research paper in word

8/10/2019 Research paper in word

1/41

Psychological Bulletin Copyright 2(X)1 by the American Psychological Association. Inc.

2001. Vol. 12. !o. ". "#$%0 00""$2&0&'011.00 *I+ 10.10"''(X)""$2&0&.12""#

,he -ob atis/action$-ob Per/ormance elationship+

A ualitatie an3 uantitatie eie4

,imothy A. -u3ge Carl -. ,horesen5niersity o/ Io4a ,ulane 5niersity

-oyce 6. Bono 7regory 8. Patton5niersity o/ Io4a 5niersity o/ !orth a9ota

A :ualitatie an3 :uantitatie reie4 o/ the relationship bet4een ;ob satis/action an3 ;ob per/ormance is

proi3e3. ,he :ualitatie reie4 is organi o/ in3ustrial psychologists (@an3y=

1&&). In3ee3= interest in the lin9 bet4een 4or9place attitu3es an3

pro3uctiity goes bac9 at least as /ar as the ?a4thorne stu3ies

(oethlisberger ic9son= 1&"&)= an3 the topic continues to be

4ritten about to this 3ay. Although the area has not lac9e3 /or

:ualitatie (Bray/iel3 Croc9ett= 1& ?er


2/41

-*B A,IGAC,I*! A! -*B P6G*DA!C6

Bray/iel3 an3 Croc9ett conclu3e3 that there 4as not much o/ a

"

relationship bet4een ;ob satis/action an3 per/ormance= labeling it

as >minimal or no relationship> (p. %0). ,he Bray/iel3 an3 Croc9$

ett reie4 4as limite3 by the ery small number o/ publishe3

stu3ies aailable /or reie4 at that time (only nine stu3ies 4ere

reie4e3 that reporte3 a correlation bet4een in3ii3ual ;ob satis$

/action an3 ;ob per/ormance) an3 the general sub;ectiity o/ :ual$

itatie reie4s. In spite o/ these shortcomings= Bray/iel3 an3

Croc9etts article 4as perhaps the most /re:uently cite3 reie4 in

this area o/ research prior to 1&.

ince the Bray/iel3 an3 Croc9ett (1&) reie4= seeral other

in/luential narratie reie4s hae been publishe3 (?erreal> 4or9 setting through

some theoretically ;usti/ie3 interention= such as the use o/ contingent

ersus noncontingent re4ar3 sche3ules /or per/or$

mance (e.g.= *rpen= 1&1= 1&2a). *ther stu3ies hae inestigate3

the e//ectieness o/ organi


3/41

" -576= ,?*66!= B*!*= A! PA,,*!

these stu3ies. Gor eEample= *l3ham= Cummings= Dischel=

chmi3t9e= an3 Lhou (1&&) eEamine3 the e//ects o/ haing em$

ployees listen to music using personal stereo hea3sets on pro3uc$

tiity= satis/action= an3 a host o/ other 4or9 responses. It is unclear

/rom these stu3ies 4hether or not there 4ere unmeasure3 /actors

that coul3 hae a//ecte3 the selection o/ employees into eEperi$

mental ersus control groups (Coo9 Campbell= 1&&).

Model 1: Job Satisfaction Causes Job Performance

,his mo3el posits a causal e//ect o/ ;ob satis/action on ;ob

per/ormance. ,his is probably the ol3est speci/ication o/ the rela$

tionship an3 is o/ten attribute3 to the human relations moement.

As 7. trauss (1) commente3= >6arly human relationists

ie4e3 the morale$pro3uctiity relationship :uite simply+ higher

morale 4oul3 lea3 to improe3 pro3uctiity> (p. 2#%). ,his mo3el

is implicitly groun3e3 in the broa3er attitu3es literature in social

psychology. ,he premise that attitu3es lea3 to behaior is a prom$

inent theme in the literature= an3 most attitu3e researchers assume

that attitu3es carry 4ith them behaioral implications. Gishbein

an3 A;learne3

pre3isposition to respon3 in a consistently /aorable or un/aor$

able manner 4ith respect to a gien ob;ect> (p. #). Gishbein (1&")

also note3 that attitu3e measures >shoul3 be consistently relate3 to

the pattern o/ behaiors that the in3ii3ual engages in 4ith respect

to the attitu3e ob;ect> (p. 22). Dore recently= 6agly an3 Chai9en

(1&&") conclu3e3= >In general= people 4ho ealuate an attitu3e

ob;ect /aorably ten3 to engage in behaiors that /oster or support

it= an3 people 4ho ealuate an attitu3e ob;ect un/aorably ten3 to

engage in behaiors that hin3er or oppose it> (p. 12). Gollo4ing

this logic. attitu3es to4ar3 the ;ob shoul3 be relate3 to behaiors

on the ;ob= the most central o/ 4hich is per/ormance on the ;ob.

urprisingly= ho4eer= outsi3e o/ the causal stu3ies that hae

inestigate3 a reciprocal relationship bet4een satis/action an3per/ormance (Do3el "$see belo4)= 4e are a4are o/ only t4o

stu3ies that hae speci/ically stipulate3 a uni3irectional causal

e//ect o/ ;ob satis/action on ;ob per/ormance. 8eaeney an3 !el$

son (1&&")= in testing a compleE mo3el o/ the interrelationship

among numerous attitu3es (intrinsic motiation orientation= role

con/lict= role ambiguity= psychological 4ith3ra4al)= /oun3 a ;ob

satis/action s $;ob per/ormance path coe//icient o/ .12 (ns) in a

relatiely saturate3 mo3el inoling these attitu3es a simpler

mo3el proi3e3 a much stronger (.2&) but still nonsigni/icant

coe//icient. hore an3 Dartin (1&&) /oun3 that 4hen regressing

superisory ratings o/ ;ob per/ormance on ;ob satis/action an3

organi


4/41

-*B A,IGAC,I*! A! -*B P6G*DA!C6 "&

Ginally= an3 some4hat curiously= most ( o/ 10) o/ these stu3ies

4ere publishe3 in mar9eting ;ournals. ,hus= the generali


5/41

"0 -576= ,?*66!. B*!*= A! PA,,*!

these limitations= in a reie4 o/ this literature= Po3sa9o// an3

Filliams (1) /oun3 that the general satis/action ;ob per/or$

mance relationship 4as some4hat stronger in stu3ies in 4hich

re4ar3s 4ere lin9e3 to per/ormance (mean r M .2) than in stu3ies

4here there 4as no per/ormance$pay contingency (mean r M .1).

Another potential mo3erator o/ the ;ob satis/action ;ob per/or$

mance relationship is ;ob compleEity or intrinsic ;ob characteris$

tics. ,his mo3erator is similar to the pay$per/ormance contingencymo3erator in that both 3eal 4ith 4or9 re4ar3s. ,he 3istinction is

that ;ob compleEity is intrinsic 4hereas pay is eEtrinsic ho4eer=

the 3irection o/ the e//ect shoul3 be the same. !amely= per/orming

4ell in an interesting or stimulating ;ob shoul3 be intrinsically

satis/ying= 4hereas per/orming 4ell in a repetitie or boring ;ob

shoul3 be less re4ar3ing (Bair3= 1 ). *nly three stu3ies hae

teste3 this proposition= an3 substantial 3i//erences in the nature o/

the stu3ies ma9e the results 3i//icult to assimilate. *ne o/ the

3i//iculties is that t4o o/ the stu3ies (Ianceich= 1 &= 1&&)= in

a33ition to testing the mo3erating role o/ ;ob compleEity. also

inestigate3 the causal 3irectionality o/ the relationship. A stu3y

that posits ;oint causal e//ects= in the presence o/ a mo3erator

ariable= is a complicate3 proposition. A3ances in causal mo3el$

ing in the last 20 years might /acilitate /uture tests o/ the

relationship.

Beyon3 the pay$per/ormance contingency= the most commonly

inestigate3 mo3erator o/ the satis/action$per/ormance relation$

ship is sel/$esteem. 8ormans (1&0) sel/$consistency theory pre$

3icts that in3ii3uals 4ill be most satis/ie3 4hen engaging in those

behaiors that are consistent 4ith their sel/$image. ,hus= the

relationship bet4een satis/action an3 per/ormance shoul3 3epen3

on sel/$esteem= such that only /or an in3ii3ual 4ith high sel/$

esteem is per/ormance satis/ying (high per/ormance 4oul3 not

necessarily be satis/ying to in3ii3uals 4ith lo4 sel/$esteem be$

cause it is inconsistent 4ith their sel/$perceie3 a3e:uacy). 8or$

mans theory has been reie4e3 by ipboye (1&)= 4ho sug$

geste3 that ei3ence proi3e3 >ery 4ea9> (p. 11) support /or thisaspect o/ the theory. *ur rea3ing o/ the literature since ipboyes

reie4 suggests miEe3 support /or the theory. ome stu3ies appear

to be supportie (In9son= 1& -acobs olomon= 1 &)= others

unsupportie (8al3enberg Bec9er= 1&&1 ,harenou ?ar9er=

1 &%)= an3 still others partially supportie (ipboye= Lulto4s9i=

e4hirst= Arey= 1&& 6. D. @ope


6/41

-*B A,IGAC,I*! A! -*B P6G*DA!C6 "1

Barsa3e. 1&&"+ ta4 et al.= 1&&%+ Fright= Bonett. 4eeney= scores= 3rop$out rate= an3alism costs= stu3ent satis/action= teacher

1&&"+ Fright ta4. 1&&&). turnoer). In seeral other stu3ies= all o/ 4hich 4ere complete3 in

eeral researchers hae =one so /ar as to argue that ;ob satis$

/action /ails to pre3ict ;ob per/ormance because eEtant ;ob satis$

/action measures re/lect more cognitie ealuation than a//ectie

tone (Brie/ oberson= 1&&+ *rgan !ear. 1&). Brie/ an3

oberson conclu3e3 that three o/ the most 4i3ely use3 ;ob satis$

/action measures 3i//ere3 3ramatically in the 3egree to 4hich they

capture3 a//ect. In support o/ this argument= Brie/ (1&&) use3 this

stu3y to 3emonstrate that cognitions correlate more strongly (a$

erage r M .0) 4ith ;ob satis/action than 3oes a//ect (aerage r M

.%"). ?o4eer= it seems li9ely that ;ob belie/s (cognitions) are as

in/luence3 by a//ect as ;ob satis/action itsel/. In3ee3= Brie/ an3

obersons results= as 4ell as those o/ another stu3y (Feiss=

!icholas. aus= 1&&&). 3emonstrate that both cognition an3

a//ect contribute to ;ob satis/action. !eertheless. the hypothesis

that positie emotions relate to per/ormance has garnere3 consi3$

erable support in recent research (see Fright ta4. 1 &&&).

Reconceptttali0ing performance. *rgan (1&)

suggeste3 that the /ailure to /in3 a relationship bet4een ;ob

satis/action an3 per/ormance is 3ue to the narro4 means o/ten

use3 to 3e/ine ;obper/ormance. ,ypically. researchers hae e:uate3

;ob per/ormance 4ith per/ormance o/ speci/ic ;ob tas9s. ?o4eer=

some researchers (see Borman Doto4i3lo= 1 &&") hae

broa3ene3 the per/or$

mance 3omain to inclu3e citi


7/41

"2 -576= ,?*66!= B*!*= A! PA,,*!

ture. Deta$analytrue score>

correlation o/ .0# /or pay satis/action to .2& /or oerall ;ob satis$

/action. Gor their primary analysis= Ia//al3ano an3 Duchins9y

aerage3 the /acet$per/ormance correlations an3 reporte3 an aer$

age true score correlation o/ .1 bet4een ;ob satis/action an3 ;ob

per/ormance. In 3iscussing their /in3ings= the authors only ma3ere/erence to the 1 correlation= conclu3ing that ;ob satis/action

an3 ;ob per/ormance 4ere >only slightly relate3 to each other>

(p. 2#&).

la//al3ano an3 Duchins9y (1&) also eEamine3 nine mo3era$

tors o/ the satis/action$per/ormance relationship. Fith one eEcep$

tion (4hite$collar s. blue$collar occupational type)= the mo3era$

tors pertaine3 to the measures o/ ;ob satis/action (e.g.= composite

o/ satis/action= global= un9no4n$unspeci/ie3) an3 ;ob per/or$

mance (e.g.= :uality s. :uantity= ob;ectie s. sub;ectie). ,he

mo3erator analysis 4as not particularly success/ul$none o/ the

mo3erators correlate3 .20 or greater 4ith the satis/action$per/or$

mance correlation. ?o4eer= 4hen the mo3erators 4ere bro9en

3o4n by satis/action /acet= some signi/icant correlations 4ere

obsere3. Because all the mo3erators 4ere 3ichotomous ariables

an3 many o/ their 3istributions 4ere highly s9e4e3= the lac9 o/

signi/icant /in3ings may hae been 3ue to the 3istributional prob$

lems 4ith the mo3erators rather than truly insigni/icant mo3erator

e//ects. la//al3ano an3 Duchins9y conclu3e3 that the mo3erators

4ere >o/ little conse:uence> (p. 2#).

,he la//al3ano an3 Duchins9y (1&) stu3y proi3e3 many

a3ances. Dost important= their :uantitatie reie4 aoi3e3 the

imprecision an3 sub;ectiity o/ earlier :ualitatie reie4s an3 4as

more comprehensie than the Petty et al. (1&%) meta$analysis.

espite these contributions= in retrospect seeral limitations o/ the

stu3y are apparent. Fhereas some o/ these limitations may be o/

minor practical signi/icance= others substantially impact the accu$

racy an3 interpretation o/ the results. Girst= the authors eEclu3e3unpublishe3 stu3ies (3octoral 3issertations= 4or9ing papers= un$

publishe3 3ata= an3 technical reports)= leaing their results ulner$

able to the possibility o/ publication bias (osenthal= 1&&).

econ3= because la//al3ano an3 Duchins9y (1&) inclu3e3 in

their stu3y correlations bet4een each satis/action /acet an3 ;ob

per/ormance= they cumulate3 21 correlations across only % stu3$

ies. ,heir use o/ multiple correlations /rom a single stu3y iolates

the in3epen3ence assumption o/ meta$analysis an3= thus= biases the

results (?unter chmi3t= 1&&0). It is rare /or contemporarymeta$analyses to iolate the in3epen3ence assumption (inclu3e

multiple correlations /rom the same sample). ,his is probably 3ue

to the /act that meta$analysis eEperts (?unter chmi3t= 1&&0

osenthal= 1&&) hae cautione3 meta$analysts against inclu3ing

multiple correlations /rom the same sample in their analyses. In/airness= la//al3ano an3 Duchins9y 4ere a4are o/ this problem.

,hey note3= >,he inclusion o/ seeral correlations /rom a single

stu3y 3oes suggest a lac9 o/ in3epen3ence in the 3ata> (p. 2).

,hey 3i3 so to aoi3 losing >consi3erable amounts o/ in/ormation>

(p. 2). ?o4eer= this 3oes not ma9e iolation o/ the assumption

any less serious o/ a problem. ,he iolation is particularly prob$

lematic 4hen the sources o/ the 3i//erent correlations are relate3 to

each other (?unter chmi3t= 1&&0). Because the correlations

among 3i//erent /acets o/ ;ob satis/action are so high that they

represent a common construct (Parsons ?ulin= 1&2)= >there can

be consi3erable 3istortion> (?unter chmi3t= 1&&0= p. %2).

,hir3= Ia//al3ano an3 Duchins9y (1&) correcte3 /or unreli$

ability in ratings o/ ;ob per/ormance using internal consistency

estimates o/ reliability. It is commonly accepte3 that internal

consistency reliability oerestimates the reliability o/ superisory

ratings o/ per/ormance because it consigns ariance i3iosyncratic to

raters to the true ariance component o/ ;ob per/ormance rat$ings= resulting in 3o4n4ar3ly biase3 correcte3 correlations

(chmi3t ?unter= 1&). Gor this reason= Vis4esaran= *nes=

an3 chmi3t (1&) argue3 that researchers shoul3 use interrater

reliability to correct ;ob per/ormance /or measurement error. In$

3ee3= all recent meta$analyses inoling ;ob per/ormance hae

use3 this metho3 (e.g.= *nes= Vis4esaran= eiss= 1& oth=

BeVier= 4it


8/41

-*B A,IGAC,I*! A! -*B P6G*DA!C6 ""

relationship bet4een ;ob satis/action an3 ;ob per/ormance= re$

searchers hae accepte3 this conclusion= as ei3ence3 by the

/ollo4ing statements+ >,he seminal research on ;ob satis/action

an3 ;ob per/ormance suggests that there eEists only a mo3est

correlation bet4een these t4o constructs> (Cote= 1&&&= p. #) >It

is accepte3 among most researchers that there is not a substantial

relationship bet4een ;ob satis/action an3 pro3uctiity> (-u3ge=

?anisch= ran9os9i= 1&&= p. %) >Duch ei3ence in3icates

that in3ii3ual ;ob satis/action generally is not signi/icantly relate3

to in3ii3ual tas9 per/ormance> (Brie/= 1&&= p. ") an3 >,he

magnitu3e o/ correlation bet4een ;ob per/ormance an3 ;ob satis$

/action is uneEpecte3ly lo4> (pector= 1&&= p. #).

In light o/ these conclusions= it is probably sa/e to conclu3e that

Do3els 1$% are seen as archaic by most researchers. I/ there is

little relationship bet4een ;ob satis/action an3 ;ob per/ormance=

researchers hae conclu3e3 that either Do3el (relationship is

mo3erate3 by other ariables) or Do3el (alternatie /orms o/ the

relationship) is ali3. ?o4eer= because o/ the limitations o/

preious reie4s= it is also possible that 4e hae erroneously

accepte3 conclusions about the magnitu3e o/ the ;ob satis/action

an3 ;ob per/ormance relationship. At the ery least= gien theimportance o/ the topic= it seems appropriate to reeEamine this

relationship. Accor3ingly= in the neEt section o/ the article= 4e

proi3e an up3ate3= an3 more comprehensie= meta$analysis o/ the

relationship bet4een ;ob satis/action an3 ;ob per/ormance.

In the /ollo4ing meta$analysis= 4e /ocus on the relationship

bet4een oerall ;ob satis/action an3 oerall ;ob per/ormance.

,heoretically= there are compelling reasons to /ocus on oerall ;ob

satis/action. As note3 by Gishbein (1&&)= in or3er /or attitu3es to

pre3ict behaiors properly= the attitu3es an3 behaiors must be

congruent in terms o/ their generality or speci/icity. Because

oerall ;ob per/ormance is a general construct compose3 o/ more

speci/ic /actors (Campbell= DcCloy= *ppler= ager= 1&&")= in

or3er to achiee construct correspon3ence 4ith respect to the

satis/action$per/ormance relationship= one must consi3er oerall;ob satis/action. As ?ulin (1&&1) note3= /ailure to match constructs

in terms o/ their generality lea3s to 3o4n4ar3ly biase3 correla$

tions 4hen relating ;ob satis/action to other constructs. Gisher

(1&0) ma3e this point speci/ically 4ith re/erence to the satis$

/action$per/ormance relationship= noting= >esearchers intereste3

in the ;ob satis/action';ob per/ormance relationship ... shoul3 be

a4are o/ the nee3 to hae an appropriate R/it bet4een attitu3e

measure speci/icity an3 behaioral criteria to obtain maEimum

pre3ictability> (p. #11). In3ee3= the limite3 empirical ei3ence that

eEists suggests that 4hen ;ob satis/action is treate3 as a general

construct= a stronger correlation 4ith ;ob per/ormance emerges

than suggeste3 by la//al3ano an3 Duchins9ys (1&) results.

Accor3ingly= our /ocus here is on the relationship bet4een oerall

;ob satis/action an3 oerall ;ob per/ormance.

7uantitati/e Re/ie( of the Job Satisfaction-

Job Performance Relationship

Rules for )nclusion in the Meta-#nal$sis

Consistent 4ith the recommen3ations o/ meta$analytic research$

ers (Datt Coo9= 1&&%)= 4e 3e/ine3 the population to 4hich 4e

4ishe3 to generalinonsigni/icant> /in3ing in

our search. I/ such stu3ies eEist= /ailing to impute a alue /or these

stu3ies coul3 be argue3 to lea3 to an up4ar3ly biase3

estimate o/ the relationship (osenthal= 1&&). ?o4eer= imputa$tion 3oes intro3uce an element o/ sub;ectiity an3 imprecision into the

analysis (?unter chmi3t= 1&&0). In any eent= a sensitiity

analysis reeale3 that een i/ there 4ere 10 stu3ies that simply

2 Fe also partially searche3 issertation Abstracts International (AI). ?o4eer= early

in our search= 4e 3iscoere3 that all o/ the 3issertations uncoere3 in AI 4ere also

in3eEe3 in PsycI!G* (PsycI!G*= unli9e Psyc@I,= inclu3es 3issertations). ,hus= 4e

subse:uently con/ine3 our search to PsycI!G*.


9/41

"% -576. ,?*66!. B*!*= A! PA,,*!

reporte3 a nonsigni/icant cot$relation= /ollo4ing osenthal (1&&)=

assuming a correlation o/ .00 /or these stu3ies= it 4oul3 change the

oerall results by only a triial 3egree (.00 3i//erence).

All tol3= "12 samples met our inclusion criteria. *ur search

resulte3 in a substantially larger sample o/ stu3ies than that ob$

taine3 by la//al3ano an3 Duchins9y (1&) an3 Petty et al. (1&%)=

4ho inclu3e3 only 2%S an3 %S o/ the in3epen3ent samples

inclu3e3 in this stu3y= respectiely. *ur oerall analysis o/ therelationships bet4een satis/action an3 per/ormance 4as estimate3

/rom "12 in3epen3ent samples containe3 in 2% stu3ies (total

! M %=%1). A summary o/ stu3ies inclu3e3 in the meta$analysis is

gien in the Appen3iE.

Meta-#nal$tic Procedures

Fe use3 the meta$analytic proce3ures o/ ?unter an3 chmi3t

(1&&0) to correct obsere3 correlations /or sampling error an3

unreliability in measures o/ ;ob satis/action an3 ;ob per/ormance.

Correlations 4ere correcte3 in3ii3ually. In terms o/ correcting ;ob

satis/action measures /or unreliability= 4hen authors o/ original

stu3ies reporte3 an oerall internal consistency reliability /or ;obsatis/action= 4e use3 this alue to correct the obsere3 correlation

/or attenuation. I/ correlations bet4een multiple measures o/ ;ob

satis/action 4ere reporte3 in original stu3ies= 4e use3 these alues

to compute the reliability o/ an e:ually 4eighte3 composite o/

oerall satis/action using the pearman$Bro4n prophecy /ormula

(?unter chmi3t. 1&&0). Ginally= /or single$item measures o/ ;ob

satis/action= 4e use3 meta$analytically 3erie3 estimates o/ the

reliability o/ single$item measures o/ ;ob satis/action (Fanous=

eichers= ?u3y= 1&&).

As is typical in meta$analyses inoling superisory ratings o/

;ob per/ormance (e.g.= Barric9 Dount= 1&&1)= only a han3/ul o/

stu3ies in our 3atabase (9 M %) reporte3 correlations among raters=

ma9ing it impossible to /orm an accurate estimate o/ the reliabilityo/ per/ormance ratings base3 on in/ormation containe3 in the

articles. Accor3ingly= 4e too9 meta$analytic estimates o/ the reli$

ability o/ arious sources o/ per/ormance in/ormation /rom the ;ob

per/ormance literature. ,he most /re:uently use3 source o/ per/or$

mance in/ormation in our sample o/ stu3ies inole3 superisory

ratings o/ ;ob per/ormance. In /act= more than 0S o/ the total

samples use3 superisory ratings as the per/ormance criterion.

Fhen superisory or peer ratings o/ per/ormance 4ere use3 in

original stu3ies= 4e use3 Vis4esaran et al.s (1&) estimate o/

the reliability o/ superisory an3 peer per/ormance ratings. In a

number o/ stu3ies= authors use3 ob;ectie measures (such as :ual$

ity an3 :uantity o/ output) to ealuate per/ormance. Fhen multiple

ob;ectie measures 4ere use3= 4e estimate3 the composite reli$

ability o/ these measures. In cases in 4hich the reliability o/

ob;ectie in3ices o/ per/ormance 4as not proi3e3 by authors= 4e

estimate3 reliability o/ these measures 4ith the mean reliability o/

all the stu3ies in the gien analysis. In a han3/ul o/ stu3ies (siE

samples in total)= other sources o/ per/ormance in/ormation 4ere

use3 /or 4hich meta$analytic reliability estimates 4ere unaailable

(ratings /rom subor3inates= stu3ents= clients= customers). Fhen

these rating types 4ere use3= 4e estimate3 the reliability o/ these

ratings 4ith the 3istribution that 4as 3eeme3 most similar (e.g.=

Vis4esaran et al.s estimate o/ the reliability o/ peer ratings 4as

use3 as a reliability estimate in the one stu3y using solely subor$

3inate ratings).

*/ten= stu3ies reporte3 per/ormance in/ormation /rom multiple

sources (e.g.= peer an3 superisory ratings= ob;ectie measures an3

superisory ratings). In these samples= 4e estimate3 reliability

using meta$analytic /in3ings /rom the ;ob per/ormance literature

pertaining to correlations bet4een these sources (Bommer= -ohn$

son= ich= Po3sa9o//= Dac8en


10/41

-*B A,IGAC,I*! A! -*B P6G*DA!C6 "

inestigate3 seeral stu3y characteristics that may mo3erate the

magnitu3e o/ the satis/action$per/ormance correlations. Girst= be$

cause meta$analyses are commonly criticiob;ec$

tie> measures) an3 by measure o/ ;ob satis/action (e.g.= 4hether

the measure o/ ;ob satis/action 4as a composite o/ the /acets or a

global measure). Gourth= because it might be eEpecte3 that the

satis/action$per/ormance correlation 4oul3 ary accor3ing to the

basic research 3esign o/ the stu3y= 4e inestigate3 4hether the

correlation aries by longitu3inal ersus cross$sectional 3esign.

,he /i/th substantie mo3erator 4e eEamine3 4as ;ob compleEity

it is /re:uently argue3 that the satis/action$per/ormance relation$

ship shoul3 be higher in more compleE= stimulating ;obs (e.g.=

Bair3= 1 Ianceich= 1&&). Ginally= it 4as o/ interest to

3etermine the magnitu3e o/ the satis/action$per/ormance associa$

tion in arious occupational groups. ,hus= 4e report estimates o/

the satis/action$per/ormance relationship /or eight 3i//erent occu$

pational categories. ,o test /or statistically signi/icant 3i//erences as

a /unction o/ 3ichotomous mo3erating con3itions= 4e con3ucte3

pair4ise comparisons using the L test proi3e3 by uinones= Gor3=

an3 ,eachout (1&&). Gor this test= a signi/icant test statistic

in3icates the presence o/ a mo3erator e//ect /or this ariable.

Co3ing o/ the mo3erator ariables 4as straight/or4ar3 as most

o/ the mo3erators (measure o/ satis/action an3 per/ormance= re$

search 3esign= occupation) 4ere clearly in3icate3 in the stu3ies. In

t4o cases= ho4eer= co3ing o/ the stu3y characteristics 4as more

inole3. Fe classi/ie3 ;ournal articles as top tier by :uantitatiely

combining ;ournal :uality ratings /rom seen publishe3 articles

rating ;ournals in the areas o/ psychology= organi


11/41

"# -576= ,?*66!= B*!*= A! PA,,*!

,able 2

>irect Comparison of;Present Findings ?ith &hose of )aaldano and Muchins3$


12/41

-*B A,IGAC,I*! A! -*B P6G*DA!C6 "

oppose3 to internal consistency) estimates in correcting the

correlations.

Moderator #nal$ses

,hough the mean satis/action$per/ormance correlation in our

stu3y can be conclu3e3 to be non.P 2% 1.01 P b= c

1 .2#>h .20 2#&.# a

A# .2E 1 1 1 ".# a

1& ."1>b 1 2&&.# $

1 "0>$R 1& &1".2

1# 2# 1& 10.%

1 ."# "% 1#.#

.22 ."(1 .2 21%.01 $

1 ."0> .22 #.%2

1 .2> 1 221.0% $

1 ."1> b .21 1.201.0% a

1% .2">h 12 "#.2 b

1 .2&> .2 1&. c

1 .2&>h 1# ".02 c

.2# .2 ." 12.2R> a= b

1& .%> ."% 0.& h

1& .2AI 10 "&.2 h

.20 .""=b 1 0 1#."# h

.21 ."%>= 1& &.# h

1 .2#>b 12 1.10 $

1& ."%> .2" 0.01 P h

1# .2#> .2& 1%0.1 P

121&>.n 10 21.1 a= b= c= 3. /

i. Discellaneous$miEe3 1# "1=2 1 .2&>.h .21 #&%.%& $

Note. 3M number o/ correlations ! M total sample si


13/41

" -576= ,?*66!= B*!*= A! PA,,*!

Ianceich= 1 &= 1&&)= results in3icate that the satis/action$per$ (1&&2) note3= >A recemeta$analytic stu3y (la//al3ano

/ormance correlation is substantially stronger in high$compleEity

;obs than lo4$compleEity ;obs. ,hough ;ob satis/action an3 ;ob

per/ormance 4ere correlate3 /or ;obs 4ith me3ium an3 lo4 com$

pleEity (p M .2&)= these alues 4ere signi/icantly lo4er than the

aerage correlation /or high compleEity ;obs (p M .2). ome

3i//erences in the satis/action$per/ormance relationship 4ere ob$sere3 across occupations. Although some o/ these 3i//erences

appear to be 3ue to ;ob compleEity (the strongest correlation 4as

obsere3 /or scientists$engineers an3 one o/ the 4ea9est /or

laborers)= this is an incomplete eEplanation (the correlation 4as

4ea9er /or nurses an3 accountants than /or clerical 4or9ers). A

/e4 o/ these 3i//erences 4ere signi/icant= all such that the corre$

lation /or nurses 4as signi/icantly lo4er than /or the comparison

groups (scientists$engineers= salespersons= teachers= managers$

superisors= an3 clerical 4or9ers$secretaries).

Fe shoul3 note that /or almost all o/ the mo3erator meta$

analyses reporte3 in ,able "= the statistic 4as statistically

signi/icant at the .01 leel. ,here 4ere a /e4 eEceptions= namely=

correlations inoling longitu3inal 3esignsmeager> (Brie/=

1&&= p. %2)= >4ea9> (Cote= 1&&&= p. #)= >uneEpecte3ly lo4>

(pector= 1&&= p. #)= >mo3est ... at best> (8at


14/41


aniel= Fhet


15/41

"&0 -576= ,?*66!= B*!*= A! PA,,*!

Do3erators

W Per/ormance$re4ar3s

contingency

W -ob characteristics

De3iators W !ee3 /or achieement

W For9 centralityW uccess an3 W Aggregation

achieementW ,as9 speci/ic

sel/$e//icacy

W 7oal progress

-ob A W Positie moo3 , -obatis/action % De3iators Per/ormance

W Behaioral

intentions

W @o4 per/ormance

Do3erators as 4ith3ra4al

W Positie moo3W Personality'sel/$concept

W Autonomy

W !orms

W Doral obligation

W Cognitie accessibilityW Aggregation

W @eel o/ analysis

Figure !.Integratie mo3el o/ the relationship bet4een ;ob satis/action an3 ;ob per/ormance.

or per/ormance on satis/action (Do3el 2 or ")= an3 yet the rela$

tionship coul3 be mo3erate3 by other ariables (i.e.= be stronger in

some situations than others Do3el ). imilarly= there may be

causal e//ects bet4een satis/action an3 per/ormance (Do3els 1= 2=

or ") that are eEplaine3 by psychological processes (Do3el %). ,he

integratie mo3el posits a bi3irectional relationship bet4een ;ob

satis/action an3 ;ob per/ormance an3 thus incorporates Do3els1$". ?o4eer= by inclu3ing both me3iating an3 mo3erating e//ects

in both 3irections= it also incorporates Do3els % an3 . Belo4 4e

3iscuss the lin9ages containe3 in the mo3el an3 /uture research

that is nee3e3 to test the arious components o/ the mo3el.

,ests o/ the causal nature o/ the satis/action$per/ormance rela$

tionship are /ragmente3 an3 3ate3. Although there is some support

/or the per/ormance $ satis/action relationship an3 the satis/ac$

tion $ per/ormance relationship= as 4ell as /or reciprocal rela$

tions= this literature is some4hat archaic causal satis/action$per$

/ormance stu3ies appeare3 only in the 1&0s. I/ the relationship is

an important one= as our results suggest= stu3ies o/ causal in/luence

shoul3 resume. 6en i/ ;ob satis/action an3 ;ob per/ormance mu$

tually in/luence each other= it appears :uite possible that the

relationship bet4een satis/action an3 per/ormance is in3irect= me$3iate3 by other ariables. ,hough some research has in3irectly

supporte3 me3iating in/luences= 3irect tests are lac9ing. uch

causal stu3ies are particularly appropriate in light o/ a3ances in

causal mo3eling techni:ues in the past 20 years. Gurther research

also is nee3e3 in terms o/ mo3erators o/ the satis/action$per/or$

mance relationship. Fe are a4are o/ 1 speci/ic mo3erators o/ the

satis/action$per/ormance relationship that hae been propose3. yet

/e4 o/ these hae been inestigate3 in more than one stu3y. 7ien

the large ariability in correlations across stu3ies= /uture inesti$

gation into the con3itions un3er 4hich ;ob satis/action an3 per/or$

mance are relate3 is nee3e3.

Fithin the general /rame4or9 presente3 in Gigure 2= there are

many speci/ic topics that are 4orthy o/ inestigation. ,able %

proi3es a brie/ summary o/ areas /or /uture research that 4e ie4

as most promising= groupe3 accor3ing to the seen per/ormance$

satis/action mo3els 3iscusse3 earlier. Fe 3iscuss these areas inmore 3etail belo4. In terms o/ mo3erating in/luences= arious

personality traits may a//ect the satis/action $ per/ormance rela$

tionship. Dount= ?arter= Barric9= an3 Colbert (2000) argue3 that

;ob satis/action 4oul3 be more strongly relate3 to ;ob per/ormance

/or less conscientious employees because conscientious employees

4oul3 be less 4illing to respon3 to 3issatis/action 4ith re3uce3

per/ormance leels. Dount et al. /oun3 support /or this hypothesis

across three in3epen3ent samples. *ther personality traits may

eEhibit mo3erating e//ects= such as a 3oer sel/$concept= 4hich has

been /oun3 to mo3erate attitu3e$behaior relationships in general

(see 6agly= 1&&2)= or a//ectie 3isposition= 4hich has been /oun3

to mo3erate ;ob satis/action$turnoer relations in particular

(-u3ge= 1&&"). ,hough not a trait= sel/$i3entity has been sho4n to

be releant in attitu3e$behaior relationships such that attitu3es

are more li9ely to lea3 to behaiors 4hen the behaior is central to

ones sel/$concept (Charng= Piliain= Callero= 1&). In this

conteEt= ;ob satis/action 4oul3 be eEpecte3 to lea3 to ;ob per/or$

mance 4hen per/orming 4ell on the ;ob is central to an employees

i3entity. Ginally= 4e encourage /urther research on the ali3ity o/

sel/$esteem as a mo3erator. ipboye (1&) propose3 many re$

/inements to 8ormans (1&0) theory that might a3ance research in

this area= yet /e4 o/ the propositions an3 suggestions in ip$

boyes reie4 hae been inestigate3.


16/41

-*B A,IGAC,I*! A! -*B P6G*DA!C6 "&1

,able %

&opics for Future Research on the Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship

Do3el ,opic

" Is the satis/action$per/ormance relationship reciprocal 4hen teste3 using contemporary causal mo3eling techni:uesQ

oes personality mo3erate the ;ob satis/action$;ob per/ormance relationshipQ

1 Is ;ob satis/action more li9ely to result in per/ormance 4hen ;ob per/ormance is central to ones sel/$conceptQ

1 oes autonomy mo3erate the satis/action$$$sper/ormance relationship such that the e//ect o/ ;ob satis/action on per/ormance isstronger /or ;obs high in autonomyQ

I. o sub;ectie norms mo3erate the satis/action $O per/ormance relationshipQ

1 oes moral obligation mo3erate the satis/action $s per/ormance relationship such that the relationship is 4ea9er /or employees4ho /eel an obligation to per/orm a ;ob 4ell irrespectie o/ their attitu3es to4ar3 itQ

1 Is the satis/action $ per/ormance relationship stronger /or in3ii3uals 4hose ;ob attitu3es are easily accesse3Q= ?o4 3oes temporal an3 behaioral aggregation a//ect the satis/action$per/ormance relationshipQ

Is the satis/action$per/ormance relationship stronger at the group or organi


17/41

"&2 -576= ,?*66!= B*!*= A! PA,,*!

;obs in /orming intentions regar3ing their prospectie behaiors on

the ;ob (many o/ 4hich are presumably per/ormance relate3)Q

?ulin (1&&1) suggeste3 that ;ob 3issatis/action lea3s to a general

4ith3ra4al construct that is mani/este3 in arious behaiors such

as absence= turnoer= an3 the li9e. Gor some employees= re3uce3

per/ormance o/ ;ob 3uties may be a mani/estation o/ 4ith3ra4al.

Ginally= research has suggeste3 that moo3 in the /orm o/ positie

a//ect is relate3 to both satis/action (Brie/= Butcher= oberson=

1&&) an3 per/ormance (ta4 Barsa3e= 1&&"). ,hus= one reason

4hy ;ob satis/action might lea3 to ;ob per/ormance is because

in3ii3uals 4ho li9e their ;obs are more li9ely to be in goo3 moo3s

at 4or9= 4hich in turn /acilitates ;ob per/ormance in arious 4ays=

inclu3ing creatie problem soling= motiation= an3 other pro$

cesses (Isen Baron. 1&&1).

,urning to the per/ormance $ satis/action lin9age= research has

suggeste3 that the contingency bet4een pay an3 per/ormance

(Po3sa9o// Filliams= 1) an3 intrinsic re4ar3s (e.g.= Iance$

ich= 1&&) mo3erate the per/ormance$satis/action relationship=

such that ;obs in 4hich re4ar3s are contingent on per/ormance are

more satis/ying than ;obs 4ith a 4ea9er per/ormance$re4ar3s

contingency. It stri9es us that many o/ these re4ar3$oriente3mo3erator ariables propose3 in past research 4oul3 /ruit/ully be

inestigate3 un3er @oc9es (1&0) alue theory. Gor eEample. ;ob

compleEity may mo3erate the ;ob per/ormance ;ob satis/action

correlation because e//ectie per/ormance in compleE ;obs may

satis/y many in3ii3uals alues /or intrinsic /ul/illment in their

4or9. @oc9es (1&0) theory 4oul3 /urther a3ance this hypoth$

esis by proposing that the re4ar3s that are pro3uce3 4ill 3i//er$

entially satis/y in3ii3uals 3epen3ing on their alues. ,hus= in

a33ition to the positie general e//ect o/ the per/ormance$re4ar3s

lin9 on satis/action= those re4ar3s alue3 most by an in3ii3ual

4ill hae the greatest potential to satis/y. Although 3irect tests o/

@oc9es (1&0) theory are lac9ing= it has en;oye3 support in the

stu3ies that hae teste3 it (?och4arter et al.= 1&&& !athanson

Bec9er= 1&"). esearch testing the ali3ity o/ these mo3erators

un3er @oc9es (1&0) theory 4oul3 hol3 the promise o/ proi3ing

some nee3e3 integration to this area.

esearch on achieement motiation reeals that in3ii3uals

4ith high nee3 /or achieement (!ach) pre/er mo3erately chal$

lenging tas9s because tas9s that are too challenging carry 4ith

them a higher ris9 /or /ailure= 4hich is unacceptable to high$!ach

in3ii3uals (DcClellan3= 1&). It 4oul3 then stan3 to reason that

per/orming a ;ob 4ell is li9ely to be more satis/ying (an3 per/orm$

ing a ;ob poorly more 3issatis/ying) to high$!ach in3ii3uals

because success is their primary motiation (DcClellan3 Gransuccesses buil3 a robust belie/ in ones

personal e//icacy> (p. 0). It seems plausible that in3ii3uals 4ho

beliee in their abilities an3 competence to per/orm a ;ob 4ill be

more satis/ie3 in it. 5n3er this eEplanation= sel/$e//icacy shoul3

me3iate the per/ormance$satis/action relationship.

iener= ub= @ucas= an3 miths (1&&&) reie4 sho4s that

progress to4ar3 ones goals is pre3ictie o/ sub;ectie 4ell$being

(though the type o/ goal an3 the reasons /or pursuing it also

matter). ,hus= i/ e//ectie ;ob per/ormance promotes achieement

o/ ma;or goals in 4or9 an3 li/e= in3ii3uals shoul3 be more

satis/ie3 4ith their ;obs as a result. ,his eEplanation is relate3 to=

but 3istinct /rom= the success an3 achieement eEplanation as the

latter may be satis/ying irrespectie o/ the eEplicit or conscious

goals o/ the in3ii3ual. In reality= achieement an3 goal progres$

sion are li9ely to be intert4ine3 in that success 4ill be most

satis/ying 4hen it is tie3 to progress to4ar3 important personal

goals (@oc9e= 1&&).

Ginally= although there is a great 3eal o/ research on the e//ect o/

moo3 on per/ormance= it surprises us that research on the e//ects o/

per/ormance on moo3 is lac9ing. Dost in3ii3uals 4oul3 rather 3osomething 4ell than poorly= an3 thus 3oing something 4ell is li9ely

to eleate moo3. Doo3= in turn= is relate3 to ;ob satis/action (Feiss et

al.= 1&&&). ,hus= in a33ition to me3iating the satis/ac$

tion $ per/ormance relationship= positie moo3 also might me3i$

ate the per/ormance $ satis/action relationship.

Although it 4as not possible to inclu3e Do3el in the integra$

tie mo3el in Gigure 2= this is not to suggest that the mo3el is

un3esering o/ /uture research. esearch in the past 3eca3e has

proi3e3 strong in3ications that inestigations into the attitu3e$

behaior relationship nee3 not be con/ine3 to the satis/action$per$

/ormance relationship. It has been suggeste3 that replacing ;ob

satis/action 4ith a//ect an3 per/ormance 4ith organi


18/41

-*B A,IGAC,I*! A! -*B P6G*DA!C6 "&"

tion (ta4 Barsa3e= 1&&")= an3 mental health (Fright et al.=

1&&"). imilarly= 4ithin the broa3 realm o/ per/ormance= arious

constructs hae been promulgate3= inclu3ing prosocial organi


19/41

racteristics and organi0ational climate across eight &an0anian

ni0ations.5npublishe3 3octoral 3issertation= Dichigan tate 5nier$

6ast @ansing.


20/41

"&% -576= ,?*66!= B*!*= A! PA,$,*!

Ban3ura= A. (1&&).Self-eGcac$: &he eEercise of control. !e4 or9+ Brass= . -. (1&1). tructural relationships= ;ob characteristics= an3

Greeman. 4or9er satis/action an3 per/ormance.#dministrati/ecience7uar-

Barric9= D. .= Dount= D. 8. (1&&1). ,he Big Gie personality 3imen$

sions an3 ;ob per/ormance+ A meta$analysis.Personnel Ps$cholog$9

%%9

1$2#.

Barric9= D. .. Dount. D. 8. (1&&"). Autonomy as a mo3erator o/ the

relationship bet4een the Big Gie personality 3imensions an3 ;ob per$

/ormance.Journal of #pplied Ps$cholog$9 29 1 11$11.

Bateman= ,. . (1&0). A longitudinal in/estigation of role

o/erload and

its relationships (ith (or3 beha/iors and Aob satisfaction.

5npublishe3

3octoral 3issertation= In3iana 5niersity= Bloomington.

Bauer= ,. !.. 7reen= . 7. (1&&). ,esting the combine3 e//ects o/

ne4comer in/ormation see9ing an3 manager behaior on sociali7reat eEpectations+> A no$con/lict

eEplanation o/ role con/lict. Journal of #pplied Ps$cholog$9 -=9

2#1$

21.

Bernar3in= ?. -. (1&&). ,he pre3ictability o/ 3iscrepancy measures o/

role constructs.Personnel Ps$cholog$9 "!9 1"&$1".

Bhagat= . . (1&2). Con3itions un3er 4hich stronger ;ob per/ormance$

;ob satis/action relationships may be obsere3+ A closer loo9 at t4o

situational contingencies.#cadem$ of Management Journal9 2=

2$

&.

Bhagat= . .= Allie= . D. (1&&). *rgani


21/41

$9 !-9""1$"%.

el3= A. ?.= Croc9ett= F. ?. (1&). 6mployee attitu3es an3

loyee per/ormance.Ps$chological 'ulletin9 *!9"$%2%. Bray/iel3=

Darsh= D. D. (1&). Aptitu3es= interests= an3

onality characteristics o/ /armers. Journal of #pplied Ps$chol-

$9 %19&$10".

ugh= -. A. (1&1). elationships bet4een recruiting sources an3

loyee per/ormance= absenteeism= an3 4or9 attitu3es. #cadem$ of

nagement Journal9 !%9 1%2$1%.

A. P. (1&&).#ttitudes in and around organi0ations.,housan3 *a9s=

age.

/= A. P.= Al3ag= . -. (1). Correlates o/ role in3ices. Journal of

plied Ps$cholog$9 19%#$%2.

A. P.= Butcher= A.= oberson= @. (1&&). Coo9ies= 3isposition= an3attitu3es+ ,he e//ects o/ positie moo3 in3ucing eents an3 negatie

ctiity on ;ob satis/action in a /iel3 eEperiment.+rgani0ational

ha/ior and Duman >ecision Processes9#2= $#2.

A. P.= Doto4i3lo= . -. (1). Prosocial organi


22/41


Coo9= ,. .= Campbell= . ,. (1&&).7uasi-eEperimentation:>esign

an3 analysis issuesfor 8eld settings.Boston+ ?oughton Di//lin.

Cote= . (1&&&). A//ect an3 per/ormance in organiirections in Ps$chological Science9= #$#.

Crisera= . A. (1). Astud$ of Aob satisfaction and itsrelationship to

performance in the Aob situation. 5npublishe3 3octoral

3issertation= Fashington 5niersity= t. @ouis= Dissouri.

Cronbach= @. -.. 7leser= 7. C.= !an3a= ?.= a;aratnam= !. (1&2). &he

dependabilit$ of beha/ioral measurements: &heor$ of

generali0abilit$

for scores and pro8les.!e4 or9+ Filey.

Cropanecision Processes9 129 10$12#.ipboye= . @.= Lulto4s9i. F. ?.= e4hirst= ?. .= Arey= . .

(1&&). el/$esteem as a mo3erator o/ per/ormance$satis/action relation$

ships.Journal of ,ocational 'eha/ior9 1*9 1&"$20#.oll. @. . (1&"). Amultidimensional stud$ of Aobsatisfaction and

performance. 5npublishe3 3octoral 3issertation. Fashington

5nier$

sity. t. @ouis= Dissouri.

oll= . 6.= 7un3erson= 6. 8. 6. (1&). *ccupational group as a

mo3erator o/ the ;ob satis/action ;ob per/ormance relationship.Journal

of #pplied Ps$cholog$9 *"9"&$"#1.

or/man= P. F.. tephan= F. 7.. @oelan3= -. (1). Per/ormance

appraisal behaiors+ uperisor perceptions an3 subor3inate reactions.

Personnel Ps$cholog$9 "=9&$&.

ougherty. ,. F. (1&1). Role-based stressors: #nin/estigation of re-

lationships to personal and organi0ational outcomes.

5npublishe3 3oc$

toral 3issertation. 5niersity o/ ?ouston= ?ouston= ,eEas.

reher= 7. G. ( 1&1). Pre3icting the salary satis/action o/ eEempt e

ployees.Personnel Ps$cholog$9 "%9&$&.

ubins9y= A. -.= ?artley= . F. (1). A path$analytic stu3y o

mo3el o/ salesperson per/ormance. Journal of the #cadem$

Mar3eting

Science9 1%9 "#$%#.

ubins9y. A. -.= 9inner= . -. (1&%). Impact o/;ob characteristic


23/41

il salespeoples reactions to their ;obs.Journal of Retailing9 -@9

#2.

A. ?. (1&&2). 5neen progress+ ocial psychology an3 the stu3y o/

u3es.Journal of Personalit$ and Social Ps$cholog$9 "9 #&"$

A. ?.= Chai9en= . (1&&").&he ps$cholog$ of attitudes.Gort

th= ,X+ ?arcourt Brace -oanoich.

A. ?.. Foo3= F. (1&&%). 5sing research syntheses to plan /uture

arch. In ?. Cooper @. V. ?e3ges (63s.)= &he handboo3 of research

thesis(pp. %$00). !e4 or9+ ussell age Goun3ation.

y= .= irgy= D. -. (1&&0). ,he e//ects o/ :uality o/ 4or9ing li/e

F@) on employee behaioral responses.Social )ndicators Re-

rch9 !!9 "1$%.

y= .= Fol/e= . D. (1&). ,he e//ect o/ organi


24/41

" -576= ,?*66!= B*!*= A! PA,,*!

per/ormance = an3 ;ob satis/action o/ IBD operators. Personnel Ps$chol-

og$9= 20$21".

7ar3ner= . 7.= unham= . B.= Cummings= @. @.= Pierce= -. @. (1&).

Gocus o/ attention at 4or9 an3 lea3er$/ollo4er relationships. Journal of

+ccupational 'eha/ior9= 2$2&%.

7ar3ner= . 7.= Pierce= -. @. (1&&). el/$esteem an3 sel/$e//icacy

4ithin the organiierences9 12= 221$2"1.

7eorge= -. D.= Bettenhausen= 8. (1&&0). 5n3erstan3ing prosocial be$haior= sales per/ormance= an3 turnoer+ A group$leel analysis in a

serice conteEt.Journal of #pplied Ps$cholog$9 = #&$0&.

7eorge= -. D.. Brie/= A. P. (1&&2). Geeling goo3$3oing goo3+ A

conceptual analysis o/ the moo3 at 4or9$organi


25/41

ationship for research scientists.5npublishe3 3octoral 3issertation=

ersity o/ ,ennessee.

a/son= . B.= Dum/or3= D. . (1&&). Personal style an3 person$

ironment /it+ A pattern approach.Journal of ,ocational 'eha/-

%-9 1#"$1.

man= . -.= @a4ler= 6. 6.= III. (1&1). 6mployee reactions to ;ob

acteristics.Journal of #pplied Ps$cholog$9 **92&$2#.

3 53$in= D. (1&").&he relationship bet(een Aob satisfaction

performance.5npublishe3 3octoral 3issertation= Columbia 5nier$

!e4 or9.

on. .= ubins9y= A. -.= 9inner= . -. (1). A mo3el o/ sales

erisor lea3ership an3 retail salespeoples ;ob$relate3 outcomes.

rnal of the #cadem$ of Mar3eting Science9 1%9""$%".

ing= G. .= Bottenberg= . A. (1). 6//ect o/ personal charac$

tics on relationships bet4een attitu3es an3 ;ob per/ormance.Journal

#pplied Ps$cholog$9 %*9%2$%"0.

s= D. D.= chaubroec9= -. (1&). A meta$analysis o/ sel/$

erisor= sel/$peer= an3 peer$superisor ratings. Personnel Psychol$

9 %19 %"$#2.

= -. 8.= Creglo4= A. (1&&). # meta-anal$sis and utilit$ anal$sis

relationship bet(een core ?# perceptions and business

mes

or9ing Paper 2.0). @incoln= !6+ 7allup *rgani


26/41


among apparel specialt$ store managers.5npublishe3 3octoral 3isser$ -u3ge= ,. A.= ,horesen= C. -.. Puci9= V.= Felbourne= ,. D.

"&

(1&&&).

tation= ,eEas Fomans 5niersity. enton.

In9son= -. ?. 8. (1&). el/$esteem as a mo3erator o/ the relationship

bet4een ;ob per/ormance an3 ;ob satis/action. Journal of #pplied

Psp-

cholog/9#"= 2%"$2%.

Isen= A. D.. Baron= . A. (1&&1). Positie a//ect as a /actor in organi$


27/41

agerial coping 4ith organi


28/41

"& -576= ,?*66!= B*!*= A! PA,,*!

tion+ An empirical inestigation o/ teers an3 Do43ays mo3el o/

turnoer.#cadem$ of Management Journal9 "@921$%".

@eeto= 7. A. (1&%).Self-esteem as a moderator of the

satisfactionper-

formance relationship: # multi/ariate approach.5npublishe3

3octoral

3issertation= 7eorgia tate 5niersity= Atlanta.

@ey= P. 6.= Filliams= -. . (1&&). ,he role o/ perceie3 system

9no4le3ge in pre3icting appraisal reactions= ;ob satis/action= an3 orga$

ni


29/41

llan3= . C.= Gran


30/41

-*B A,IGAC,I*! A! -*B P6G*DA!C6 "&&

!aylor= -. C.= Pritchar3= . .= Ilgen= . . (1&0). Atheor$ ofbeha/ior

in organi0ations.!e4 or9+ Aca3emic Press.

!hun3u= ,. -. (1&&2). -ob per/ormance= role clarity= an3 satis/action

among teacher interns in the 63monton public school system.#lberta

Journal of ducational Research9 "29""$"%.

!ice= .= tephen= . .= teele= ,. P. (1&).>eterminants and

outcomes of collecti/e organi0ational climate among

shipboard inde-

pendent dut$ hospital corpsmen (eport !o. $%). an

iego= CA+

!aal ?ealth esearch Center= ?ealth erices esearch epartment.

!orris. . .= !iebuhr= . 6. (1&%). *rganiecision

Processes9 "29

2$%.

*l3ham= 7. .= 8uli9= C. ,.= tepina= @. P. (1&&1). Physical eniron$

ments an3 employee reactions+ 6//ects o/ stimulus$screening s9ills an3

;ob compleEity. Aca3emyof Management Journal9 "%9&2&$&".

*lson= -. D.= Lanna= D. P. (1&&"). Attitu3es an3 attitu3e change. #nnual

Re/ie( of Ps$cholog$9 %%9 1 1$1%.

*nes= . .= Vis4esaran= C.= eiss= A. . (1&). ole o/ social

3esirability in personality testing /or personnel selection+ ,he re3 her$

ring.Journal of #pplied Ps$cholog$9 219##0$#&.

*ppenheimer= . -. (1&1). &esting three-(a$ interactions

among leader

beha/iors9 tas3 structure and personal characteristics of

subordinates as

indicated b$ the path-goal theor$ of leadership.

5npublishe3 3octoral

3issertation= 5niersity o/ ,oronto= ,oronto= *ntario= Cana3a. *eilly=

C. A.= III= oberts= 8. ?. (1&). uperisor in/luence an3

subor3inate mobility aspirations as mo3erators o/ consi3eration an3

structure.Journal of #pplied Ps$cholog$9 "9$102.

*rgan= . F. (1&). A restatement o/ the satis/action$per/ormance hy$

pothesis.Journal of Management9 1%9 %$.

*rgan= . F.= !ear= -. P. (1&). Cognition s. a//ect in measures o/ ;obsatis/action.)nternational Journal of Ps$cholog$9 !@9 2%1$2".

*rgan= . F.= yan= 8. (1&&). A meta$analytic reie4 o/ attitu3inal

an3 3ispositional pre3ictors o/ organi


31/41

iguity an3 con/lict.Journal of Cross Cultural Ps$cholog$9 1"9

"%.

n= C. (1&%). Danagerial stress= relaEation an3 per/ormance. Journal

Management >e/elopment9"= 2%$%.

n= C. (1&). ,he e//ects o/ nee3 /or achieement an3 nee3 /or

pen3ence on the relationship bet4een perceie3 ;ob attributes an3

agerial satis/action an3 per/ormance.)nternational Journal of Ps$-

log$920= 20$21&.

n= C. (1). ,he e//ect o/ ;ob per/ormance on the relationship

4een ;ob satis/action an3 turnoer.Journal of Social Ps$cholog$9

2$2.

n= C.= Bernath= -. (1&). ,he e//ect o/ role con/lict an3 role

biguity on employee satis/action an3 per/ormance. Ps$chological

dies9 "2= 2$2.

/= C. (1&&2). ,he relationship bet4een satis/action= attitu3es= an3

ormance+ An organiierences bet(een ne( and established

strial

r3ers: #n interactional model. 5npublishe3 3octoral

tation=

as Christian 5niersity.

on= -. D. (1&1).+rgani0ational entr$ in a hospital setting:

9

blems9 and outcomes. 5npublishe3 3octoral 3issertation=

rsity

Dinnesota.

ey= @. 6.= ?a49ins= B. @. (1&0). *rgani


32/41

%00 -576= ,?*66!= B*!*= A! PA,,*!

mo3el.+rgani0ational 'eha/ior and Duman >ecisionProcesses9 *%9

1$%%.

Po3sa9o//= P. D.= ,u3or= F. .= 9o= . (1&2). 6//ects o/ lea3er

contingent an3 noncontingent re4ar3 an3 punishment behaiors on

subor3inate per/ormance an3 satis/action. #cadem$ of

Management

-ournal= 2= 10$21.

Po3sa9o//= P. D.. Filliams= @. -. (1). ,he relationship bet4een ;ob

per/ormance an3 ;ob satis/action. In 6. A. @oc9e (63.).enerali0ing

from laborator$ to 8eld settings(pp. 20$2"). @eEington= DA+

@eE$

ington Press.

Prest4ich= ,. @. (1&0). &he causal relationship bet(een Aob

satisfaction

and Aob performance. 5npublishe3 3octoral 3issertation.

5niersity o/

!orth Carolina. Chapel ?ill.

uinones. D. A.. Gor3. -. 8.= ,eachout= D. . (1&&). ,he relationship

bet4een 4or9 eEperience an3 ;ob per/ormance+ A conceptual an3 meta$

analytic reie4.Personnel Ps$cholog$9 %29 $&10.

amser. C. . (1&2). Per/ormance= satis/action= e//ort.Personnel #d-

ministration and Public Personnel Re/ie(9 19%$.

an3all. D.. cott= F. A. (1&). Burnout= ;ob satis/action= an3 ;ob

per/ormance.#ustralian Ps$chologist9 !"9 ""$"%.

an3all= D. @.. Cropan


33/41

o Cooperati/e Etension count$ agents. 5npublishe3 3octoral 3is$

ation= *hio tate 5niersity= Columbus.

P. @.. BeVier= C. A.= 4it


34/41

-*B A,IGAC,I*! A! -*B P6G*DA!C6 %01

ch4ab= . P.= Cummings= @. @. (1&0). ,heories o/ per/ormance an3

satis/action+ A reie4.)ndustrial Relations9 &= %0$%"0.

ch4art


35/41

ob satis/action$turnoer relationship.Journal of #pplied Ps$chol-

##= 11$1%.

c9. B.= De


36/41

%02 -576= ,?*66!= B*!*= A! PA,,*!

,ypes= e//ects= an3 mechanisms.Journal of #pplied Ps$cholog$9"9

22$2"%.

Varca= P. 6.= -ames$Valutis= D. (1&&"). ,he relationship o/ ability an3

satis/action to ;ob per/ormance. #pplied Ps$cholog$: #n

)nternational

eie4= %2= 2#$2.

Vecchio= . P.= 7ob3el= B. C. (1&%). ,he ertical 3ya3 lin9age mo3el

o/ lea3ership+ Problems an3 prospects.+rgani0ational 'eha/ior

and

Duman Performance9 "%9$20.

Vinchur= A. -.= chippmann= -. .= 4itecision Processes9 29 1$2%.

Feslan3er= . @. (1&1).,ocational interest patterns of socialstudies

teachers and rated performance.5npublishe3 3octoral 3issertation= 5ni$

ersity o/ ela4are= !e4ar9.

FeEley= 8. !.= AleEan3er= . A.= 7reen4alt= -. P.= Couch= D. A.

(1&0). Attitu3inal congruence an3 similarity as relate3 to interpersonal

ealuations in manager$subor3inate 3ya3s. #cadem$ of

Management

Journal92"= "20$""0.

Fic9er= A. F. (1&). Attitu3e ersus actions+ ,he relationship o/ erbal

an3 oert behaioral responses to attitu3e ob;ects.Journal of Social

)ssues92= %1$.

Figgins= -. .= Doo3y= A. (1&"). I3enti/ying e//ectie counselors

through client$superisor ratings an3 personality$ enironmental ari$

ables.,ocational uidance 7uarterl$9 "19 2&$2#&.

Figgins= -. .= Feslan3er= . @. (1&&). Personality characteristics o/

counselors rate3 as e//ectie or ine//ectie. Journal of ,ocational

'e-

ha/ior9 1*9 1$1.

Figgins= -. .= Feslan3er= . @. (1). 6//ectieness relate3 to

personali ty an3 3emographic characteristics o/ secon3ary school coun$

selors.Counselor ducation and Super/ision92#= 2#$".

FilcoE= 8. 6. (1&&).Moti/ation9 central life interests9

/oluntarism9 and

demographic /ariables as predictors of Aob satisfaction and

percei/ed

performance of teachers.5npublishe3 3octoral 3issertation=

5niersity

o/ 8ansas= @a4rence.

Filey= -. F. (1&). @in9ing surey results to customer satis/action an3

business per/ormance. In A. I. 8raut (63.)=+rgani0ationalsureys (pp.

""0$"&). an Grancisco+ -ossey$Bass.

Filson= A. A. (1&&0). Participating in a participati/e

management sys$

tem: &he role of acti/e participation9 organi0ational

3no(ledge9 and

indi/idual moti/ation in emplo$ee satisfaction and

performance.5n$

publishe3 3octoral 3issertation= Pur3ue 5niersity= Fest @a/ayette=

In3iana.

Fright= ,. A.= Bonett= . 7. (1&&). ,he role o/ pleasantness an3

actiation$base3 4ell$being in per/ormance pre3iction.Journal of +c-

cupational Dealth Ps$cholog$92= 212$21&.

Fright= ,. A.= Bonett= . 7.= 4eeney= . A. (1&&"). Dental health an3

4or9 per/ormance+ esults o/ a longitu3inal /iel3 stu3y.Journal of

+ccupational and +rgani0ational Ps$cholog$9 92$2%.

Fright= ,. A.= Cropan


37/41


Appen3iE

ummary o/ tu3ies Inclu3e3 in Deta$Analysis

%0"

tu3y N r r p r p ource Deasure -P Deasure -esignCompleEity*ccupation

Ab3el$?alim (1&0) 12" .22 .2U .# ." ,, GC C D

Abramis (1&) 112 1" .%2U .%3 .2" 5$ P$$* 5 C D$D

Abramis (1&&%) 21 10 .2U .%3 1# * P$$* 5 @ D$D

A39ins (1&&) 11 .00 .2U . .00 ,, GC C D$D

A39ins et al. (1&) & 10 .2U .#> 1& 5 GC @ @ @

AleEan3er et al. (1&&) 1"0 .2" .% . ."& * * GC C ? D$D

Allen (1&&2) 1 ."" .2U .2e .#" 5$ * GC C D D$D

Anan3 ohal (1&1) 22 .2 .2U .%3 .% 5 5 C D $6

Anan3 ohal (1&1) 2% .2 .2U .%3 .%0 5 5 C D $6

Anan3 ohal (1&1) 11# .2# .2R .%3 .%2 5 * 5 C D $6

An3erson *eilly (1&1) ## 11 .2U .# .20 * * GC C D D$D

Apasu$7botsu (1&2) 1" .2# .2U .#"> .% 5$ 5 C D C

Araghi (1&1) 1# .00 ."# .00 5$ * 5 C ? D$D

Ayman (1&") 1 .2 .2U .%> .% 5$ GC C D D$

Bago .## 5$ GC C D$D

Bauer 7reen (1&&) 20 ." .2U .&2 . ,, GC C D$D

Be3eian et al. (1&") 1&" .0 .2U .# .0 * 5 C D !

Berger$7ross 8raut (1&%) .22 .2U . ." ,, 5 C D D$

Bernar3in (1&&) " .2& .#2> .> .% ,, = P$$* GC C D D$DBhagat (1&2) 10% ." .2> .&% .0 ,, GC C D D$

Bhagat Allie (1&&) 1" $.0# .2U .#n $.10 * GC C D D$D

Birnbaum omers (1&&") 1%2 $.0" .2U . $.0 * 7 C D !

Bittle (1&&1) 1" 1& .2U .&n ."0 5$ GC C D$DBi .2% * GC C D$DBlanchar3 (1&&1) "%& .20 .2> .&" .2& 5$ GC C D$D

Bluen et al. (1&&0) 110 .20 .2U ."0 ,, * 5 C D

Boyles (1) 1# .0% ."& .%3 .0 5$ = * 5 C D D$D

Brass (1&1) 1%0 .%0 .2U .2> .# ,, GC C D$DBray/iel3 Darsh (1&) 0 12 .2> .#0 .21 ,, 7 C D D$DBreaugh (1&1) 112 1# .2> .2> .2# ,, GC C D $6

Brie/ Al3ag (1) .01 .2U ."> .02 ,, GC C @ D$DBro3y (1&%) %0 .# .2U .%3 1 10 5$ * 5 C @ @!. -. Bro4n (1&&) 22 1 .2U .0> .2 5$ GC C D !

. P. Bro4n et al. (1&&") %## 1" .2U .&1> 1& 5 GC C D . P. Bro4n Peterson (1&&%) "0 ."1 .2> .# .2 ,, 5 C D Burns (1&) "0 .0& .2U .%3 1 5$ GC C @ @Burns (1&) 11 $.0 .2> .%3 $.1 I 5$ GC C @ @

Carlson (1&) 22 1" .2U .%3 .21 ,, 7 C D$DCarlson (1&) 2% 1 .2 .%3 .2 ,, 7 C @ @

Clayton (1&1) 222 1% .2> .&> .22 5$ GC C D$D

Cleelan3 hore (1&&2) %10 12 .2> .# .20 ,, 5 C D$D

Colarelli et al. (1&) 20 1 .2U .2& ,, GC C D A

Crisera (1) $.0" .2> b $.0 5$ GC C D$

Crisera (1) 1#0 .0# .2U .> 10 5$ GC C @ @

Cropan . 1" * 5 C D !e Grain (1&&) 1"1 ."% .2> .%3 . 5$ 5 C ? D$Deis (1&2) %0 1# .2> .#0> .2& 5$ GC C D$Denton (1) " $.01 .2U .%3 $.02 5$ GC C D$Dipboye et al. (1&&) " ."0 .2> .%3 .% * GC C D D$Dipboye et al. (1&&) 2#% ."2 .2> .%3 .2 * GC C D C@. . oll (1&") 1# ."# .2U .%3 . 5$ 7 C D D$@. . oll (1&") 0 ."& .2> .%3 .#" 5$ 7 C @ @. 6. oll 7un3erson (1&) ## .%% .#2> .%3 .# ,, = P$$* 5 C ? $6. 6. oll 7un3erson (1&) 12& .0% .#2h .%3 .0# ,, = P$$* 5 C D$D

or/man et al. (1) 121 .%1 .2U ." .#2 , , 5 C D$Dougherty (1&1) .% .2> .& .# 5$ GC C ? D$Dreher (1&1) #&2 1& .2U .2 ."1 ,, 5 C D$Dubins9i ?artley (1) 120 1 .2U " .2 5 * GC C D ubins9i 9inner (1&%) 11# .00 .2R %3 .00 5 * GC C D


38/41


39/41

-*B A,IGAC,I*! A! -*B P6G*DA!C6 %0

Appen3iE .2 .2 * * 5 C ? D$D

8al3enberg Bec9er (1&&1) 1## 1# .2> .2 .2 * * 5 C ? D$D

8anta9 (1&&) 1# 1& .2R .&" .2 5$ * GC C D

8eller (1&%) "2 .0 "& . 12 ,, = * GC C $6

8eller (1&&) 1&0 .0 .2> . 12 ,, GC C D$D

8esselman et al. (1&%) # .% .2> .> .# ,, GC C D$D

8hale:ue et al. (1&&2) 100 .& .2> .%> .& 5 7 C @ @

8inic9i et al. (1&&0) "12 12 .2> .&% 1 ,, 5 C D !

8irchner 11) 2 .# .&2> "> . ,, * 5 C D 8ittrell (1&0) 212 1% .2> .%> .2" 5$ 7 C D D$D

8onos9y Cropan .2 ,, GC C D D$D

8uhn et al. (1&1) 1 % 1 1 .2R .%> 1 * * 5 C @ @

@a Gollette (1&") # .2 .2> .> .%" 5$ GC C D$D

@a4ler Porter (1) 1% ."1 .#2> .%> .%# * = P$$* 5 C D D$D

@eana (1) 1& $.02 ."& .#> $.0% ,, = * GC C D D$D

C. @ee et al. (1&&0) &1 $.1 .2> .1 $.2" ,, 5 C D$D,. F. @ee Do43ay (1&) %% $.11 .2> .%> $.1 ,, GC C D$D

@eeto (1&%) %" .00 .2> .%> .00 5$ 5 C D A

@ey Filliams (1&&) %# $.0# .2> .2 $.10 * GC C D$D

@ichtman (1&0) & .21 .2> .%> ."% ,, 5 C D$D

@iingstone et al. (1&&) 1%" ."1 .2> . .%& * 5 C D$D

@iingstone et al. (1&&) 1%" ."1 .2> . .%& * GC C D$D

@on3on 8limos9i (1&) "% $.0 .#2> .#0> $.11 * = P$$* GC C D !

@on3on 8limos9i (1&) %0 .1 .#2> .#0> .% * = P$$* GC C D !

@on3on 8limos9i (1&) & $.0 .#2> .#0> $.0 * = P$$* GC C D !

6. D. @ope< (1&2) & .#0 .2> .> . ,, GC C D$D

G. D. @ope< (1) 1 2% 1 1 .2> #> 1 # 5$ 5 C D$D@ucas (1&) 21" 1 " .2> ."> "0 5 GC C D D$@ucas et al. (1&&0) 21" 1# .2> .#> "0 5 5 @ D D$@usch erp9enci (1&&0) 1 2 .0# .2> .1> .0& ,, GC C D D$Dacan (1&&%) "" 1" .2R . .2% ,, GC C D$DDac8en .2> 1# 5 GC C @ @Dathieu Garr (1&&1) "11 .0 .2> .&1 12 ,, GC C ? $6Datteson et al. (1&%) " 1 .&0> . .21 * * GC C D

Dc!eilly 7ol3smith (1&&1) 1" 1" .2> .> .21 * GC C D DcPherson (1&%) 1 =22 1 .2> .> .2& 5$ GC C D ,De99y (1&") 21" $.0 .2> .%> $.0 5$ GC C D$DDeyer et al. (1&&) #1 $.0 .2> .& $.10 ,, GC C D D$Diller (1&%) 1" 1" .2> .%> .21 5$ GC C D$DDisshau9 (1) 2% . .2> ."> 1 .2 5$ GC C @@Disshau9 (1) 2% .#" .2> .&> & 5$ GC C D D$DDisshau9 (1) 2% .%& .2> .> . 5$ GC C ? $6Disshau9 (1&0) " $.02 .2> .#&> $.0" 5$ GC C $6Dosshol3er et al. (1&1) 1#1 11 2> " 1 ,, 5 C D !Dosshol3er et al. (1&%) 102 .02 .2> .0> .0" * GC C D$DDosshol3er et al. (1&) 220 .0 .2> "> .0 * GC C @Dosshol3er et al. (1&) "# .0 .2> . .0 * GC C D$DDossin (1&%&) &% $.0" .2> .%> $.0 5$ 5 C D Duno< (1&") 120 $.02 .2> %R> $.0" 5$ GC C D D$D

!athan et al. (1&&1) "#0 1 2 .2R .%> 1& ,, * GC @ D$D!athanson Bec9er (1&") 21 .%% .%2R 2 .0 ,, P$$* 5 C ? D$D

!athanson Bec9er (1&") "# .2" .%2R .2 .%2 ,, 5 C ? D$D!hun3u (1&&2) 0 .2" .2R .%3 ." 5 P$$* GC C D ,!ice et al. (1&) "# .20 .2> .> ."1 5 GC C ? D$D!orris !iebuhr (1&%) 11# .0& .2> .0> 1 * GC C DD$D*Connor et al. (1&%) 1=%0 .22 .2> .2&> . ,, GC C D$D*l3ham et al. (1&&) 2& 1% .2> . .21 ,, GC C D$D*l3ham et al. $.1 ,, * GC C D C*l3ham et al. (1&&1) 20 1 2 2> .#&> .20 ,, GC C D$D*ppenheimer (1&1) 2"1 .20 .2> .#2> ." 5$ 7 C D$D*eilly oberts (1&) "01 1# .2> .#"> .2 ,, GC C D$D*rpen (1&%) .#& .2> %> 1 1I * 7 C @ @*rpen (1&%) ."0 .2> .%> .% * 7 C @ @*rpen (1&%) .02 .2> .%R> .0" * 7 C @ @*rpen (1&) % .% .2> .# .# ,, 7 C D D$


40/41

%0#

tu3y

*rpen (1&)

*rpen (1&2a)

*rpen (1&2a)

*r$pen (1&2a)

*rpen (1&2b)*rpen (1&2b)

*rpen (1&%)

*rpen (1&%)

*rpen (1&)

*rpen (1)

*rpen Bernath (1&)

Pac9ar3 Doto4i3lo (1&)

Papper(1&")

Parasuraman Alutto (1&%)

Paia (1&)

Paia (1&)

Pearson (1&1)

Penley ?a49ins (1&0)

Penis (1&%)

Peters et al. (1&)

Pierce et al. (1&&)

Pierce et al. (1&&)

Pierce et al. (1&&)

Po3sa9o// et al. (1&&")

Po3sa9o// et al. (1&2)

Prest4ich (1&0)

Prest4ich (1&0)

amser (1&2)

amser (1&2)

an3all et al. (1&&&)

an3all cott (1&)

an3all cott (1&)

an39le (1&%)

eran Prien (1&&)

entsch teel (1&&2)

entsch teel (1&&2)

ich (1&&)

iggio Cole (1&&2)iggio Cole (1&&2)

oberts Goti (1&&)

oss (1&&1)

oss (1&&1)

ossano (1&)

a9s (1&&)

a9s Ash/orth (1&)

ales (1&)

argent ,erry (1&&)

chat< (1&0)

chat< (1&0)

!

%

21

21

21

&0&"

1

1

"%#

&

0

20#

21

102

2

1%

#%

2#%

&2

20

"&

1 1#

#12

2

""

"#

%

10%

12

&&

1#"

""

1 1&

1"

11"

#

12

20

21

#

1 "

"0

#2

0

0

.02

.0

."&

.01

.2%

.2

1#

12

.2"

1"

.0"

.2%

1"

.2%

.20

$.01

.2"

.00

12

12

1%

.0#

.0

.2

1

$.02

.#1

.%1

.0%

.21

1%

2

$.0%

.2%

.00

12

10

.2

.22

.%2

.00

.0&

10

.2&

.2

10

.2

.%&

.%

-576= ,?*66!= B*!*. A! PA,,*!

Appen3iE .1 .0" ,,

.2R .%> 1.1" * *

.2R .%3 .#" * *

.2R .%> .02 * *

.2> .%3 "& *

.2> .%> .%0 *

.2> .%> .2# 5

.2> .%3 1& 5

.2> .%> ." 5

.2> .%> .21 *

.2> .% .0 5

.2R .# ." 5 P$$*

.2> .&1 1& ,,

.2> .% ."& 5$

.2> .# ."0 5$

.2> . $.02 5$

.2> .%> ." 5$

.2> .> .01 *

.2> .# .20 5$

.2> .> 1& 5

.2> .%> .2" ,,

.2> ." .0& ,,

.2R " 1 1 ,, *

.2> .&0> .%1 ,,

.2> .# "0 ,,

.2> .1> $.0" 5$

.2> .#> .&1 5$

.2> .%> .## *

.2> .%3 .0# *

.2> .%> ."% *

.2> .2 .2" 5

.2> .2 .%1 5

.2> .> $.0# 5$

.2R .1 ."& 5 *

.2> .%3 .00 *

.2> .%3 1& *

.2> .2 1( 5

.#2> .> ." * = P$$*

.#2> .> ."2 * . P$$*

.2> . .#2 5

1& .&2 .00 5$ *

.1 .&2 1 1 5$ *

.2> .#> 1 5$

.2> .2 .% ,,

.2> .2 .%# *

.2> .% 1 # 5$

.2> .&0> .%1 *

.2> .%> .& 5$

.2> .%> ." 5$

Deasure -esignCompleEity*ccupation

7 C D D$D

7 C @ @

7 C @ @

7 C @ @

7 C D C7 C D C

5 C D D$

5 C D D$

GC C D D$

5 C D$D

5 C D D$

5 C D !

GC C D$D

GC C D D$

5 C D$D

5 C D$D

7 C D$D

GC C D$D

5 C D D$D

GC C D$D

GC C D$D

GC C D$D

GC C D C

GC C D$D

GC C D$D

GC @ D D$D

GC @ D D$D

5 C D D$

5 C D$D

GC C D$D

5 C @ C

5 C D !

GC C D ,

GC C D D$D

7 C D$D

7 C @

7 C D

GC C D D$DGC C D$D

GC C D$D

5 C D A

5 C D A

GC C D D$D

5 C D A

5 C D A

GC C D$D

5 @ D D$D

GC C D C

GC C @ C

chau (1&%) 2 .0 .2> .#1 > 1 2 5$ GC C D D$Dchaubroec9 Gin9 (1&&) 1 % 1& .2> .#1 "% * GC C D chriesheim et al. (1&&) % $.0 .2> .%3 $.1" 5 GC C D D$chriesheim Durphy (1) % $.0& .2> .%> $.1 ,, GC C D D$Dchriesheim et al. (1&&2) 11 ."& .2> .%> .#" * GC C @ D$D

chuster (1&&) 1 "# " .2> .%3 .# 5$ 7 C @ @ch4oerer Day (1&) "11 $.0 .%2R ." $.0& * P$$* GC C @ @ecrist (1&) 12" .2" .#2> .%3 ."% 5$ = P$$* 5 C $6eers (1&&) 12" .%# .2> .> .% ,, 5 C @ @eers 7raen (1&%) 101 .21 .2> .#> "" ,, 5 C @ D$Dheri3an locum (1&) " ."1 .2> .#>> .2 ,, GC @ D D$heri3an locum (1&) & $.0% .2> .%>> $.0 ,, GC @ @ D$Dhore Dartin (1&&) 1 2% .2> .# .%0 * 5 C D$D

hore Dartin (1&&) 2 .2# .2> .# .%% * 5 C D$Dimmons (1) 1 1& .2> .%> ."1 5$ GC C D Cirota (1&) " 1 1 .2> .%3 1 5$ 5 C D$D9ot3al (1&1) 1# ."% .2> .&> ." 5$ GC C @ D$D9ot3al (1&1) 1&& 1% .2> .#> .22 5$ GC C @ D$Dlocum (1&1) 1& .2> .%> ."1 ,, 5 C D D$locum (1&1) 1"2 .2# .2> %3 .%2 ,, 5 C D D$


41/41

research paper in word

Documents