed as an extremely
conservativetest of the dispositionalapproachto job attitudes.
70/ASO, March1986
Job Attitudes
Cognitive Reevaluation of Jobs
Intesting the hypothesis that affective dispositionpredictsjob
attitudes, it has been assumed that cognitivedistortionmay
underliethe consistency between affect and job attitudes. It
should be stressed, however, that this is an hypothesizedexplanationof the data, since we have no directinformationon
perceptualprocesses. A plausiblealternative,for example, is
that individualswith positive dispositions have sought out job
environments(orhave been selected intojobs) that are objectively more pleasantthanthe employment situationof those
with more negative dispositions.Thisalternativecan be eliminated by controllingfor objective differences injob conditions.
Althoughthe only measure of objectivejob qualityavailablefor
both the Adult2 and Adult3 waves of IGSdata is the socioeconomic status (SES)of the individuals'job, SES should be at
least a roughproxyfor the overalllevel of pay, responsibility,
and the approvalof others. Therefore,we computed partial
correlationsbetween affect at the variouspoints in individuals'
lives with subsequent job attitudes, holdingSES constant. The
results of these analyses showed no materialchanges from
the data reportedinTables 2 and 3.
Forthe Adult3 periodonly, some additionalcontrolmeasures
were available.Recently, IGSstaff completed a coding of the
substantive complexityof participants'jobs in terms of dealing
with data, people, and things. The substantive complexity
scales were taken fromthe Dictionaryof OccupationalTitles
and probablyprovidesomewhat better measures of objective
job qualitythan SES. Therefore,we againcomputed partial
correlationsbetween affect at the varioustime periodswith
job attitudesduringthe Adult3 period,holdingthe three
aspects of substantivecomplexityconstant. The results once
again showed no significantdeparturefromthose of Tables2
and 3, suggesting that affect may influenceindividuals'responses to jobs, regardlessof at least some dimensions of
task content.
Itwas not possible with the IGSdata to sort out allthe possible
processes underlyingthe relationshipsbetween affect and job
satisfaction,since this would have taken both a largersample
and measures thatwere unavailablefor this research. Norwas
it possible with the IGSdata to answer questions about
whether affective dispositionis a functionof heredityor environment.Affect could resultfrom inheritedbiologicalfactors,
and these inheriteddispositionscould inturnbe associated
with other mentalor emotionaltraitsunderlyinglaterachievement inoccupationalsettings. Alternatively,affect could be a
productof earlysocializationexperiences that conditionor are
correlatedwith futurejob opportunitiesor the likelihoodof
success. The present data cannot (andwere not intendedto)
untangleallthe possible relationshipsbetween job conditions
and attitudes northe web of hereditaryand environmental
influences. We have instead sought to show that dispositional
propertiesof individuals,however constituted or developed
overtime, can be significantpredictorsof the satisfactionof
individualswith theirwork. Fortunately,we can have some
confidence inthis limitedinference.The IGSvariableswere
much more independentlymeasured and showed relationships over a much longertime span than is usuallythe case
71/ASO, March1986
in organizationalresearch.Ourconfidence in a dispositional
explanationof job attitudes is also strengthened by the fact
that adultjob satisfactionwas significantlypredictedby affective dispositions froman age before formalemployment had
begun (i.e., earlyand late adolescence). These relationships
are difficultto explainby any presumed effects of job experience on individuals'affective disposition.
Theoretical Implications
Inevaluatingthe theoreticalimplicationsof this study, one
should keep in mindthat there are several potentiallevels of
dispositionalexplanation.The most fundamentalbut also most
primitiveis knowledge that attitudes have some source of consistency over time and context, since this simplyprovidesa
clue that dispositionalcharacteristicsare a source of influence.
At a second level of explanationare reportedrelationshipsbetween personalityvariablesandjob attitudes that invokeuntested or unspecifiedtheoreticallinkages.Here,the causal
mechanisms underlyingsuch relationshipsmust be inferred
froma wide rangeof theoreticalpossibilities(e.g., those with
high-achievementneeds being less satisfied because they
might possibly have higheraspirations).A somewhat higheror
thirdlevel of dispositionalexplanationwould be one where
there is theoreticalcorrespondence between an individual
characteristicandan attitudinalor behavioralconstruct.When,
for example, power needs correlatewith promotionor, as in
this study, affective dispositionrelates to job satisfaction,the
theoreticallinkagebetween variablesis more specified or obvious thanwith the almost arbitraryuse of personalityconstructs in much of the organizationalliterature(cf. Weiss and
Adler,1984). Studies using time lags, such as when early
needs for power or affective dispositionrelateto subsequent
and correspondentdependent variables,are also helpfulin
buildinga convincingdispositionalinference, since they show
both causal directionand potency. A fourthlevel of explanation, and one not providedby this study, involves knowledge
about the exact derivationof dispositionsand aboutthe precise mechanisms by which dispositions can affect attitudes or
behavior.Inthis researchwe hypothesizedthat affective dispositions may constitute internalcues that influencethe way
people perceive or reactto job environments.However, we
had no data on the cognitiveprocesses of the IGSsample, nor
couldwe estimate the inheritedvs. social derivationof affective dispositions.These difficultand detailedquestions must
therefore await furtherresearchthat logicallyfollows from earlierlevels of dispositionalunderstanding.
Althoughwe do not now fullyunderstanddispositionalsources
of job attitudes,the generalfindingthatjob attitudes can be
predictedby affective dispositionstill has some important
implications.Interms of job attitudetheory, it means that we
have probablyerredtoo faron the side of situationaldeterminism, throwingaway valuabledispositionalpredictorsin our
general disillusionmentwith Maslow's need theory. Italso
means that, in orderto understandthe originand change of job
attitudes, it may be useful to understandthe backgroundand
development of the individualsunderstudy. As Weiss and
Adler(1984) so aptlynoted, we need studies focused on
dispositionalvariables,perhapsusing situationalvariablesas
72/ASO, March1986
Job Attitudes
moderatorsof dispositionalinfluence,ratherthan additional
studies using individualcharacteristicsas simple moderators
of situationaleffects. Forexample, if we were to explainjob
attitudes in dispositionalterms, we would want to identify
those contextualfeatures (e.g., workingconditions,supervision, etc.) that eitherallow people with positive affect to enjoy
theirwork or preventindividualswith negative affect from
unnecessarilyrejectingtheirjobs. This is a very different
researchdirectionthanwe have now and one that deserves
furtherconsideration.
The argumentthat job satisfactionhas dispositionalcauses
also suggests some necessary revisionof our models of job
attitudes. One possibilityis that objectivefeatures of the job,
social informationaboutthe work, and affective dispositionare
three separate or independentdeterminantsof job satisfaction. Anotherpossibilityis that these three sources of job
attitudes are highlyinteractive.Futureresearchmay find,for
example, that the perceptionof objectivejob characteristicsis
conditionedby attitudinalcues from both internal(dispositional)and external(social)sources. Alternatively,we may find
that internaland externalcues are moderatedby the realitiesof
work life, such that neithera positive dispositionnorshared
enthusiasm for the job can influencework satisfactionwithout
the presence of objectivelypositive task conditions(so as to
validateperceived cues fromoneself and others). Additional
research is needed to sort out whether such interactional
models are better explanationsof job satisfactionthan a simple
main-effects model.
Sortingout the interactionof dispositionalandjob characteristics is likelyto be a complex researchtask, as alreadyillustratedby some recent studies in occupationalsociology. For
example, researchby Kallebergand Loscocco (1983)and Mortimer, Finch,and Maruyama(1985) suggests that not only
does job satisfaction increase with aging, but that the facets of
the jobthat most directlydetermine satisfactionalso change
overtime. Thus,we mighteventuallyneed to formulatecareer
and life-stage models of dispositionaland task influences in
lieu of simple personalityor situationalpredictions.Itis also
difficultto escape fromthe fact that personalitynot only
affects the choice of job situation,but that the job situationcan
also have some lastingeffects on the individual,thus creating
reciprocalcausal loops that are difficultto understandand
study (e.g., Kohnand Schooler, 1978). These and related
questions should be idealfor a mergingof the psychological
and sociologicaltraditionsof organizationalbehavior.
Practical Implications
Interms of practicalissues, the most obvious implicationof
our findingsconcerns the usefulness of organizationaldevelopment activities.The stabilityof job attitudes identifiedby Staw
and Ross (1985) and the present findingthat job attitudesare
influencedby affective dispositionboth implythat it may be
extremely difficultto improvejob attitudesvia externalinterventions.Job redesign efforts may, for example, be prone
to failure,since they must contend with strong forces for
stability-forces that either make individualsresistantto
change or promptindividualsto returnto their baseline states
over time.
73/ASQ, March1986
Interpretingour results in a conservativeway, one mightinfer
that job redesign is seldom worth the effort. The objective
features of tasks are seldom concrete enough to dictate a
positive or negative response, and as a consequence, individualsmay generallyinterpretthe workenvironmentinways
that are consistent with theirown psychologicalstates. A more
liberalinterpretation,and one that is just as defensible, is that
organizationalinterventionsneed to be strongerand more
pervasive.Situationalchanges, be they job redesign, improvements in physicalsurroundings,or the governance of the
organization,may need to be strong andwidespread enough to
overwhelm dispositionalforces for stability.
A compromise positionon the organizationaldevelopment
issue would be the interactionistperspective (Terborg,1981;
Schneider, 1983). Interactionistsmightconclude that interventions such as job redesign need to take individualdifferences
more fullyintoconsideration.Throughbetter or more extensive measurement of individualdispositions,job assignments
could be more preciselytailoredto individualcharacteristics.
Alternatively,it mightbe possible to divideindividualson the
basis of theirlikelihoodfor change. As Bem and Allen(1974)
have noted, some people may simplybe more consistent in
theirbehaviorthan others. Thus, situationalchanges such as
job redesign may be best suited, ratherthan forthe chronically
happyor unhappy,forthose whose affective dispositionvaries
over time and across situations.
Ourdata on the influenceof affective dispositionmay also
have direct implicationsfor personnel selection practices. Ifjob
attitudes are ratherstable and governed by individualdispositions, it may be easier to improveorganizationalmorale
throughemployee selection thanthroughorganizationaldevelopment activities. Intheirsimplest form,such personnel
implicationsmay not necessitate changes in practice,since
personalcharacteristicsare probablyalreadybehindmany
selection and promotiondecisions in organizations(e.g., Ross
and Ferris,1981). The common argumentagainst using personal factors such as likabilityand positiveaffect for evaluation purposes is that they would not be performancerelated.
This argumentmay not holdin service occupations, however,
since one of the majorproductsof a service relationshipcan be
the conveyance of positiveaffect (e.g., Schneider, Parkington,
and Buxton, 1980; Smith, Organ,and Near, 1983).
Ifwe go beyond the simplest personnel issues, our dispositionalfindingshave additionaland perhapsmore important
implications.When we consider, for example, the research
findingsthat depressives are more realisticintheirjudgments
of riskand causationthan others (e.g., Alloyand Abramson,
1979), we are led to the conclusionthat positive affect could
hinderperformancein some managerialand staff roles. As a
result,we may need to examine each organizationalrolefor
the amountof enthusiasm versus criticalthinkinginvolvedin
orderbest to fit jobs with individuals'affective dispositions.
Likewise,if we note that workgroups (andorganizations)often
requirea varietyof individualsto serve multipleroles, ranging
from being a source of social supportto being a devil's
advocate, it may be importantto search for the propermix of
personalitiesin the organization.These are the kindsof ques74/ASQ0,March1986
Job Attitudes
tions that are raisedas one begins to probethe role of
individualdispositionin organizationalbehavior.As we pursue
the dispositionalperspective further,new theoryas well as
revisionsto managerialpracticeare likelyto be suggested.
REFERENCES
Alloy, Lauren B., and Lynn Y.
Abramson
1979 "Judgment of contingency in
depressed and nondepressed
students: Sadder but wiser?"
Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 108:
441-485.
Aries, Elizabeth J., Conrad Gold,
and Russell H. Weigel
1983 "Disposition and situational influences on dominance behavior in small groups." Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 44: 779-786.
Beck, Aaron T.
1967 Depression: Clinical, Experimental, and Theoretical
Aspects. New York: Hoeber.
Berm, Daryl J., and Andrea Allen
1974 "On predicting some of the
people some of the time: The
search for cross-situational
consistencies in behavior."
Psychological Review, 81:
506-520.
Block, J.
1977 "Advancing the science of personality: Paradigmatic shift or
improving the quality of research?" In David Magnusson
and Norman Endler (eds.), Personality at the Crossroads:
Current Issues in Interactional
Psychology: 37-63. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Block, Jack, in collaboration with
Norma Haan
1971 Lives through Time. Berkeley,
CA: Bancroft Books.
Bouchard, Thomas J.
1984 "Twins reared together and
apart: What they tell us about
human diversity." In SidneyW.
Fox (ed.), Individualityand Determ'inism, New York: 147179. Plenum.
1985 Personal communication with
the authors.
Bray, Douglas W., Richard J.
Campbell, and Donald L. Grant
1974 Formative Years in Business.
New York: Wiley.
Buss, Arnold H., and Robert Plomin
1984 Temperament: EarlyDeveloping PersonalityTraits. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Buss, David M., and Kenneth H.
Craik
1983 "The act-frequency approach
to personality." Psychological
Review, 90: 105-126.
1985 "Why not measure that trait?
Alternative criteria for identifying important dispositions."
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48: 934-946.
Haan, Norma
1981 "Common dimensions of personality development: Early
adolescence to middle life." In
Dorothy H. Eichorn, John A.
Clausen, Norma Haan, Marjorie
P. Honzik, and Paul H. Mussen
(eds.), Present and Past in Middle Life: 117-153. New York:
Academic Press.
Clausen, John A.
1968 "Adolescent antecedents of
cigarette smoking: Data from
the Oakland Growth Study."
Social Science and Medicine,
1: 357-382.
Hackman, J. Richard, and Greg R.
Oldham
1975 "Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey." Journal of
Applied Psychology, 60: 159170.
1976 "Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory."
Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 16: 250279.
1980 Work Redesign. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Deci, Edward L.
1975 Intrinsic Motivation. New York:
Plenum Press.
Eichorn, Dorothy H.
1981 "Samples and procedures." In
Dorothy H. Eichorn, John A.
Clausen, Norma Haan, Marjorie
P. Honzik, and Paul H. Mussen
(eds.), Present and Past in Middle Life: 33-54. New York:
Academic Press.
Eichorn, Dorothy H., and John A.
Clausen, Norma Haan, Marjorie P.
Honzik, and Paul H. Mussen (eds.)
1981 Present and Past in Middle
Life. New York: Academic
Press.
Fisher, V. E., and Joseph V. Hanna
1931 The Dissatisfied Worker. New
York: MacMillan.
Funder, David C., and Daniel Ozer
1983 "Behavior as a function of the
situation." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44:
107-112.
Gechman, Arthur S., and Yoash
Wiener
1975 "Job involvement and satisfaction as related to mental health
and personal time devoted to
work." Journal of Applied
Psychology, 60: 521-523.
Goodman, Paul S.
1979 Assessing Organization
Change: The Rushton Quality
of Work Experiment. New
York: Wiley-lnterscience.
Griffin, Ricky A.
1983 "Objective and social sources
of information in task redesign:
A field experiment." Administrative Science Quarterly, 28:
184-200.
75/ASQ, March 1986
Hackman, J. Richard, Greg R. Oldham, Robert Janson, and Kenneth
Purdy
1975 "A new strategy for job enrichment." CaliforniaManagement
Review, Summer: 57-71.
Herzberg, Frederick
1966 Work and the Nature of Man.
Cleveland: World.
Herzberg, Frederick, Bernard
Mausner, Richard 0. Peterson, and
Dora F. Capwell
1957 Job Attitudes: Review of Research and Opinion. Pittsburgh: Psychological Service
of Pittsburgh.
Hoppock, Robert
1935 Job Satisfaction. New York:
Harper.
Kahn, Robert L.
1981 Work and Health. New York:
Wiley.
Kalleberg, Arne L., and Karyn A.
Loscocco
1983 "Aging, values, and rewards:
Explaining age differences in
job satisfaction." American
Sociological Review, 48: 7890.
Kim, Jae-On, and Charles W.
Mueller
1978 FactorAnalysis: Statistical
Methods and Practical Issues.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kohn, Melvin L., and Carmi
School er
1978 "The reciprocal effects of the
substantive complexity of work
and intellectual flexibility: A
longitudinal assessment."
American Journal of Sociology,
84: 24-52.
Kornhauser, Arthur W.
1965 Mental Health of the Industrial
Worker: A Detroit Study. New
York: Wiley.
Landy, FrankJ.
1978 "An opponent process theory
of job satisfaction." Journal of
Applied Psychology, 63: 533547.
Lawler, Edward E., IlIl
1982 "Increasing worker involvement to enhance organizational
effectiveness." In Paul Goodman (ed.), Change in Organizations: 280-31 5. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Lepper, Mark R., David Greene, and
Richard E. Nisbett
1973 "Undermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the 'overjustification hypothesis'." Journal
of Personality and Social
Psychology, 28: 129-1 37.
Locke, Edwin A.
1976 "The nature and causes of job
satisfaction." In Marvin D.
Dunnette (ed.), Handbook of
Industrialand Organizational
Psychology: 1297-1 349. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Maslow, Abraham H.
1954 Motivation and Personality.
New York: Haper& Row.
McGowan, John, and John Gormly
1976 "Validationof personality
traits: A multicriteria
approach." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34:
791-795.
Mischel, Walter
1968 Personality and Assessment.
New York: Wiley.
Monson, Thomas C., John W. Hesley, and Linda Chernick
1982 "Specifying when personality
traits can and cannot predict
behavior: An alternative to
abandoning the attempt to predict single act criteria." Journal
of Personality and Social
Psychology, 43: 385-399.
Mortimer, Jeylan T., Michael D.
Finch, and Geoffrey Maruyama
1985 "Work experience and job
satisfaction: Variationby age
and gender." Paper presented,
the Annual Meeting of the
American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Los
Angeles.
Munsterberg, Hugo
1913 Psychology and IndustrialEfficiency. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Near, Janet R., Robert W. Rice, and
Raymond G. Hunt
1978 "Work and extra-work correlates of life and job satisfaction." Academy of Management Journal, 21: 248-264.
Oldham, Greg R., and J. Richard
Hackman
1980 "Work design in the organizational context." In BarryM.
Staw and LarryL. Cummings
(eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 2: 247-278.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
O'Reilly, Charles A., and David F.
Caldwell
1979 "Informational influence asa
determinant of perceived task
characteristics and job satisfaction." Journal of Applied
Psychology, 64: 157-1 65.
O'Reilly, Charles A., G. Nicholas
Parlette, and Joan R. Bloom
1980 "Perceptual measures of task
characteristics: The biasing
effects of differing frames of
reference and job attitudes."
Academy of Management
Journal, 23: 118-131.
Orpen, Christopher
1978 "Work and nonwork satisfaction: A causal-correlational
analysis." Journal of Applied
Psychology, 63: 530-532.
Plomin, Robert, J. C. DeFries, and
Gerald E. McClearn
1980 Behavioral Genetics: A Primer.
San Francisco: Freeman.
Pulakos, Elaine D., and Neal
Schmitt
1983 "A longitudinal study of a valence model approach for the
prediction of job satisfaction of
new employees." Journal of
Applied Psychology, 68: 307312.
Quinn, Robert P., and Graham L.
Staines
1979 The 1977 Quality of Employment Survey. Ann Arbor, Ml:
Institute for Social Research.
76/ASQ, March 1986
Quinn, Robert P., Graham L.
Staines, and Margaret R.
McCollough
1974 "Job satisfaction: Is there a
trend?" Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Labor.
Roberts, Karlene H., and William
Glick
1981 "The job characteristics
approach to task design: A critical review." Journal of Applied
Psychology, 66: 193-217.
Ross, Jerry, and Kenneth R. Ferris
1981 "Interpersonal attraction and
organizational outcomes: A
field examination." Administrative Science Quarterly, 26:
61 7-632.
Salancik, Gerald R., and Jeffrey
Pfeffer
1977 "An examination of need satisfaction models of job attitudes." Administrative Science
Quarterly, 22: 427-456.
1978 "A social information processing approach to job attitudes
and task design." Administrative Science Quarterly, 23:
224-253.
Schmitt, Neal, and Elaine D.
Pulakos
1986 "Predicting job satisfaction
from life satisfaction: Is there a
general satisfaction factor?" International Review of Applied
Psychology (in press).
Schneider, Benjamin
1983 "Interactional psychology and
organizational behavior." In L.
L. Cummings and BarryM.
Staw (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 5: 1-31.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Schneider, Benjamin, and H. Peter
Dach ler
1978 "A note on the stability of the
job description index." Journal
of Applied Psychology, 63:
650-653.
Schneider, Benjamin, John J. Parkington, and Virginia M. Buxton
1980 "Employee and customer
perceptions of service in
banks." Administrative Science Quarterly, 25: 252-267.
Sims, Henry P., Andrew D.
Szilagyi, and Robert T. Keller
1976 "The measurement of job characteristics." Academy of Management Journal, 19: 195-212.
Job Attitudes
Smith, C. Ann, Dennis W. Organ,
and Janet Near
1983 "Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents." Journal of Applied
Psychology, 69: 653-663.
Staw, Barry M., Bobby J. Calder,
and Randall K. Hess
1980 "Intrinsic motivation and
norms about payment." Journal of Personality, 48: 1-14.
Staw, Barry M., and Jerry Ross
1985 "Stability in the midst of
change: A dispositional
approach to job attitudes."
Journal of Applied Psychology,
70: 469-480.
Taber,Tom D., Terry A. Beehr, and
Jeffrey T. Walsh
1985 "Relationships between job
evaluation ratings and selfratings of job characteristics."
Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes,
35: 27-45.
Terborg, James R.
1981 "Interactional psychology and
research on human behavior in
organizations." Academy of
Management Review, 6: 569576.
Vroom, Victor H.
1964 Work and Motivation. New
York: Wiley.
Wahba, Mahmoud A., and
Lawrence G. Bridwell
1976 "Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need
hierarchy theory." Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 15: 212-240.
Watson, David, and Lee Anna Clark
1984 "Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive
emotional states." Psychological Bulletin, 96: 465-490.
Weaver, Charles N.
1978 "Job satisfaction as a component of happiness among
males and females." Personnel Psychology, 31: 831-840.
1980 "Job satisfaction in the United
States in the 1970's." Journal
of Applied Psychology, 65:
364-367.
Weiss, Howard M., and Seymour
Adler
1984 "Personality and organizational
behavior." In BarryM. Staw
and L. L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 6: 1-50. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
77/ASQ, March 1986
Weiss, Howard M., and James B.
Shaw
1979 "Social influences on judgments about tasks." Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 24: 126-140.
White, J. Kenneth
1978 "Individualdifferences and the
job quality-worker response relationship: Review, integration,
and comments." Academy of
Management Review, 3: 267280.
White, Sam E., and Terence R.
M itchel l
1979 "Job enrichment versus social
cues: A comparison and competitive test." Journal of Applied Psychology, 64: 1-9.
Zuckerman, Marvin
1977 "Development of a situationspecific trait-state test for the
prediction and measurement
of affective responses." Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 45: 513-523.