Job satisfaction is one of the most highly researched constructs in industrial/organizational psychology. In 1992, Cranny, Smith, and Stone estimated there to be more than 5,000 published articles and dissertations that have, in some way, examined job satisfaction. In the fifteen years since, job satisfaction has remained one of the most enthusiastically studied constructs in the organizational sciences.
Original Title
The antecedents and consequences of the variability in job satisfaction
Job satisfaction is one of the most highly researched constructs in industrial/organizational psychology. In 1992, Cranny, Smith, and Stone estimated there to be more than 5,000 published articles and dissertations that have, in some way, examined job satisfaction. In the fifteen years since, job satisfaction has remained one of the most enthusiastically studied constructs in the organizational sciences.
Job satisfaction is one of the most highly researched constructs in industrial/organizational psychology. In 1992, Cranny, Smith, and Stone estimated there to be more than 5,000 published articles and dissertations that have, in some way, examined job satisfaction. In the fifteen years since, job satisfaction has remained one of the most enthusiastically studied constructs in the organizational sciences.
by LINDSEY M. KOTRBA DISSERTATION Submitted to the Graduate School of Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 2007 MAJOR: PSYCHOLOGY (Industrial/Organizational Psychology) Approved by: ______________________________ Advisor Date ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ UMI Number: 3277931 3277931 2007 Copyright 2007 by Kotrba, Lindsey M. UMI Microform Copyright All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 All rights reserved. by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. COPYRIGHT BY LINDSEY M. KOTRBA 2007 All Rights Reserved ii DEDICATION For my husband, Chad. I could never thank you enough. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Boris Baltes. I am sincerely grateful for the guidance, encouragement and advice that he provided on the subject of this dissertation. Beyond that, I need to thank him for all of the opportunities and support he provided me throughout my graduate career. I truly appreciate everything. Thank you. I am also grateful to my committee members, Dr. Marcus Dickson, Dr. Ty Partridge and Dr. Loraleigh Keashly. Their input has been highly valued and I thank them for their time and interest in this project. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page DEDICATION.................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................. iii CHAPTERS CHAPTER 1 Introduction ....................................................................1 Overview..1 Job Satisfaction: A Review2 The Person-Situation Debate4 Within Subject Variability in Job Satisfaction: The New Frontier..10 The Present Study15 The Antecedents of Job Satisfaction Variability..18 The Consequences of Job Satisfaction Variability..25 CHAPTER 2 Method31 Participants.31 Measures33 Procedure36 CHAPTER 3 Results39 CHAPTER 4 Discussion..55 TABLES Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of the Sample69 Table 2: Cronbachs Alpha by Facet: Average of a Random Sample of Time Points70 v Table 3: Means and Standard Deviations of Facets: Across all Time Points....71
Table 4: Means and Standard Deviations of Frequency Variation for Each Facet of Job Satisfaction72 Table 5: Means and Standard Deviations of Amplitude Variation for Each Facet of Job Satisfaction73 Table 6: Intercorrelations Amongst Study Variables...74 Table 7: Regressing Job Satisfaction Frequency and Amplitude Variation on Personality75 Table 8: Regressing Job Satisfaction Frequency and Amplitude Variation on Job Stressor Frequency and Amplitude Variation..77 Table 9: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining The Moderating Effect of Personality on the Relationship Between Frequency Variation in Job Stressors and Frequency Variation in Pay Satisfaction..78 Table 10: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining the Moderating Effect of Personality of the Relationship Between Frequency Variation in Job Stressors and Frequency Variation in Promotion Satisfaction..79 Table 11: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining the Moderating Effect of Personality of the Relationship Between Frequency Variation in Job Stressors and vi Frequency Variation in Supervisor Satisfaction....80 Table 12: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining the Moderating Effect of Personality of the Relationship Between Frequency Variation in Job Stressors and Frequency Variation in Coworker Satisfaction.81 Table 13: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining the Moderating Effect of Personality of the Relationship Between Frequency Variation in Job Stressors and Frequency Variation in Nature of Work Satisfaction..82 Table 14: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining The Moderating Effect of Personality on the Relationship Between Amplitude Variation in Job Stressors and Amplitude Variation in Pay Satisfaction..83 Table 15: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining the Moderating Effect of Personality of the Relationship Between Amplitude Variation in Job Stressors and Amplitude Variation in Promotion Satisfaction....84 Table 16: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining the Moderating Effect of Personality of the Relationship Between Amplitude Variation in Job Stressors and Amplitude Variation in Supervisor Satisfaction..85 Table 17: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining vii the Moderating Effect of Personality of the Relationship Between Amplitude Variation in Job Stressors and Amplitude Variation in Coworker Satisfaction86 Table 18: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining the Moderating Effect of Personality of the Relationship Between Amplitude Variation in Job Stressors and Amplitude Variation in Nature of Work Satisfaction.87 Table 19: Regressing Job Performance on Frequency and Amplitude Variation in Job Satisfaction88 Table 20: Regressing Turnover Intentions on Frequency and Amplitude Variation in Job Satisfaction.89 Table 21: Summary of Hierarchical Regressions Examining the Impact of Job Satisfaction Variability on Job Performance..90 Table 22: Summary of Hierarchical Regressions Examining the Impact of Job Satisfaction Variability on Turnover Intentions91 FIGURES Figure 1: The Moderating Effect of Extraversion on the Relationship Between the Frequency Variation in Job Stressors and the Frequency Variation in Promotion Satisfaciton92 APPENDICIES Appendix A: Recruitment Letter..93 Appendix B: Momentary Job Satisfaction Survey....94 viii Appendix C: Reduced Momentary Job Satisfaction Survey...97 Appendix D: Reduced Non-Momentary Job Satisfaction Survey..99 Appendix E: Momentary Job Stressors Scale....100 REFERENCES.102 ABSTRACT...113 AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL STATEMENT.115 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Overview Job satisfaction is one of the most highly researched constructs in industrial/organizational psychology. In 1992, Cranny, Smith, and Stone estimated there to be more than 5,000 published articles and dissertations that have, in some way, examined job satisfaction. In the fifteen years since, job satisfaction has remained one of the most enthusiastically studied constructs in the organizational sciences. Why is the topic of job satisfaction so ardently studied? As Locke (1976) suggests, there are two main reasons why researchers have been systematically studying the nature and causes of job satisfaction since the 1930s: 1) job satisfaction can be viewed as an end in itself, since happiness is a goal of life and 2) it contributes (or is expected to contribute) to other attitudes and outcomes. Additionally, through the years there have been many different conceptualizations of job satisfaction. These different conceptualizations have led to different research methods and many mixed findings, thus furthering the study of job satisfaction as researchers attempted to definitively define and explain the construct. For example, in recent years the debate inherent in most job satisfaction literature has centered on the extent to which job satisfaction is rooted in individual dispositions or in situational factors. This debate has lead different researchers in very different directions. Years of inconclusive research led many researchers to describe the construct of job 2 satisfaction as the comfortable old shoe, unfashionable and unworthy of continued research (Roznowski & Hulin, 1992). However, recently job satisfaction research has begun to undergo a paradigm shift which has somewhat revived research in this area and may prove to integrate past conceptualizations of job satisfaction that were previously viewed as competing. More specifically, researchers are beginning to understand that by looking at job satisfaction temporally, they are able to investigate both between individual and within individual differences and thus better explain the construct (Judge & Ilies, 2004). Given that investigating the intraindividual variability of job satisfaction is relatively new, there are many questions that remain unanswered. For example, how is intraindividual variability most comprehensively defined? What causes this within- person variability and what can explain between-individual differences in within- individual variability? Further, does variability in job satisfaction predict important organizational outcomes above and beyond the prediction from mean levels of job satisfaction? If intraindividual variability in job satisfaction does not predict performance, for example, beyond mean levels of job satisfaction, then cross- sectional measurement of job satisfaction may be sufficient. Thus, the intent of the present study is to identify the predictors and criteria of this newly identified within- person variation in job satisfaction. Job Satisfaction: A Review To better understand the current state of job satisfaction research, it is important to review how researchers have conceptualized the construct in the past. 3 Job satisfaction researchers have varied greatly in their conceptualizations of the construct. The most inherent difference between these conceptualizations lies in the hypothesized causal antecedents of job satisfaction, as will be subsequently discussed. Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) suggested that, at that time, all specific theoretical positions on job satisfaction were variants of three general approaches: The cognitive judgment approach, the social influences approach and the dispositional approach. The cognitive judgment approach is rooted in equity theory. As described by Weiss and Cropanzano (1996), the general structure existing for all cognitive judgment theories is that the work environment is represented as a concrete or abstract set of features (e.g., pay levels, promotion opportunities, etc.) and that these features are perceived and compared to some set of standards held by the job incumbents. In these theories, the degree of match between perceptions and standards can then be thought of as ones level of job satisfaction. In contrast, the social influences approach is much like the cognitive judgment approach in that job satisfaction is seen as a result of ones perceptions of some desired standards. The only difference is that in this latter theory, social information is the source of input for ones perceptions and standards (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Finally, the dispositional approach to job satisfaction is based on the idea that to some degree, job satisfaction results from ones general tendencies to feel good or bad, and that this tendency is unaffected by the specific nature of the job (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). 4 As previously mentioned, these three theoretical conceptualizations differ primarily in the antecedents hypothesized to cause job satisfaction. The cognitive judgment approach suggests that job satisfaction is a result of individual perceptions of fulfilled expectations, standards or needs. The social influence approach hypothesizes that job satisfaction is caused primarily by cues from the social environment, while the dispositional approach suggests that job satisfaction is a result of individual tendencies to naturally feel good or bad. More simply, these theories differ in the extent to which they suggest job satisfaction to result from individual differences or from the situation. As a result, research on the origin and nature of job satisfaction naturally shifted focus toward determining the extent to which it is rooted in situations (i.e., reactions to workplace factors) or in dispositions inherent to individuals. In other words, job satisfaction researchers have spent much time caught up in a person-situation debate. The Person-Situation Debate The Dispositional Approach: There has been much research supporting the dispositional nature of job satisfaction (Agho, Mueller, & Price, 1993; Arvey, Bouchard, Segal, & Abraham, 1989; Brief, Burke, George, Robinson, & Webster, 1988; Brief, Butcher, & Roberson, 1995; Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000; Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002; Judge & Hulin, 1993; Judge & Larsen, 2001; Judge & Locke, 1993; Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997; Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998; Levin & Stokes, 1989; Necowitz, & Roznowski, 1994; Staw, Bell, & Clausen, 1986; Watson & Slack, 1993). The dispositional approach views job satisfaction from a top-down perspective, arguing 5 that differences in personality and trait affectivity predispose individuals to be differentially satisfied with their jobs (Brief, Butcher, George, & Link, 1993). Many researchers interested in the dispositional nature of job satisfaction have focused on identifying the personality traits that may be responsible for determining an individuals level of job satisfaction. Judge and Larsen (2001) argued that neuroticism, extraversion, positive affectivity (PA) and negative affectivity (NA) are the traits that are best suited to predicting job satisfaction. A meta-analysis conducted by Judge, Heller, and Mount (2002) lends support to this argument. Additionally, Judge et al. (2002) found neuroticism to be a consistent correlate of job satisfaction, and further found the relationships between job satisfaction with neuroticism and extraversion to generalize across studies. There is an abundance of research additionally supporting a relationship between affective dispositions and job satisfaction (Agho, Mueller & Price, 1993; Brief, Burke, George, Robinson & Webster, 1988; Brief, Butcher, & Roberson 1995; Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000; Judge & Hulin, 1993; Judge & Locke, 1993; Levin & Stokes, 1989; Necowitz & Roznowski, 1994; Staw, Bell & Clausen, 1986; Watson & Slack, 1993). Dispositional affect can be thought of as a persons average level of emotion. Affective disposition is most often thought of as being comprised of two facets: negative affectivity (NA) and positive affectivity (PA) (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Watson, Clark, and Tellegen (1988) described individuals high in NA as, on average, having higher levels of distress, anxiety and dissatisfaction; and focusing primarily on unpleasant characteristics of themselves, others, and the world. 6 In contrast, individuals high in PA are described as having high levels of energy, optimism, enthusiasm, and social interest. Past research has consistently supported a significant and negative relationship between NA and job satisfaction (Agho, Mueller, & Price 1993; Brief, Burke, George, Robinson & Webster, 1988; Brief, Butcher, & Roberson 1995; Levin & Stokes, 1989; Necowitz & Roznowski, 1994; Watson & Slack, 1993). Thus individuals characterized by distress, unpleasurable engagement, and nervousness (i.e., individuals high in NA) are likely to have low levels of job satisfaction. Past research has also supported a significantly positive relationship between PA and job satisfaction (Agho, Mueller, & Price, 1993; Watson, & Slack; 1993). Thus individuals characterized by high energy, enthusiasm, and pleasurable engagement (i.e., individuals high in PA) are likely to have high levels of job satisfaction. A meta- analysis conducted by Connolly and Viswesvaran (2000) found estimated true score correlations (i.e., corrected correlations) of PA and NA with job satisfaction of .52 and -.33 respectively. Thus, there is ample evidence to suggest relationships between both PA and NA and job satisfaction. While other explanations for these relationships exist (e.g., NA causes individuals to choose less favorable jobs subsequently leading to lower satisfaction), much of the past research has suggested evidence of the relationship between affect and job satisfaction to support the assertion that affect predisposes individuals to be chronically satisfied or dissatisfied. Judge, Locke and Durham (1997) further used a combination of several traits, or what they describe as individuals core self-evaluations, to explain the dispositional nature of job satisfaction. Core self-evaluations are described as a 7 broad personality concept that is composed of self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control and neuroticism. Judge et al. (1997) argued that core self- evaluations are fundamental premises that individuals hold about themselves and their functioning in the world. Past research has supported a link between core self- evaluations and job satisfaction (Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge, Bono & Locke, 2000; Judge, Locke, Durham & Kluger, 1998). For example, Judge, Bono and Locke (2000) found that core self-evaluations measured in childhood and in early adulthood were linked to job satisfaction measured in middle adulthood. This suggests that core self- evaluations can predict job satisfaction over time. Aside from personality and affectivity, some of the research investigating the dispositional roots of job satisfaction has attempted to identify the extent to which job satisfaction is genetically determined. For example, monozygotic twins reared apart were used to investigate the genetic component of job satisfaction (Arvey, Bouchard, Segal & Abraham, 1989). Results from this study suggest that about 30% of the observed variance in general job satisfaction is attributable to genetic factors, thus providing evidence for a biologically-based trait that predisposes individuals to see positive or negative content in their lives and their jobs. There is no doubt an abundance of research that supporters of the dispositional approach use to justify their position. However, other researchers have utilized different methodologies to support the importance of a situational component to job satisfaction. This research is subsequently discussed. The Situational Approach: Several researchers have investigated the importance of situational factors in predicting job satisfaction (e.g., Gerhart, 1987; 8 Weiss, Nicholas & Daus, 1999). Situational researchers utilize a bottom-up perspective, arguing that job satisfaction is a result of the things that individuals experience in their lives at work. Hackman and Oldhams (1976) Job Characteristics Model (JCM) is a classic example of a situational approach to job satisfaction. The JCM focuses on five core job characteristics: task identity, task significance, skill variety, autonomy and feedback. Two meta-analytic reviews of the literature testing the relationship between workers reports of these job characteristics and job satisfaction have yielded consistently positive results (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Loher, Noe, Moeller, & Fitzgerald, 1985). The JCM has been influential to researchers development of the job satisfaction construct through its emphasis on situational components. Also influential, a study conducted in 1987 by Gerhart has been frequently cited in support of the situational approach. Utilizing a longitudinal field sample of over 800 individuals, Gerhart found that pay, status, and job complexity added explanatory power to an equation predicting job satisfaction. In contrast, results did not support the importance of traits as determinants of job satisfaction. This suggests that situational factors are not only important predictors, but that they may be more important than individual traits. The Staw and Ross (1985) study, which is often cited in support of the dispositional approach, also provides evidence for situational influences on job satisfaction. Utilizing a longitudinal data base of over 5,000 individuals, Staw and Ross obtained a correlation of .44 between combined 1966 and 1969 assessments of job satisfaction and job satisfaction measured in 1971; leading them to conclude 9 that measures of job satisfaction are stable over a 5-year period. However, the highest correlation between job satisfaction measures over the five year period was obtained for those individuals who did not change employer or occupation. For those individuals whose job situations remained constant, the correlations between 1966 and 1971 job satisfaction was .37. For those individuals whose employer and occupation changed the correlation between 1966 and 1971 job satisfaction was reduced to .19. Again demonstrating situational aspects to be important. Additionally, they also found that beyond the effects of attitudinal stability, there was residual variance in satisfaction that was related to situational aspects. Thus, these results more accurately suggest the presence of both dispositional and situational influences on job satisfaction. Situational factors have also been found to mediate the relationship between dispositions and job satisfaction. More specifically, Judge et al. (2000) found core self-evaluations (i.e. dispositions) measured in childhood to predict job satisfaction later in life; however it was also found that job complexity (i.e. a situational effect) partially mediated this relationship. Thus again, the importance of both dispositional and situational factors is suggested. As should be apparent through this review of the literature, the dispositional approach and the situational approach both have received empirical support. It is likely that neither of these approaches alone sufficiently explain an individuals job satisfaction. Instead of researchers taking a top-down or a bottom-up approach to job satisfaction, the focus of research should be toward understanding how individual dispositions and situational characteristics together create an individual's level of job 10 satisfaction. Partially because of the conviction with which researchers approached this person-situation debate, and largely as pointed out by Ilies and Judge (2002), because of the typical cross-sectional, between-subjects designs that are most frequently used, it has been particularly difficult to further research on the factors that influence individuals job satisfaction. Additionally, when longitudinal studies were conducted in the past they were done so over long time frames with very few data points (e.g., Heller, et al., 2002; Newton & Keenen, 1991; Staw & Ross, 1985; Steel & Rentsch, 1997; Weaver, 1980). As reviewed above, while we have learned a great deal from this past research, there also seems to be a need to move beyond these traditional approaches in an attempt to better define the causes of job satisfaction. As a result, several researchers have begun to recognize the importance of investigating the within- person variation in job satisfaction that may occur over shorter time frames. Within Subject Variability in Job Satisfaction: The New Frontier In traditional approaches to job satisfaction research, time was not considered an important parameter to consider. However, as suggested by several researchers (e.g., Ilies & Judge, 2002; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), this did not encourage the investigation of within-individual variation in job satisfaction that may result from meaningful changes in feelings toward the job. Cross-sectional measurement assumes that variation around average levels of a construct is randomly distributed error, which may not be the case. As Kahneman (1999) suggests, the study of happiness (or satisfaction) can be greatly furthered through obtaining multiple real- 11 time measures of the construct as the assessments occur in the individuals environment and are not influenced by memory. One of the most influential and highly cited definitions of job satisfaction was provided by Locke (1976). Locke described job satisfaction as an emotional reaction that results from the perception that ones job fulfills or allows the fulfillment of ones important job values, providing and to the degree that those values are congruent with ones needs (p. 1307). As suggested by Weiss and Cropanzano (1996), though this is a popular and accepted definition of job satisfaction, research on job satisfaction to date had not been conducted in a manner consistent with this definition. Lockes definition is affective, job satisfaction is viewed as an emotional reaction to the workplace. Affect levels have been shown to fluctuate over time and to influence immediate perceptions of job stress (e.g., van Eck, Nicolson, & Berkof, 1998) which likely then influence job satisfaction as well (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Thus, fluctuation is expected and meaningful. However, cross-sectional and two-time point longitudinal studies have not allowed for the identification of such fluctuations. Given that this approach suggests individual levels of job satisfaction to fluctuate as one reacts to the job environment, Weiss and Cropanzano seem to be employing a situational approach. However, Weiss and Cropanzano also suggest that these patterns of fluctuation can be easily predicted by personality traits. In general, it seems to be important to utilize momentary assessments of job satisfaction in the short-term to be able to capture these fluctuation patterns, but also different individuals are likely to have different reactive patterns which can be predicted using personality. 12 Using a different logic but leading to very similar conclusions, Shoda, Mischel and Wright (1994) developed a complex theory of personality which is helpful in understanding not only the importance of investigating the intraindividual variability of job satisfaction, but also for understanding how both individual dispositions and characteristics of the situation may interact. Shoda et al. (1994) described how relatively enduring person variables within the individual interact with situational characteristics to generate patterns of behavior. The structure of the personality system can remain stable across situations, but the personality state changes readily when the situational features that are active change (Mischel & Shoda, 1995). More specifically, these authors suggest that an individuals personality can be described in terms of stable ifthen situation-behavior profiles and argue that variations in intra-individual behavior should be investigated, as they are not error but are instead meaningful reflections of enduring personality processes (Shoda et al., 1994). Applying this to job satisfaction research, in support of the situational approach, there is no reason to expect cross-situational consistency in job satisfaction because different situations evoke different cognitive-affective reactions, thus there are likely if-then situation-satisfaction profiles. However, these patterns are enduring and reflect the influence of stable personality traits. Job satisfaction researchers have also recently supplied evidence suggesting the importance of examining the intraindividual variability in job satisfaction. Ilies and Judge (2002) obtained measures of job satisfaction from 27 individuals at four time points during the day for 19 working days. Using this procedure, it was found that 36% of the variance in job satisfaction was due to variation within individuals, thus 13 suggesting that there is significant within person variability in job satisfaction over short periods of time. Judge and Ilies (2004) also found state mood to influence state job satisfaction, and that this effect decays rapidly. An additional recent study sought to specifically identify the time frame over which individuals significantly vary in their levels of job satisfaction (Young & Baltes, 2006). Assessing five different constructs of job satisfaction, Young and Baltes found that while individuals significantly fluctuated in their levels of job satisfaction between days, between weeks, and between two week time periods, individuals fluctuate most within the same day. In addition, utilizing Weiss and Cropanzanos (1996) Affective Events Theory (AET), Fuller, Stanton, Fisher, Spitzmuller, Russell, & Smith (2003) suggest the relationship between events and job satisfaction to be mediated by strain, and that this mechanism likely unfolds during a shorter time frame than one day. In sum, this previous research supports the assertion that short-term variation in job satisfaction occurs and that this likely results from reactions to workplace events. Thus, individuals do seem to meaningfully fluctuate in their levels of job satisfaction over shorter time frames. Following the logic of Mischel et al. (1994) and Weiss and Corpanzano (1996), this variability likely results from the appraisal of different situational events, and these patterns of variability can likely be predicted by between-subject personality traits. Job satisfaction researchers have begun to explore the relationships between intraindividual variability and personality. In particular, Ilies and Judge (2002) found neuroticism to relate to the intraindividual variability in job satisfaction; additionally, trait affectivity has been suggested as an important variable to consider when measuring job satisfaction momentarily (Judge & 14 Ilies, 2004; Ilies & Judge, 2004). The current study is designed to continue the investigation of the role of personality in predicting intraindividual variability. However, as will be discussed in more detail below, the current study differs from this previous research in several important ways. First, additional individual difference variables are included; second, these relationships are explored at the facet level of job satisfaction; and finally, these relationships are explored for both frequency and amplitude variability in job satisfaction. In addition, following the theory of Mischel et al. (1994) and Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) situational change seems to be the likely impetus to job satisfaction variability; however, no study to date has systemmatically related momentary assessments of situational change to momentary job satisfaction change. While Ilies and Judge (2002) and Judge and Ilies (2004) found within- individual variability in mood to relate to within-individual variability in job satisfaction, no momentary assessment of the situation was included in either study. Further, Fuller et al. (2003) measured the within-person variation of job satisfaction and additionally suggested situational change to be important to consider. However, while Fuller et al. (2003) included an open-ended question requesting participants to indicate any stressful situations which may have been encountered during the work day, again, no momentary situational assessment was included; a limitation of previous research which this study seeks to address. Finally, as already stated, meaningful within-person variation in job satisfaction does seem to occur over short time periods. However, current variability 15 research does not address whether this variation predicts important organizational outcomes (e.g., performance, turnover intentions) above and beyond ones mean level of job satisfaction; an additional limitation which the current investigation also seeks to address. If intraindividual variability in job satisfaction does not predict important organizational outcomes above and beyond cross-sectional measurements of job satisfaction, then cross-sectional measurement is likely sufficient for predictive purposes. Thus, this is an important question to address. The Present Study As outlined above, the current study is designed to further explain the role of personality in predicting the within-person variation in job satisfaction, the role of situational change in predicting the within-person variation in job satisfaction, as well as to determine whether the variability in job satisfaction predicts organizational outcomes above and beyond traditional cross-sectional assessments. Further, these relationships are explored for five different facets of job satisfaction as well as for multiple conceptualizations of variability. Within-individual variation can be defined in terms of both frequency and amplitude changes. In other words, some individuals may change very little in their levels of satisfaction but these small changes may happen frequently, while other individuals may experience changes in their levels of job satisfaction that are large in magnitude, but infrequent. Frequency and amplitude are different conceptualizations of variability and they may have different antecedents and different outcomes. However, no researcher to date has conceptualized job satisfaction variability in terms of both frequency and amplitude. Thus, the current study will explore all 16 relationships hypothesized for both frequency and amplitude variability in job satisfaction. Additionally, research exploring the predictors and outcomes of job satisfaction variability has focused on measuring the intraindividual variability of overall job satisfaction. However, there is evidence that job satisfaction is multifaceted. Facet measures of job satisfaction assess an individuals satisfaction with several different aspects of their jobs (e.g., supervision, coworkers, pay, benefits). Several researchers using facet measures of job satisfaction have found the facets to differentially relate to both predictor and criterion variables (e.g., Kinicki, Mckee-Ryan, Scriesheim & Carson, 2002; Iaffaldano & Muchinsky, 1985). Given the previously reviewed research and theory, it has been suggested that the intraindividual variability in job satisfaction reflects emotional reactions to the working environment. Thus it is possible that this variability is different for different facets as these facets represent different aspects of an individuals working environment. More specifically, in the present study, five facets of job satisfaction are investigated. These facets include satisfaction with supervision, coworkers, pay, promotion, and the nature of work. These facets of job satisfaction are commonly investigated in the literature and are most often measured with the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) (Rain, Lane, & Steiner, 1991). In conducting a meta-analysis on the construct validity of the JDI, Kinicki, et al. (2002) found test-retest reliability coefficients to be smaller for the facets of supervision and coworker satisfaction (.56 and .59 respectively) than for the facets of pay, promotion, and nature of work satisfaction (.65, .63 and .67 respectively). The lower test-retest coefficients suggest 17 that the facets of supervision and coworker satisfaction may be more variable than the facets of pay, promotion, and the nature of work. Because an individuals interactions with supervisors and coworkers are likely less situationally stable than either pay, promotion or the nature of ones work, this assertion is consistent with the theory of Shoda et al. (1994) in suggesting that an affective state (i.e., job satisfaction) will vary more frequently as a result of more frequent variation in the situation. Quarstein, McAfee, and Glassman (1992) suggest situational characteristics such as pay, promotion opportunities, and working conditions to be relatively stable over time, while supervisors and coworkers can, at times, behave erratically and thus may be classified as situational occurrences which are more transitory. This again suggests the importance of assessing variability for different facets of job satisfaction, as these facets represent different aspects of the work environment, aspects which are thought to have different degrees of stability. It therefore seems important to explore the intraindividual variability in job satisfaction for different facets of job satisfaction. However, as already discussed, variability can be conceptualized in multiple ways. Thus while the facets of supervisor and coworker satisfaction may have greater frequency variation given that these facets are likely less situationally stable, this does not mean that these facets have greater amplitude variation. In fact, logically should an individuals pay, or promotion opportunities or the nature of ones work change in the situation, it is likely that the affective reaction (i.e., job satisfaction) to these changes would be large in amplitude. Thus, while these facets may not frequently vary, they may vary with great amplitude. However, given that 18 research has not yet explored frequency vs. amplitude variation in job satisfaction, no specific hypotheses are made. However, it is loosely expected that the facets of supervisor and coworker satisfaction will fluctuate with greater frequency, while the facets of pay, promotion, and nature of work satisfaction will fluctuate with greater amplitude. Towards accomplishing the goals of the present study, theoretical evidence is first reviewed and hypotheses are generated regarding the relationships between the intraindividual variability of job satisfaction and personality, situational variability, and organizational variables. These relationships are explored for five different facets of job satisfaction and by defining variability by frequency of change and amplitude of change. The Antecedents of Job Satisfaction Variability Personality: Previous research has suggested that individual dispositions influence the extent to which individuals are sensitive to situational events (Bowling, Beehr, Wagner, & Libkum, 2005). Individuals high in neuroticism are described as having a predisposition to experience anxiety and emotional instability (McCrae & Costa, 1989). Neuroticism is the personality trait that has been most often suggested as important to investigate in regard to within-person variability, and past research has supported its importance to this line of research. For example, by utilizing diary recordings, Suls, Green, and Hillis (1998) found individuals high in neuroticism to be more sensitive to stressful events than individuals low in neuroticism while Bolger and Schilling (1991) found participants high in neuroticism to have more negative reactions to various daily hassles. Though not specific to job satisfaction, these 19 studies demonstrate neuroticism to impact the extent to which individuals react to situational occurrences. Further as Ilies and Judge (2002) suggest and support, neuroticism intensifies ones affective reactions to work-related stimuli, thus resulting in higher job satisfaction variability. Thus, previous research has supported the idea of neuroticism relating positively to job satisfaction variability. Individuals high in extraversion are described as sociable, talkative, assertive and active (McCrae & Costa, 1989). Extraversion has also been suggested by previous researchers to be important to investigate when considering within-person job satisfaction variability (e.g., Bowling et al., 2005). In prior research, extraversion has been linked to variability in mood or emotional states (e.g., Hepburn, & Eysenck, 1989; Larsen & Ketelaar, 1991; Velting, & Liebert, 1997). More specifically, these studies all demonstrated extraversion to relate positively to ones variability in positive mood. Mood is at least in part situationally determined, as emotion theorists generally agree that it is an individuals appraisal of important events/situations that trigger emotion and mood (e.g., Frijda, 1986; Levenson, 1994). Thus, like neuroticism, while these studies do not directly reflect job satisfaction, they demonstrate that extraversion may impact the extent to which individuals react to situational occurrences. Given that job satisfaction levels are expected to fluctuate as individuals react to the job environment, extraversion likely also impacts ones variability in job satisfaction. However, the one study that has investigated this relationship did not find extraversion to significantly correlate with variability in job satisfaction (Ilies & Judge, 2002). In general, there is mixed prior support for the hypothesis suggesting extraversion to relate to job satisfaction variability. 20 The personality trait of openness to experience may be important to investigate as well. Individuals who are high on openness to experience have an orientation that is creative, curious, and flexible and further have an affinity for situations involving novelty, diversity, and change (McCrae & Costa, 1989). In other words, individuals high in openness to experience have a need for variety. Thus it is possible that individuals high in openness to experience seek out more variable work situations, and resultingly may have more variable levels of job satisfaction. Previous research has also supported openness to experience as relating to within-individual variability in other contexts. More specifically, Velting and Liebert (1997) found openness to experience to positively relate to individuals within-day mood fluctuations. Again, using the same logic as presented above, though not directly measuring job satisfaction, this study provides evidence to suggest that openness to experience may relate to how individuals react to their environment, and thus may impact variability in job satisfaction. While, to date, no study has looked at the relationship between openness to experience and job satisfaction variability, it is possible that the two are positively correlated. Both trait positive and negative affectivity (PA and NA) have additionally been suggested as important to consider when investigating job satisfaction intraindividual variability (e.g., Bowling et al., 2005). Reviewing past research lends support to the importance of NA and PA to job satisfaction variability. In 1990, Parkes found teachers high in NA to show more symptoms of distress in reaction to a stressful environment than teachers low in NA, suggesting that high NA individuals react more strongly to the environment than low NA individuals. Similarly, Marco and Suls (1993) 21 found individuals high in NA to be more reactive to negative environmental events. Also, Brief, Butcher and Roberson (1995) found that the job satisfaction of individuals high in NA was not as affected by a positive event in the workplace as was low NA individuals job satisfaction. This again demonstrates that trait affect has an impact on how individuals react to workplace events, but more specifically, the job satisfaction of high NA individuals is not as strongly affected by positive environmental change. In fact, research generally suggests individuals high in NA to more affected by negative events, while individuals high in PA to be more affected by positive events (Stewart, 1996). In sum, as Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) suggest, affective personality traits seem to act as predispositions, in other words, being high in PA or NA predisposes individuals to respond to environmental events (either positive or negative) with more intensity than those low in PA or NA. Given that previous theory has suggested that different situations evoke different cognitive- affective reactions, or different situation-satisfaction profiles as well as has suggested PA and NA to intensify situational reactions, it is likely that NA and PA relate to within-person job satisfaction variability. Thus, in sum, a review of the research suggests the following hypotheses. H1: The personality trait of neuroticism positively relates to intraindividual variability in job satisfaction. H2: The personality trait of openness to experience positively relates to intraindividual variability in job satisfaction. H3: Dispositional negative affectivity positively relates to intraindividual variability in job satisfaction. 22 H4: Dispositional positive affectivity positively relates to intrainidivudal variability in job satisfaction. Further, while theoretically it would seem that extraversion should relate positively to the intraindivdual variability in job satisfaction, past research has not supported this relationship (Ilies & Judge, 2002). However, as will be subsequently discussed, the current study will explore the above hypotheses for different facets of job satisfaction and for different conceptualizations of variability. Thus, it seems of value to explore extraversion utilizing this more comprehensive conceptualization of job satisfaction variability; however, no specific hypotheses are made regarding extraversion. As previously discussed, past research involving the correlates of intraindividual variability of job satisfaction has been conducted using overall measures of the construct. Therefore, it is unknown whether these personality variables relate differently to job satisfaction variability for different facets of job satisfaction. Thus these relationships are explored in the current study. Additionally, it is unknown whether these variables relate in the same way to frequency variability and amplitude variability. Research conducted by Velting and Liebert (1997) loosely suggests that differences may exist. More specifically this study demonstrated openness to experience to relate to both mood fluctuation (i.e., average of highest daily mood minus lowest daily mood) and mood swing (i.e., standard deviation of mood across 20 days) while neuroticism related only to mood swing and not to mood fluctuation. While this study did not assess job satisfaction variability, it does suggest that personality relates differently to variability depending on how variability is 23 defined. Given the absence of research investigating job satisfaction variability in this way, no direct hypotheses are made. However, the current study explores whether there are differential relationships between personality and various conceptualizations of job satisfaction variability. Further, given that variability may be modeled differently for different facets of satisfaction, the personality-facet variability relationships are also explored. Situational Change: Through reviewing the literature, it was suggested that job satisfaction variability occurs as individuals react to the environment. However, as already mentioned, no study investigating the within-person variation in job satisfaction has attempted to determine whether momentary situational assessments relate to momentary job satisfaction assessments. Given that immediate perceptions of job stress influence job satisfaction (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) and that different situations evoke different cognitive-affective reactions (Mischel & Shoda, 1995) and thus likely different if-then situation-satisfaction profiles, this seems an important question to directly assess. Stress researchers often conceptualize stressors as objective external conditions, or events that have actually occurred, which create stressful demands on and threats for individuals (Lazarus, 1990). More specifically, job stressors are aspects of the working environment that create stress for individuals. A great deal of research suggests the importance of assessing job stressors in regard to their relation to job satisfaction. This body of research has consistently supported job stressors as having significant impacts on individuals job satisfaction (e.g., Babakus, Cravens, Johnston & Montcrief, 1996; Barsky, Thoresen, Warren & Kaplan, 2004; 24 Fisher & Gitelson, 1983; Hartenian, Hadaway & Badovick, 1994; Jamal, 1990; Kemey, Mossholder & Bedian 1985). Given that environmental job stressors are so frequently demonstrated as relating to job satisfaction, they seemed a particularly important aspect of the job situation to investigate in the current study. While cross- sectional assessments of job stressors have been related to cross-sectional assessments of job satisfaction, it is unknown whether momentary assessments of job stressors will relate to momentary assessments of job satisfaction. However, given the theory from which this study is based, situational variability is expected to relate to job satisfaction variability thus the following hypothesis can be made: H5: Intraindividual assessments of job stressor variability are positively related to intraindividual assessments of job satisfaction. As with the above hypotheses, this relationship will be investigated for both frequency variability as well as for amplitude variability and for five different facets of job satisfaction. Additionally, in discussing personality as it relates to job satisfaction variability, personality was described as likely being important to job satisfaction variability through its impact on how individuals react to situations. In other words, the reaction to the environment which likely determines job satisfaction variability is affected by personality, suggesting a moderation effect. Given that variability in the situation likely relates to variability in job satisfaction and that personality likely impacts how individuals react to situations, the following hypotheses can be made: H6: The relationship between job stressor variability and job satisfaction variability is moderated by personality such that this relationship is stronger for 25 individuals high in neuroticism than for individuals low in neuroticism. H7: The relationship between job stressor variability and job satisfaction variability is moderated by personality such that this relationship is stronger for individuals high in openness to experience than for individuals low in openness to experience. H8: The relationship between job stressor variability and job satisfaction variability is moderated by personality such that this relationship is stronger for individuals high in NA than for individuals low in NA. H9: The relationship between job stressor variability and job satisfaction variability is moderated by personality such that this relationship is stronger for individuals high in PA than for individuals low in PA. This moderation effect is explored for extraversion as well, however given that the investigation of extraversion is exploratory, a specific hypothesis is not made. Additionally, these moderating effects are again investigated for both frequency and amplitude variation and for each facet of job satisfaction. The Consequences of Job Satisfaction Variability An additional goal of the present study was to determine whether the intraindividual variability in job satisfaction relates to organizational variables above and beyond cross-sectional assessments of job satisfaction. Thus, possible relationships between the intraindividual variability of job satisfaction and job performance and turnover intentions are now explored. Job Performance: Researchers in the organizational sciences have long found it important to demonstrate a relationship between job satisfaction and job 26 performance. In fact, the search for this relationship has been referred to as the holy grail of organizational research (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). However, despite all of the effort researchers have expended, many are still unclear regarding how, or even if, job satisfaction and job performance relate. For example, Fisher (1980), viewing job satisfaction as a general attitude, suggests that it is unreasonable to expect job satisfaction to relate to performance. In fact, research has demonstrated generally small relationships between job satisfaction and performance (e.g., Katzell, Thompson, & Guzzo, 1992). However, other researchers have found support for a relationship between job satisfaction and performance. Podsakoff and Williams (1986) for example, found that by making rewards contingent on productivity, the connection between satisfaction and performance is high. In general, however, multiple reviews of the literature seem to suggest a positive, but weak, relationship between job satisfaction and job performance (Fisher, 2003). As Fisher (2003) discusses, when assessed at the between-person level the average satisfaction- performance relationship is generally weak and there is no reason to expect general satisfaction with the job as a whole to relate to sustained high job performance. There is evidence however, to suggest that within-person assessments of job satisfaction relate to job performance. Fisher (2003) found momentary task satisfaction to relate to momentary task performance, which suggests that individuals are more satisfied with a particular task at moments they are performing the task well, and are less satisfied with a particular task at moments they are performing less well. It is important to point out that is impossible to determine from this study whether pre-existing satisfaction levels influence subsequent performance, or vice 27 versa. While this study specifically investigates task satisfaction and task performance, it demonstrates that individuals who are more variable in their satisfaction are also more variable (i.e., less consistent) in their levels of performance. Given that performance is likely less consistent for individuals with highly variable levels of job satisfaction it intuitively seems that overall judgments of performance for such individuals may be lower than for individuals who are performing more consistently. Additionally, Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) suggest that emotional responses, whether positive or negative, are generally responsible for decrements to job performance because the management of emotions requires resources that could be used for task performance. Though emotions and job satisfaction are not one and the same, they are related (e.g., Ilies & Judge, 2002) and it is possible that managing fluctuations in evaluations of the job also monopolizes resources that could be used for task performance. Thus again suggesting a likely negative relationship between overall job performance and job satisfaction variability. Thus, the following hypothesis is made: H10: Intraindividual variability in job satisfaction is negatively related to overall evaluations of job performance. As with the other hypotheses, this hypothesis is additionally investigated at an exploratory level for five different facets of job satisfaction and for amplitude and frequency conceptualizations of variability. Do large amplitude changes in levels of satisfaction have more of an impact on job performance than small but frequent variations in satisfaction? Does variability for different facets of job satisfaction relate to performance differently? These are important questions which this study 28 additionally seeks to address. Turnover Intentions: Job satisfaction is frequently investigated as an important predictor of withdrawal behaviors such as turnover. A comprehensive meta-analysis investigating turnover antecedents found job satisfaction to be one of the strongest predictors of turnover, = -.19 (Griffeth, Hom, Gaertner, 2000). Thus, when measured cross-sectionally, the two constructs are negatively related. Research has additionally explored the satisfaction-turnover relationship from a longitudinal perspective. Lee and Mtichell (1994) proposed an unfolding model of turnover, which specifies four basic decision paths that individuals follow when deciding to quit their jobs. What is particularly important regarding this model is that research has suggested and supported the voluntary turnover process to unfold over time, to be precipitated by a shock such as being offered a different position, and to involve prior individual experiences (Lee, Mitchell, Holtom, McDaniel, & Hill, 1999; Lee, Mitchell, Wise, Fireman, 1996). The unfolding turnover model suggests that ones intentions to turnover do not come about as simply as traditional models which relate low levels of satisfaction to subsequent turnover would suggest. The consideration of time, contextual factors, and prior individual experiences are also important. Also, understanding the importance of considering time, Boswell, Boudreau, and Tichy (2005) modeled the variability of job satisfaction as it related to job change. This study generally suggested job satisfaction to change in relation to temporal proximity of turnover, thus relating job satisfaction change to turnover. However, this study did not assess momentary changes in job satisfaction, but 29 assessed job satisfaction at three different points three months apart. Along the same vein, Kammeyer-Mueller, Wanberg, Glomb, and Ahlburg (2005) suggest that because turnover antecedents, like job satisfaction, have been shown to be dynamic, measuring them in a temporal context should enhance our understanding of the turnover process. As such, Kammeyer-Mueller et al. (2005) assessed job satisfaction at 5 different time points 4 months apart and found that when measured over time, change in the facet of work satisfaction becomes an important predictor of turnover. Again suggesting job satisfaction change to relate to turnover. While these studies are important, previous research has demonstrated individuals to meaningfully vary in their levels of job satisfaction over shorter time frames than investigated in the above mentioned studies. Thus, it is still unknown whether the intraindividual variability in job satisfaction relates to turnover intentions when assessed momentarily. The results of Kammeyer-Mueller (2005) suggest change in job satisfaction to negatively impact turnover. In other words, individuals who changed in their levels of satisfaction were more likely to turnover. While this study assessed general change in satisfaction over many months, it is possible that short term change in job satisfaction (i.e., variability) also negatively impacts turnover such that individuals who are more variable in their levels of satisfaction are more likely to intend to turnover than individuals who vary less in their levels of job satisfaction. Thus the following hypothesis is made: H11: Intraindividual variability in job satisfaction is positively related to turnover intentions. 30 Further, Kammeyer-Mueller (2005) only found work satisfaction measured over time to be an important predictor of turnover, while pay, supervisor and coworker satisfaction measured over time were not important determinants of turnover. Thus, there were differences in this relationship depending on facet of job satisfaction, further supporting the importance of investigating these relationships for different facets of satisfaction as done in this study. Also, given that the unfolding turnover model suggests shocks to be important predecessors of turnover, it may be that amplitude variation relates more strongly to turnover than frequency variation. This possibility is currently explored. Finally as previously mentioned, while these relationships are theoretically interesting, it is important to assess whether job satisfaction variability predicts job performance and turnover intentions above and beyond mean levels of job satisfaction assessed cross-sectionally. Because these indices of variability are suggested to provide additional information regarding ones job satisfaction (i.e., a more comprehensive picture) it is expected that knowledge of the intraindividual variability in job satisfaction will contribute to the prediction of these organizational variables above and beyond the variance that is predicted by a cross-sectional measurement of job satisfaction assessed at the same time as the outcome variables. Thus, the following hypotheses are made: H12: Intraindividual variability in job satisfaction predicts overall evaluations of performance above and beyond cross-sectional assessments of job satisfaction. H13: Intraindividual variability in job satisfaction predicts turnover intentions above and beyond cross-sectional assessments of job satisfaction. 31 In sum, the present study suggests neuroticism, openness to experience, NA and PA and possibly extraversion to positively relate to job satisfaction variability. Additionally, it is hypothesized that job stressor variability will relate to the variability in job satisfaction and that this relationship is moderated by personality, and finally, the current study suggests job satisfaction variability to relate to job performance and to turnover intentions, and to predict these variables above and beyond a cross- sectional assessment of job satisfaction. Further, it is suggested that variability can be conceptualized in different ways and that variability may be modeled differently for different facets of job satisfaction. Thus, it was of interest to explore the suggested relationships for both frequency and amplitude variation and for different facets of job satisfaction. CHAPTER 2 METHOD Participants Participants in the present study included full-time staff from a large Midwestern university. A mass recruitment email (see Appendix A) was sent to all staff at the university in hopes of recruiting one-hundred and twenty-five individuals to participate. In regard to assessing intraindividual variability, one-hundred and twenty-five participants is more than sufficient given the success similar studies have had in identifying intraindividual variability in job satisfaction using far less participants (e.g., Heller, 2003; Ilies & Judge, 2002; Ilies & Judge, 2004). Further as Warner (1998) states, in time series studies, representatively sampling time is of utmost importance, thus many time-series studies contain small numbers of 32 participants in order to look at a larger number of time points. In regard to assessing between subject effects, when =.05, only 44 subjects would be needed to detect a medium effect (.30, Cohen, 1988) with power = .80 in a regression with five predictors. One-hundred and ninety-nine employees responded to the email indicating their interest in participating. The researcher contacted these interested individuals via email to explain in greater detail the exact nature of the study and the time commitments involved with participating. Initially, 132 participants agreed to participate. However, 31 of these individuals voluntarily withdrew from the study before its completion, yielding a final sample of 101 individuals. Thus, power to detect a medium effect utilizing a regression with five predictors is .99. Participants received $30.00 compensation for their participation. Of the 101 individuals, 84.2% are female and 15.8% are male. Regarding ethnicity, 54.5% of the current sample identified themselves as White/European American, 33.7% as African American, and 7.9% as Asian. The age of the participants ranged from 23 to 63, with the average age being 37.91. Additionally, 57.5% percent of the current participants are married or in an exclusive dating relationship, and 55.4% have children. All 101 participants worked in positions which allotted them access to the internet throughout each working day (e.g., administrative assistant, accountant, research coordinator, secretary, housing office coordinator, office services clerk). All participants worked full-time (ranging from 35-77 hours per week), with the average number of hours worked per week equaling 41.31. The job 33 tenure of the current sample ranged from 2 months to 37 years. A summary of the demographic characteristics of the sample can be seen in Table 1. Measures Job Satisfaction: Two modified versions of Spectors 1985 Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) were used in the present study. The original JSS contains 4 items for each of 9 facets of job satisfaction (i.e., supervision, coworkers, communication, contingent rewards, pay, promotion, fringe benefits, operating procedures, and the nature of work), resulting in a 36-item scale. Respondents indicate their agreement with each item on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1= disagree very much to 6 = agree very much. Higher scores indicate higher levels of satisfaction. Because participants were asked to complete the JSS at multiple time points during the same day, the scale was altered slightly in the present study to make items momentary in nature (see Appendix B). Additionally, because the participants in the present study were asked to complete the JSS multiple times a day for several weeks, a shorter version of the scale was desired. Thus, the JSS was reduced to include only those job satisfaction facets measured in the JDI (i.e., supervision, coworker, pay, promotion, and the nature of work). Because the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) is the most frequently used facet measure of job satisfaction (Rain et al., 1991), it is particularly important to investigate the within person variability of these facets. Thus, JSS items measuring communication, contingent rewards, fringe benefits and operating procedures were removed from the scale for the present study. The removal of these items resulted in a 20-item scale (see Appendix C). 34 To assess the reliability of the 20-item scale, Cronbachs alpha was calculated for each facet separately. To ensure that the scale was reliable throughout the duration of the study, Cronbachs alpha was calculated for each facet for a random 1/3 of the time points including: Day 1 morning, Day 2 mid-day, Day 3 mid-day, Day 4 mid-day, Day 5 afternoon, and Day 6 mid-day. The reliability information obtained from these time points was then averaged within each facet to obtain average facet reliability. This average reliability information can be seen in Table 2. Additionally, with the assessment of the outcome variables, participants were asked to complete a reduced (i.e., 20-item), however non-momentary, JSS. This 20- item JSS can be found in Appendix D. Coefficient alphas for the non-momentary scale in this study are as follows: .811, .830, .880, .702, and .925 for pay, promotion, supervisor, coworker and work satisfaction respectively. Personality: Neuroticism, extraversion and openness to experience were measured using the 50-item IPIP (Goldberg, 1999). Though not included in this study, the 50-item IPIP also assess conscientiousness and agreeableness. Respondents indicated the extent to which each item accurately described them on a scale ranging from 1-very inaccurate to 5-very accurate. An example item is I am the life of the party. Higher scores on the neuroticism subscale indicate higher levels of emotional stability (i.e. lower levels of neuroticism). Higher scores on the extraversion and openness to experience subscales indicate higher levels of both of these constructs. In the present study, coefficient alphas for the neuroticism, extraversion and openness to experience subscales are .892, .907 and .806 respectively. 35 Affectivity: The PANAS (Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988) was used to assess positive and negative affect. When responding to the PANAS, participants are asked to indicate how the feel in general, or on average. The PANAS consists of 50 adjectives that are rated on a 5-point response scale ranging from 1-very slightly/not at all to 5-extremly. Coefficient alpha for the PA subscale is .948 in the current study, and is .953 for the NA subscale. Higher scores indicate higher levels of NA or PA. Job Stressors: Job stressors were assessed using a twenty-item scale developed by Frone, Russell, and Cooper (1992). The scale is comprised of three sub-scales: work pressure (i.e., role overload), lack of autonomy, and role ambiguity. Participants responded on a four-point response scale ranging from 1 (almost always) to 4 (almost never / never). In addition, like job satisfaction, because job stressors were measured multiple times daily for several days, the questions were altered to be momentary in nature (see Appendix E). Higher scores indicate higher job stressors. Additionally, to ensure that the scale was reliable throughout the duration of the study, coefficient alpha was calculated for each facet for a random 1/3 of the time points including: Day 1 morning, Day 2 afternoon, Day 3 mid-day, Day 4 mid- day, Day 5 afternoon, and Day 6 mid-day. The reliability information was then averaged and the average reliability is .860. Performance: In order to assess overall job performance, three questions were developed. These questions were as follows: 1. If you had a performance appraisal or review in the past year, please indicate the overall rating you received for the quality of your work with participants indicating their response on a scale 36 ranging from 1 = marginal to 5 = above expectations; 2. Overall what is your usual performance at work? with response options ranging from 1 = Consistently below expectations to 5 = above expectations; and 3. How do you perform at work relative to others in your organization (that is, your coworkers)? with participants responding on a scale ranging from 1 = well below average to 5 = well above average. Coefficient alpha for this scale in this study is .728. Turnover Intentions: A three-item scale developed by Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh (1979) was used to assess employees' intentions to leave the organization. Ratings were summated to form an overall score where a higher number indicates a higher probability of leaving the organization. An example item is I will probably look for a new job in the next year and participants could respond on a scale ranging from 1-not at all likely to 4-exteremely likely. In the present study, coefficient alpha for this scale is .902. Higher scores indicate higher intent to turnover. Procedure Upon soliciting participants via email, the researcher sent a follow-up email to interested individuals. The purpose of this second email was to formally explain the structure of the study as well as to be sure individuals were fully aware of the time requirement involved with their agreeing to participate. Individuals were also informed that compensation would be awarded after the completion of the study. Further, given that the present study was requesting individuals to indicate their feelings about their jobs, it was possible that individuals may have felt compelled to respond in a socially desirable manner in fear that expressing their honest job- 37 related feelings may lead to negative repercussions. This was of particular concern in the present study as participants were being recruited from the same university in which the study was being conducted. Such participant reactivity to the study may reduce construct validity (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). In order to increase the accuracy of participant responses, participants were informed that all responses would remain confidential. Before beginning the study, individuals needed to formally consent to participation. The consent form and some general demographic information (e.g., gender, ethnicity, job title) were made available online and participants were sent an email link leading them to the consent form and demographic information. Upon consenting and completing the demographic information the online survey further instructed participants to complete the personality measure, and the measure of positive and negative affectivity. Participants were given one week from the date the link was sent to complete this initial information. Once the consent form, demographic information, and initial surveys were complete, the 20-item JSS and the job stressors scale were also made available online to consenting participants. Participants were asked to complete the JSS and the job stressors scale three times daily; once early in the work morning, again in mid-afternoon, then again in late afternoon. These daily measurements occurred on 6 different days over a three week period. More specifically, participants completed the JSS and job stressors scale three times daily on Tuesday and Wednesday of week 1, on Wednesday and Thursday of week 2, and on Tuesday and Wednesday of week 3. Previous research has demonstrated the majority of within-person job 38 satisfaction variability to occur within the same day, however the design of the present study also allows for between day, between week and between two week variance to be captured (Young & Baltes, 2006). A reminder email providing a link to the JSS and job stressors scale was sent out to all participants at the time that they were expected to fill out the momentary surveys. More specifically, each day of the study a reminder email was sent at 8:00am, 11:00am and 2:00pm with instructions to complete the survey by 10:00am, 1:00pm and 4:00pm respectively. Each time a participant visited the survey website, the job stressors scale was presented followed by the five facets of job satisfaction presented in random order. The momentary assessments were collected during the last two weeks of February and the first week of March. In addition, the participants were provided with paper copies of the reduced JSS and of the job stressors scale. They were instructed to complete the paper copy if they were ever to encounter difficulties accessing the survey online. Participants were additionally instructed to indicate on the top of the paper survey the date and exact time of survey completion, and to send any completed paper surveys to the researcher through campus mail. Once all momentary measurements were complete, participants were sent one final email. By clicking on the link included in the email, participants were directed to a website which asked them to indicate if they experienced any traumatic life events during the course of the study. If participants indicated that they did indeed experience a traumatic life event, they were asked to describe the event, and when it occurred. In addition, participants also completed the non-momentary JSS, 39 the turnover intentions scale and the performance scale. Finally, participants also provided a mailing address, indicating where to send their $30.00 compensation. CHAPTER 3 RESULTS Given the extensive time commitment required of the participants in the current study, several participants did not complete job satisfaction measurements at every time point. However, no participant was missing more than 3 of the 18 time points required. Unfortunately, there is as yet no firm guideline for how much missing data can be tolerated for a sample of a given size (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Again, given the intense nature of the present study, the researcher decided that completion of 15 of the 18 time points was adequate. Additionally, the amount of missing data in the current study is less than that found in studies that have utilized similar measurement procedures. For example, in the Ilies and Judge (2002) study the maximum number of possible observations across individuals and time periods was 2052 and data was complete for 1907 or 93% of all observations. In the current study, the maximum number of observations across individuals and time points was 1818 and data was complete for 1765 or 97% of all observations. Missing values analyses were conducted in order to further investigate the nature of the missing data. Little and Rubin (1987) suggested that when data are missing at random, the chance that a subjects data are lost is independent of what these data would have been had no loss occurred. In order to determine whether data were missing at random, separate variance t-tests were conducted between the time points that had 5% or more missing data and job satisfaction scores at all other 40 time points. More specifically, a significant t-statistic would indicate that the missing cases for that time point are significantly correlated with scores at a different time point, and thus, are not missing at random. These analyses were conducted separately for each facet of job satisfaction and for job stressors. In taking a closer look at missing data at each time point for each facet of job satisfaction, it became apparent that there were no time points for which 5% or more of the data were missing. In other words job satisfaction data were present for at least 96 of the 101 participants for each time point in every facet thus there was no need to conduct t-tests. However, for the job stressors variable, one time point had 6.9% missing data. Therefore, separate variance t-tests were conducted between this time point and every other time point resulting in 15 t-tests. Using an alpha of .01 none of the t-values were significant, thus data was concluded to be missing at random. As will be described in greater detail below, periodogram and harmonic analyses were used to identify and describe variability in this study. Time-series data that includes missing values can not be analyzed using periodogram or harmonic analyses, so it was necessary to replace missing values. In the current study, the mean of the nearest two points was used to replace missing values. Several researchers suggest that when the amount of missing data is small (i.e., 5% or less), ones choice of technique for replacing missing data seems to make little difference in the results obtained (Raaijmakers, 1999; Roth & Switzer, 1995). Additionally, several other common methods for replacing missing data were deemed inappropriate for the present study. As pointed out by Raaijmakers (1999), 41 substitution based on the item mean is only a good option when there are low correlations between the missing variable and the other variables under investigation. This is unlikely in the current study, given that there are variables in this study that are the same measure taken at different time points. Raaijmakers also pointed out that regression and hotdeck procedures are difficult to implement if the variable having the highest correlation with the missing variable also has missing data. Given that all time points include missing data for at least one case, regression and hotdeck procedures do not seem appropriate for the current study. Another common procedure, using the person mean to replace the missing value, additionally seemed unsuitable for the present study. The current study suggests that individuals vary over short periods of time, and the person mean substitution method is inappropriate for scales characterized by varying means (Raaijmakers, 1999). Thus the mean of the nearest time points was reasoned to be ones best guess regarding the value of the missing time point for the current study. This is a conservative method for estimating missing values as it reduces the variance of the variable (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). This is of particular importance to note in the present study, as it is the main purpose of this study to investigate the variability of job satisfaction. Table 3 displays the means and standard deviations of the job satisfaction facets, after missing values were replaced. In order to first identify and describe the within person variability in job satisfaction, periodogram and harmonic analyses were conducted. In brief, periodogram analyses are used to identify the periodic components that explain the largest percentage of the variance in a time series. Harmonic analyses then use this 42 identified period to estimate the mean, amplitude and phase that maximize fit to the observed time series. Both of these procedures will be described in more detail below. Before conducting either periodogram or harmonic analyses, it is necessary to identify and remove any trends in the time series (Warner, 2003). This is important because any trends that are present will dominant the analyses making it difficult to detect any cycles that might be present. Regression procedures were used to fit and remove any linear and/or quadratic trends from the job satisfaction and job stressors data. Trends were identified and removed separately for every person for every facet of job satisfaction and for the job stressors variable. More specifically, for every person for every time-series variable, a regression analysis was conducted to predict the raw time-series data (job satisfaction scores or stressor scores across time) from the observation number (ranging from 1 18). The residuals from this trend analysis were saved as a new variable and these residuals were used in subsequent periodogram and harmonic analyses. As stated before, the main purpose of periodogram analysis is to identify the periodic components that explain the largest percentage of the variance in a time series. In periodogram analyses, the overall Sum of Squares (SS) for the time series is partitioned into a set of N/2, N being the length of the time series, SS components that correspond to the amount of variance accounted for by different cyclic components (Warner, 1998). In the current study where the length of the each time series is 18, the cycle lengths that were fitted to the data include periods of 18/1, 18/2, 18/3, 18/4, 18/5, 18/6, 18/7, 18/8 and 18/9. Or in other words, the overall SS for 43 the time series was partitioned into sums of squares that are accounted for by N/2 (i.e., 9) different cyclic components with periods of 18, 9, 6, 4.5, 3.6, 3, 2.57, 2.25 and 2. Frequency is the inverse of period and is the proportion of a cycle that occurs during one observation. Frequencies are equally spaced, and thus are orthogonal (Warner, 1998). In the current study periodogram analyses were conducted on the time series residuals. These analyses were conducted separately for each person for each time series variable (i.e. the five facets of job satisfaction and job stressors). Periodogram intensities (sums of squares) were used to identify the period that accounted for the largest proportion of time-series variance. So for example, consider participant #1. If a relatively large proportion of the variance of participant 1s coworker satisfaction time series corresponds to a period of 18/4, than a cycle length of 4.5 is concluded to best explain variability in person 1s coworker satisfaction time series. Thus participants frequency scores were identified by finding the period/frequency components that explained the largest amount of time-series variance for each of the time series variables. Harmonic analyses were then conducted to further model the identified cyclic components. Harmonic analysis is designed to more specifically model a cyclic component. Using the previously identified period, harmonic analysis estimates the mean, phase, and amplitude that maximize fit to the observed time series (Warner, 1998). Cosine and sine functions that represented the previously identified period/cycle were computed for each person for each time series variable. For example, if the cycle of participant 1s coworker satisfaction time series was identified to be 4.5 then, the 44 cosine function was calculated as cos(2time/4.5) and the sine function was calculated as sin(2time/4.5). Next, for each person OLS regression procedures were used with the calculated cos and sin variables as predictors of the residual time series variables. The mean of the time series is the resulting intercept. The estimated amplitude was calculated using cosine and sine coefficients. The amplitude estimate indicates that the cycle has peaks and troughs that are roughly X points above and below the overall mean. In sum, conducting both periodogram and harmonic analyses for each person separately and for each time series variable resulted in frequency and amplitude scores for each individual for each facet of job satisfaction and for job stressors. Tables 4 and 5 display the means and standard deviations of the frequency and amplitude scores for each facet of job satisfaction. As can be seen in these tables, the average frequency and amplitude variation scores do not differ greatly by facet. Bivariate correlations between study variables can be seen in Table 6. This initial examination of the data reveals that relationships between study variables are generally small. However, there are some significant correlations that are worthy of further mention. Looking at the relationships between personality and job satisfaction variability, the frequency with which pay satisfaction varies significantly relates to both NA and neuroticism, and the frequency with which nature of work satisfaction varies significantly relates to both NA and PA. To elaborate, greater frequency variation in pay satisfaction relates to lower NA (r = -.21, p < .05) and to higher emotional stability (i.e. lower neuroticism; r = .21, p < .05). Greater frequency variation in nature of work satisfaction relates to lower NA (r = -.21, p < .05), to higher 45 PA (r = .29, p < .05) and though not significant, to higher emotional stability (i.e., lower neuroticism; r = .20). It should also be pointed out that non-momentary (i.e. cross-sectional assessments) coworker satisfaction significantly negatively relates to NA and to neuroticism. Additionally, considering non-momentary nature of work satisfaction, higher NA and neuroticism (i.e. lower emotional stability) relate to lower satisfaction and higher PA relates to higher satisfaction. Examining the relationships between job satisfaction variability and job stressor variability, the only significant correlation is between the frequency with which coworker satisfaction varies and the frequency with which job stressors vary such that higher frequency variation in job stressors relates to higher frequency variation in coworker satisfaction (r = .22, p < .05). Finally, an initial assessment of the relationships between job satisfaction variability and organizational outcomes reveals a significant correlation between the frequency with which nature of work satisfaction varies and performance. More specifically, higher frequency variation in nature of work satisfaction relates to higher performance (r = .25, p < .05). It should also be noted that all non-momentary job satisfaction facets negatively and significantly correlate with turnover intentions and non-momentary work satisfaction positively relates to performance. In sum, this initial assessment revealed few significant relationships. However, while the amplitude with which job satisfaction varies did not significantly correlate with personality, stressors, nor organizational outcomes, significant relationships were found between the frequency with which the different facets of job satisfaction vary and the variables of interest in this study. While these correlations provide a first 46 look at the data, as described below, a series of regressions were conducted to test the specific hypotheses set forth. Before presenting the results of these regressions, it should be pointed out that because large numbers of regressions were needed to fully address the hypotheses of the current study, the chances of making a Type 1 error were inflated. Because of this, instead of evaluating the results in terms of their statistical significance, results were evaluated in terms of their magnitude or strength. In other words, when conducting multiple tests, as in the current study, there is an increased chance of erroneously concluding that results are significant. In addition, procedures such as the Bonferroni correction, the idk-Bonferroni procedure and Holms method that control Type 1 error by adjusting the alpha that should be used for each individual test lack power (e.g., Keppel & Wickens, 2004). As such, in the current study statistics were evaluated in terms of effect size. More specifically, Cohens f 2 was used to evaluate the R 2 of each regression model. By convention, 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 are considered small medium and large effects, respectively (Cohen, 1988). Aside from evaluating the regression model as a whole, it is also important to evaluate the individual predictors. The square of the t value for a predictor i is related to the increment in R 2 due to predictor i (Bring, 1994). So, in the current study, it is argued that if the t for a predictor was at least 2.23, which roughly means a 5% percent increase in R 2 can be attributed to that predictor, then the effect is worth talking about. In sum, the current study uses Cohens f 2 and the t-statistic to explore the magnitude of relationships vs. focusing on the statistical significance of the results. 47 To test hypotheses 1-4 as well as the exploratory aspects of the present study, ten regressions were conducted to test how the set of predictors (i.e., neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, positive and negative affectivity) relate to the each of the ten criteria (i.e., amplitude and frequency scores for each of five facets of job satisfaction). As previously discussed, because this family of analyses includes 10 separate tests, the chances of making Type 1 error when evaluating statistical significance is 40%! Results obtained from these regressions can be seen in Table 7. Looking at Table 7, it can be seen that the amount of variability that the set of personality predictors explained in the criteria ranged from 0.3% to 11.4% depending on the criterion. An examination of the calculated effect sizes reveals that all but one of the effects are considered small. In the only effect worth reporting, the set of personality predictors accounting for 11.4% of the variability in the frequency with which nature of work satisfaction varies (Cohens f 2 = .1287), which is approaching a medium effect size. Looking more closely at the individual predictors in this model, the t-value for positive affectivity was 2.329. This suggests that roughly a 5.5% percent increase in the 11.4% of the variability that the set of personality variables accounts for can be attributed to positive affectivity. Thus, positive affectivity can be considered an important predictor of the frequency with which nature of work satisfaction varies. This relationship is positive, suggesting that high levels of PA are predictive of high levels of frequency variation in nature of work satisfaction. In addition, while the effect of the overall model was small (f 2 = .0695), openness to experience was found to be an important predictor to consider in understanding 48 coworker satisfaction frequency variation (t = -2.215). Around a 4.9% increase in the 6.9% of the variance that personality accounts for in coworker satisfaction frequency variation can be attributed to openness to experience. However, this negative relationship is contrary to what was expected as it suggests lower levels of openness to experience to predict higher levels of frequency variation in coworker satisfaction. In sum, regression analyses did not support hypotheses 1 and 3 which suggested neuroticism and NA to significantly relate to the intrainidividual variability in job satisfaction. Yet, as previously discussed, bivariate correlations did reveal significant relationships between NA and neuroticism and the frequency with which pay and nature of work satisfaction vary. However, these bivariate relationships were opposite what was hypothesized and so do not lend further support to hypotheses 1 and 3. Hypothesis 2 was also not supported as results were opposite what was anticipated. Finally, hypothesis 4 received some support in that positive affectivity was found to be an important predictor of the frequency with which nature of work satisfaction varies within individuals. Hypothesis 5 suggested the intraindividual variability in job stressors to relate to the intraindividual variability in job satisfaction. Ten regressions were again conducted to test this hypothesis. More specifically each analysis regressed one of the ten criteria (i.e., amplitude or frequency scores for five different facets of satisfaction) on amplitude job stressor variability or frequency job stressor variability respectively. This family of analyses requires 10 regressions, thus the probability of committing a Type 1 error was again inflated. Unexpectedly, results provide little support for hypothesis 5. As can be seen in Table 8, the within-person variability in 49 job stressors never accounts for more than 5% of the variance in the within-person variability in job satisfaction, regardless of the type of variation (i.e. frequency or amplitude) and of the facet of job satisfaction being investigated. All effects are small. Although the overall effect is small, (f 2 = .0515), job stressor frequency variation seems to be an important predictor of coworker satisfaction frequency variation (t = 2.250). Thus, there is some support for the notion that higher job stressor frequency variation predicts higher job satisfaction frequency variation, or more specifically in this case higher coworker satisfaction frequency variation. However, job stressor variation was not found to be a predictor of interest for any of the other 9 facets of job satisfaction variability. Therefore, hypothesis 5 is not generally supported. In order to assess hypotheses 6-9 and the associated exploratory analyses, which suggest personality to moderate the relationship between job stressor variability and job satisfaction variability, a series of hierarchical regressions were performed. Job stressor variability (either amplitude or frequency) and personality (either neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, NA, or PA) were entered into the first step, and the respective multiplicative term was entered into the second step of the regression. In addressing these hypotheses and exploratory analyses, a total of 50 hierarchical regressions were performed (i.e. there are five potential moderating relationships to test for each of the ten criteria). Because of the 50 regressions required, familywise error was calculated to be an exorbitant .92. As such, as with the other analyses, results will be interpreted in terms of magnitude and not in terms of statistical significance. All independent variables were centered 50 before the calculation of interaction terms, as is generally recommended (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). In addition, to obtain the correct standardized regression coefficients for the interaction terms from SPSS, the regressions were also run with standardized variables and their respective interaction terms (Cohen et al., 2003). Results of these hierarchical regressions can be found in Table 9 Table 18. Examining the magnitude of the change in R 2 from the first step to the second step of each hierarchical regression, all effect sizes were small (see Tables 9 18). This indicates that none of the 50 interactions investigated had a meaningful impact on the explained variance of the various criteria. In other words, no interactions were worthy of further exploration. Even so, glancing the through the t-statistics associated with each interaction term, there was one interaction term for which a 4.33% increase in R 2 could be attributed to the interaction (t = 2.081). This interaction term of interest can be seen in Table 10. Though, not reaching the 5% that was deemed an important effect, the interaction seemed worthy of further exploration. To examine this interaction, an unpublished Microsoft excel spreadsheet program developed by Bing and LeBreton (2001) that is designed to graph the regression interactions for two continuous variables was used. This program graphs continuous interactions using the formulas presented in Cohen and Cohen (1983). As one can see in Figure 1, the relationship between frequency variation in job stressors and frequency variation in promotion satisfaction becomes stronger as extraversion increases. More specifically, the expected positive b-weight (i.e., higher job stressor variability should lead to more job satisfaction variability) increases from 51 a .06 when one is considering individuals one standard deviation below the mean of extraversion to .11 when one is considering individuals one standard deviation above the mean of extraversion. Thus, the moderating effect was in the expected direction given that the relationship between job stressor frequency variation and promotion satisfaction frequency variation was demonstrated to be stronger for individuals high in extraversion. However, given that the moderating effect of extraversion was examined exploratorily and given that none of the other 49 potential moderating effects were deemed worthy of exploration, there was no support found for hypotheses 6-9. Regression was also used to determine whether variability in job satisfaction (both amplitude and frequency variability) predict the important organizational outcomes of performance and intent to turnover (hypotheses 10 and 11). More specifically, to test hypothesis 10, two regressions were conducted. The first regressed performance on the within-person frequency variation in pay, promotion, supervisor, coworker and nature of work satisfactions and the second regressed performance on the within-person amplitude variation of each facet of job satisfaction. Looking at Table 19, the model regressing performance on the frequency variation in pay, promotion, supervisor, coworker and nature of work satisfactions was approaching a medium effect (f 2 = .1261). In looking at each of the predictors, it is clear that frequency variation in nature of work satisfaction is driving this effect. More specifically, t = 2.403 which indicates that roughly 5.77% of the 11.2% of the variance that the set of predictors explains in job performance can be attributed to 52 the frequency variation in nature of work satisfaction. However, this relationship was opposite of what was expected in that the greater the frequency with which ones nature of work satisfaction fluctuated the higher job performance. Therefore, there is some evidence to suggest that the frequency variation in job satisfaction is an important predictor of job performance, however, this relationship was opposite of what was hypothesized. In addition, there was no evidence to suggest that amplitude variation in job satisfaction is important to the prediction of job performance as this effect was small (f 2 = .028) and none of the predictors demonstrated worthy influence on the criterion. Thus, hypothesis 10 was not supported. To test hypothesis 11 intent to turnover was regressed on the within-person frequency variation of each facet of job satisfaction. Then a second regression was conducted to regress intent to turnover on the within-person amplitude variation of pay, promotion, supervisor, coworker and nature of work satisfactions. Results from these regressions can be seen in Table 20. Results reveal that neither frequency nor amplitude variation in job satisfaction were important to the prediction of intent to turnover as the effect sizes associated with each model were small (f 2 = .0194 and f 2 = .0406) respectively. In other words, all of the facets of job satisfaction frequency variation together only accounted for 1.9% of the variance in intent to turnover while all of the facets of job satisfaction amplitude variation combined accounted for only 3.9% of the variation in intent to turnover. In addition, no individual facet of job satisfaction variation (either frequency or amplitude) emerged as important to consider. Thus hypothesis 11 received no support. 53 In addition, hierarchical regression was used to investigate whether job satisfaction variability is a significant predictor of these organizational outcomes (i.e., performance and intent to turnover) above and beyond ones mean level of job satisfaction measured cross sectionally. To test these hypotheses (H12 and H13) non-momentary job satisfaction scores were entered into the first step of the regression and job satisfaction variability scores (either amplitude or phase) were entered into the second step. This procedure, allowed for the determination of whether job satisfaction variability predicts performance and turnover intentions above and beyond non-momentary assessments. In order to fully address these hypotheses and exploratory analyses, a total of 4 hierarchical regressions were performed. First considered was the impact that frequency variation has on the prediction of job performance above and beyond cross-sectional assessments of job satisfaction. Looking at Table 21, it can be seen that in step 1 the non-momentary facets of job satisfaction explained 10.4% of the variance in job performance. The frequency variation terms were added in step 2 resulting in the explanation of 21.6% percent of the variance in job performance. The effect size associated with this change in R 2 (11.2%) can be considered close to medium in strength (f 2 = .1261). This suggests that the inclusion of the frequency variation terms added meaningfully to the prediction of job performance. In investigating the individual predictors, it can be seen that non-momentary nature of work satisfaction and frequency variation in work satisfaction contribute most to the prediction of job performance (t = 2.750 and t = 2.655) respectively. Again, because the addition of the frequency terms adds 54 meaningfully to the prediction of job performance, it can be concluded that frequency variation in nature of work satisfaction adds explanatory power to the equation predicting job performance above and beyond the contribution of non-momentary nature of work satisfaction. Thus hypothesis 12 received some support. However, it is also important to point out that this relationship was not in the expected direction. Next considered was the potential impact that amplitude variation in job satisfaction has above and beyond cross-sectional assessments of job satisfaction to the prediction of job performance. Again looking at Table 21, the non-momentary job satisfaction measures explained 12.2% of the variance in job performance. The addition of the amplitude variation job satisfaction measures only added 3.3% to the variance explained, which is a small effect (f 2 = .0341). In addition, non-of the amplitude variation measures added meaningfully to the prediction of job performance. Therefore there is no evidence to suggest that amplitude variation in job satisfaction predicts job performance above and beyond non-momentary assessments of the job satisfaction. When considering amplitude variation, hypothesis 12 is not supported. As explained above, to test hypothesis 13 which suggests the variability in job satisfaction to predict intent to turnover above and beyond non-momentary assessments of job satisfaction the non-momentary job satisfaction scores were entered into the first step of the regression and the job satisfaction variability scores (either amplitude or phase) were entered into the second step. These results can be seen in Table 22. First considering frequency variation, the five facets of job satisfaction measured cross-sectionally explained 30.2% of the variance in intent to 55 turnover. Adding in the frequency variation of each facet of job satisfaction only added 1% to the amount of variance explained, a small effect (f 2 = .0101). Similarly when considering amplitude variation, the non-momentary job satisfaction measures together accounted for 32.4% of the variation in intent to turnover, but adding the amplitude variation predictors only added an additional 1.1% to the variance explained, again a small effect (f 2 = .0111). Thus, neither frequency nor amplitude variation in job satisfaction added to the prediction of ones intent to turnover above and beyond cross-sectional assessments of job satisfaction. In other words, there was no support for hypothesis 13. DISCUSSION The present study was conducted to gain a more thorough understanding of the intraindividual variability in job satisfaction. The present investigation attempted to contribute to the growing body of literature on within-person job satisfaction variability in several ways. First, past research has conceptualized variability in terms of standard deviation (e.g., Ilies & Judge, 2002) and no study to date has explored both amplitude and frequency conceptualizations of job satisfaction variability. Someone who varies frequently, but with little magnitude may have the same within- person standard deviation as an individual who varies with great magnitude but infrequently. Therefore, the current investigation argued that it may be important to distinguish between frequency and amplitude variation. As will be discussed in more detail below, this study reveals that, in fact, this distinction may not be as useful for modeling short-term variation as originally thought. 56 The current investigation further bolsters research through the inclusion of multiple variables. On the predictor side, both individual and situational variables were included. No study thus far has related momentary environmental job stressors to job satisfaction variability. It was hoped that this study would clarify how individual dispositions interact with situational characteristics to explain patterns of intra- individual variability in job satisfaction. Additionally, on the criteria side, by investigating whether or not variability predicted job performance and turnover intentions above and beyond more traditional assessments of job satisfaction, this study aimed to provide some guidance regarding the usefulness of measuring the construct momentarily. In addition, all relationships were explored for multiple facets of job satisfaction. Previously published research investigating the correlates of job satisfaction variability has only assessed variability utilizing overall measures of the construct. Therefore investigating variability at the facet level contributes uniquely to the job satisfaction literature. While results of the present study generally did not support the hypotheses that were set forth, consideration of the results did reveal some interesting findings. Next is a brief discussion of the relationships that were supported followed by an exploration of why so many unexpected and non-significant results were obtained. Personality Predicting Job Satisfaction Variability It was expected that the personality traits of negative affectivity, positive affectivity, neuroticism, openness to experience, and possibly extraversion would influence the frequency and/or amplitude with which individuals vary in their levels of 57 job satisfaction. More specifically, it was expected that individuals high in these aforementioned personality traits would vary with greater frequency and/or amplitude given that these personality traits have been shown to intensify individuals reactions to their environment. In addition, it was expected that these relationships may be different for different facets of job satisfaction as the different facets represent different aspects of the working environment. It was surprising to find that positive affectivity was the only personality trait to relate to job satisfaction variability in the expected way. It was found that having high levels of positive affectivity is predictive of greater frequency variation in nature of work satisfaction. In other words, those characterized as having high levels of energy, optimism, enthusiasm, and social interest (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) were shown to fluctuate more frequently in their attitudes toward the nature of their work than those low in PA. Positive affectivity was not found to predict the amplitude with which individuals fluctuate, thus, PA seems to impact how often individuals change in their attitudes toward their work but not the magnitude or degree to which they change their attitudes toward their work. PA was also not predictive of the variation in any other facet of job satisfaction. This lends some support to the notion that personality relates differentially to the variation of different facets. Openness to experience was suggested to be an important predictor of the frequency with which ones satisfaction with their coworkers varies. In the current study, this relationship was opposite what was expected in that high levels of openness to experience were predictive of low levels of frequency variation in coworker satisfaction. This is not in-line with previous research suggesting that 58 openness to experience relates to increased within-person variability (Velting & Liebert, 1997). However, because individuals high in openness to experience have an orientation that is creative, curious, and flexible and further have an affinity for situations involving novelty, diversity, and change (McCrae & Costa, 1989), it is possible that they are more accustomed to variable situations, and thus do not react affectively (i.e., do not change in their levels of job satisfaction). In other words, in context of the current significant finding, while interactions with coworkers may fluctuate frequently, individuals high in openness to experience may not react affectively (i.e. change their attitudes) because they are comfortable with, and in fact enjoy, the variable interactions. Openness to experience was not found to relate to the amplitude of variation and did not relate to any other facet of job satisfaction. Contrary to expectation neither NA, neuroticism nor extraversion were found to be important predictors of frequency or amplitude variation for any facet of job satisfaction. While at the bivariate level, both NA and neuroticism significantly correlated with the frequency with which pay and nature of work satisfaction varied, these relationships were opposite what was expected. In other words, it was hypothesized that individuals high in neuoriticism and NA would be more variable in their job satisfaction, but correlational analyses suggest the opposite. One potential explanation for these unexpected bivariate correlations is that individuals who are high in NA and/or neuroticism have generally very low levels of job satisfaction. Perhaps, there is not as much room for these individuals to vary in their levels of satisfaction because they are at the bottom of the job satisfaction spectrum. In the current study, as well as in previous research, cross-sectional assessments of job 59 satisfaction relate negatively to cross-sectional assessments of both NA and neuroticism, providing some support for this notion. It should be pointed out that the only meaningful relationships observed utilizing regression were observed for the facets of coworker and nature of work satisfaction. It is possible that ones coworkers and the actual nature of ones work are more salient/observable in the job environment than pay, promotion, or ones supervisor. As such, perhaps personality is relating to the variation of these facets because, in the actual environment individuals are more aware of changes in their interactions with their coworkers and of changes in their work and thus personality is more likely to impact how individuals affectively react to these more cognizant changes. Said differently, maybe these facets are somewhat easier to affectively react to, thus personality has a stronger influence on them. Situational Variability Predicting Job Satisfaction Variability The current study suggested that momentary situational assessments (i.e. momentary assessments of job stressors), relate to momentary job satisfaction assessments. This was expected as job satisfaction was suggested to vary as individuals react to their environments. Surprisingly, there was little support for this notion. The frequency with which job stressors varied was found to be an important predictor of the frequency with which satisfaction with coworkers varied, and this relationship was in the expected direction. So, as the stressors in the job environment fluctuate with more frequency, satisfaction with coworkers fluctuates with more frequency as well. Job stressor frequency variation was not found to be an important predictor of any other facet of job satisfaction variability. So changes in 60 environmental job stressors are more predictive of changing attitudes regarding ones coworkers than of changing attitudes regarding ones pay, promotion, work or supervisor. Again, perhaps this is because coworkers are more obvious in the work environment and thus are more relatable to perceived changes in stressors in the environment. Job stressor frequency variation did not relate to any other facets of job satisfaction frequency variation, and it is also important to point out that no significant relationships were found between the amplitude with which job stressors vary and amplitude variation in job satisfaction. It was also expected that personality would moderate the relationship between stressor variability and satisfaction variability. This was expected because job satisfaction was suggested to vary as the situation varies and personality was suggested to impact how individuals react to situational change. Of the 50 potential moderating effects, only one was identified as being worthy of further discussion. More specifically, extraversion was found to moderate the relationship between job stressor frequency and promotion satisfaction frequency such that this relationship was stronger for those high in extraversion than for those low in extraversion. Individuals high in extraversion were expected to react to situational variability more than those low in extraversion. In the current study, the frequency of situational change was found to predict the frequency of change in individuals attitudes toward promotion for those high in extraversion. This relationship was not as strong for those low in extraversion. While this moderating effect was as expected, extraversion was not found to moderate the relationship between stressor variation and satisfaction variation for any other facet of satisfaction. In addition, no other 61 personality trait was found to moderate the stressor variation satisfaction variation relationship. The Predictive Power of Job Satisfaction Variability The final goal of the current study was to identify whether frequency and/or amplitude variation in job satisfaction is important to the prediction of the important organizational outcomes of job performance and intent to turnover. To provide more detail, it was expected that increased variation in the facets of satisfaction would be predictive of lower job performance and higher intent to turnover. Results did not generally support the hypotheses set forth. While the frequency of with which nature of work satisfaction varied was positively related to job performance, and in fact, was positively predictive of job performance above and beyond cross-sectional assements of job satisfaction, this was opposite of what was expected. Given the arguments presented in the current study, it may be that if nature of work satisfaction is varying with great frequency then the actual nature of ones work may be changing with great frequency. In other words, there is potentially greater variety in the nature of ones work. Similar to the concept of skill variety, this nature of work variability can potentially be conceptualized as a motivator (Hackman & Oldham, 1976), and thus could potentially result in improved performance. Therefore, this unexpected result can be, somewhat, theoretically supported. It is also important to point out that this significant result is again with nature of work satisfaction, a facet that was also shown to relate to personality. Amplitude variation in nature of work was not predictive of performance, nor was variation in any other facet of satisfaction. Job satisfaction variation was also not predictive of intent to 62 turnover. What Was Learned? While results of the current study were not generally supportive of the hypotheses, there are some things that are important to highlight. First, it is likely important to continue to investigate the intraindividual variability of job satisfaction at the facet level as the variation of different facets related differentially to the predictors and criteria in this study. The facets of coworker satisfaction and nature of work satisfaction seem to be particularly important. As already eluded to, this may because these facets are the most obvious in the work environment and are thus particularly important to consider when investigating within-person variation which is theorized to result from reactions to the environment as impacted by personality. Second, it should be pointed out that all of the meaningful relationships discovered involved frequency variation in job satisfaction, none involved amplitude variation. One potential conclusion is that the frequency with which individuals vary is likely more important than the magnitude of their variation. Or, perhaps given the time frame of the current study, meaningful changes in frequency were easier to capture than meaningful changes in amplitude. In other words, large amplitude changes may not occur very often and thus may be potentially difficult to accurately model over short time frames. This provides some indication that the amplitude/frequency distinction may not be useful for modeling short-term, within- person attitude variation. And again, because coworkers and the nature of ones work are more situationally obvious, they are more susceptible to frequent changes vs. pay, promotion or supervisors which may not be as susceptible to frequent changes. 63 Further lending support to the argument that coworker satisfaction and nature of work satisfaction are particularly important to consider when investigating short-term within-person variation. In addition, these results led to the suggestion of several intriguing relationships that could be further explored. The first is that individuals high in openness to experience actually vary less in their levels of job satisfaction because they are comfortable with situational variability and thus do not react affectively to it. Second, is that variation in nature of work satisfaction may be indicative of task variety and therefore may act as a motivator. Despite these broad conclusions and interesting possibilities, it is also important to address the fact that most of the hypotheses were not supported. It is possible that the methodology used for modeling variability in the current study is not as useful as originally thought. More specifically, the periodogram and harmonic analyses used in the present study model cyclic components in time-series data. Perhaps instead of restricting the variability that may exist to cyclic components, it may make more sense for the construct of job satisfaction to model the general amount of variability that exists in individuals scores over time. This could be accomplished by simply calculating the standard deviation of job satisfaction scores for each person for each facet. Further, an index of variability such as standard deviation will capture both frequency and amplitude variation at once. Is it important to know how frequently someone is varying or does it make more sense to just understand that one person varies more than another? Distinguishing between frequency and amplitude variation doesnt allow for the modeling of someone who is 64 varying frequently and with great amplitude at the same time. Also, as previously mentioned, it is possible that amplitude variation is more difficult to truly capture over short-time frames. If the goal of the research is to understand what impacts and what is impacted by short-term, within person variation in job satisfaction, the frequency and amplitude distinction may not be important and actually, standard deviation may be a more inclusive and less restrictive measure of variability. It is also important to consider how the testing itself may have impacted the current findings. Practice, familiarity or other forms of participant reactivity impact the inferences about the observed covariation between the variables of interest (Shadish, et al., 2002). This is of particular concern in the present study given that participants completed the same measure at multiple time points within the same day. Individuals may have intentionally altered their responses on subsequent job satisfaction assessments to either seem consistent or intentionally different from their previous assessment. However, in order to try and reduce potential participant reactivity, participants were instructed to think of the job satisfaction at the current moment in time. It is also important to consider the effects of attrition (Shadish et al., 2002). There were several participants that did not remain in the study for the duration and thus were not included as participants. It is possible that different results would have been obtained had those participants remained. Additional Limitations and Future Research As with all empirical research, there are several limitations of the current study that warrant further discussion. First and foremost, the procedures used to model frequency and amplitude variation were not as useful as originally expected for 65 understanding short-term within-person variation. The primary goals of the present study were to gain insight into how personality and situational variables interact to predict job satisfaction variation and further to better understand the predictive power of this variation. These were important questions to address given the growing popularity in assessing job satisfaction intraindividually. Based on the results of the current study, one may be inclined to suggest that neither personality nor situational variability are important to the prediction of job satisfaction variability and that job satisfaction variability is of little importance to the prediction of organizational outcomes. However, this conclusion may be premature given that there were some meaningful relationships unveiled and that a different methodology for modeling variability may have captured variability more accurately. Regardless, the present study did not provide conclusive evidence regarding the correlates of job satisfaction variability and additionally raised several interesting questions. It is suggested that the hypotheses put forth in the current study be investigated utilizing standard deviation as a measure of variation. Looking at such results in concert with the results of the current study would provide a more comprehensive picture of the antecedents and consequences of the within-person variation of job satisfaction. A second limitation of the present study results from the time frame chosen for the measurement of job satisfaction. More specifically, the present study modeled variability in job satisfaction over the course of a three week period. Measurement using this time frame does not allow for modeling changes that may occur over longer time frames than three weeks. For example, the chosen measurement period did not allow for the modeling of changes in amplitude that occur outside of the three 66 week period assessed. However, given that within-person variability seems to primarily exist within the same day (Young & Baltes, 2006) and that within-person variability was previously measured over similar time frames (e.g., Ilies & Judge, 2002), it seems that the time frame chosen was appropriate for investigating short- term within-person variation in job satisfaction. In addition, participants of the present study consisted of university staff with continuous access to a computer. Participants primarily worked in clerical and administrative positions, thus it is not clear whether job satisfaction variability would be modeled in the same way for other positions (e.g., sales or manufacturing positions). Thus, future research should also investigate these questions using more diverse samples. This study is further limited in that there are likely additional individual difference variables that are important to the prediction of job satisfaction variability. For example, locus of control, or the extent to which individuals feel that they are in control of their own destiny (i.e. have an internal locus of control) vs. holding the view that things happen randomly or by chance (i.e., have an external locus of control) may impact the way in which they react to situational change. Thus, locus of control may be important to consider. There are also many additional organizational variables that job satisfaction variability may affect (e.g., organizational citizenship behaviors, organizational commitment). Thus future research should continue to investigate the individual difference predictors of and outcomes of job satisfaction variability. 67 Similarly, utilizing a measure of job stressors as a means of assessing the work environment (i.e., the situation) is, of course, not the only way that the work environment can be measured. To provide a few examples, future research could assess situational change by utilizing momentary measures of the five core job characteristics of Hackman and Oldhams (1976) job characteristics model. To provide another possibility, future research could code qualitative self-reports of the work environment. While these are also potentially interesting methods of assessing the situation, they are conceptually different from assessing the momentary environmental stressors present at work. Thus future research should continue to investigate how situational change and job satisfaction variability are related for different operationalizations of situational change. Summary Though many of the hypothesized relationships were not supported and this study is not without limitations, there are a few potentially important take home points. Frequency variation in job stressors, as well as three of the five personality traits, were shown to be important in explaining the frequency variation of three different facets of job satisfaction. Therefore it seems worthwhile to continue to investigate the roles that personality and situational change play in describing the within-person variation in job satisfaction. In addition, variation in the facet of work satisfaction was important to the prediction of job performance above and beyond mean levels of work satisfaction measured cross-sectionally, lending some support to the notion that variation in job satisfaction contributes to the prediction of job performance above and beyond the effects of cross-sectional assessments. Again, 68 while many relationships were not significant, there is some justification for continuing to investigate the role of within-person variation in predicting organizational outcomes. Finally, the facets of coworker and nature of work satisfaction may be particularly important when considering short-term within-person variation thus research should continue to explore intraindividual variability for different facets of job satisfaction. 69 Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Sample Sample Characteristic % of Sample Gender Female 84.2 Male 15.8 Age (range = 23-54; M = 36.55) 35 and Younger 49.5 Above 35 50.5 Ethnicity White/European American 54.5 Black/African American 33.7 Asian 7.9 Hispanic 1.0 Arab/Middle Eastern 1.0 Multiracial/Other 2.0 Marital Status Married 50.5 Single 30.7 Living Together or In Dating Relationship 7.0 Divorced or Separated 7.0 Engaged 5.0 Parental Status Has Children 55.4 No Children 44.6 Family Income $15,000-$30,000 14.1 $30,000-$45,000 22.2 $45,000-$75,000 36.4 $75,000-$100,000 15.2 Above $100,000 12.1 Job Tenure (range = 2 months37 years; M=5.75 years) 1 Year or Less 25.7 2-3 Years 18.9 4-5 Years 20.9 6-7 Years 11.9 8 Years and Above 22.6 Highest Graduate Degree No Degree Beyond HS 2.0 Bachelors 48.5 Masters 30.7 Doctoral 5.0 70 Table 2 Cronbachs Alpha by Facet: Average of a Random Sample of Time Points Facet Average Alpha Coworker .711 Pay .793 Promotion .831 Supervisor .884 Nature of Work .921 71 Table 3 Means and Standard Deviations of Facets: Across all Time Points Facet N Mean Standard Deviation Pay 1818 2.68 1.11 Promotion 1818 2.47 1.09 Supervisor 1818 4.22 1.32 Coworker 1818 4.29 .99 Nature of Work 1818 4.19 1.28 Note: N = 1818 reflects that means were calculated across all individuals and across all time points for each facet. 72 Table 4 Means and Standard Deviations of Frequency Variation for Each Facet of Job Satisfaction Facet N Mean Standard Deviation PayF 99 .2604 .1303 ProF 97 .2417 .1293 SupF 98 .2693 .1389 CoF 100 .2583 .1298 WrkF 98 .2755 .1339 Note. PayF = Frequency variation in pay satisfaction, ProF = Frequency variation in promotion satisfaction, SupF = Frequency variation in supervisor satisfaction, CoF = Frequency variation in coworker satisfaction, WrkF = Frequency variation in work satisfaction 73 Table 5 Means and Standard Deviations of Amplitude Variation for Each Facet of Job Satisfaction Facet N Mean Standard Deviation PayA 98 .4049 .5447 ProA 95 .4753 1.1265 SupA 91 .6417 1.4229 CoA 98 .6037 1.0821 WrkA 97 .6949 1.1441 Note. PayA = Amplitude variation in pay satisfaction, ProA = Amplitude variation in promotion satisfaction, SupA = Amplitude variation in supervisor satisfaction, CoA = Amplitude variation in coworker satisfaction, WrkF = Frequency variation in work satisfaction 74 Table 6 Intercorrelations Amongst Study Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 PayF -- 2 PayA **0.43 -- 3 ProF 0.01 0.06 -- 4 ProA -0.15 0.02 **0.40 -- 5 SupF 0.04 -0.12 0.05 -0.08 -- 6 SupA 0.08 -0.07 0.16 -0.05 **0.41 -- 7 CoF 0.09 0.15 0.18 0.00 *0.25 0.19 -- 8 CoA -0.01 0.10 *0.21 0.11 -0.13 -0.06 **0.57 -- 9 WrkF -0.06 -0.08 -0.05 -0.14 0.11 0.01 -0.10 -0.03 -- 10 WrkA -0.04 -0.10 0.06 -0.07 0.07 -0.08 -0.16 -0.01 **0.53 -- 11 StrsF 0.12 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.11 0.06 *0.22 0.09 -0.05 -0.09 -- 12 StrsA 0.06 0.09 -0.10 -0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0.05 0.04 -0.06 -0.04 *0.21 -- 13 Pay -0.16 *-0.21 -0.15 -0.03 0.07 0.02 -0.10 -0.17 *0.21 0.13 -0.06 -0.03 0.81 14 Pro -0.11 -0.09 -0.07 -0.13 0.06 0.15 -0.08 -0.12 0.14 -0.02 0.07 0.07 **0.62 0.83 15 Sup 0.15 0.08 -0.15 -0.05 -0.03 0.02 -0.18 0.00 0.06 -0.10 -0.06 0.03 **0.32 **0.32 0.88 16 Co -0.04 0.02 -0.01 0.15 0.11 0.05 0.00 -0.10 0.16 -0.02 -0.04 0.20 **0.31 *0.20 **0.43 0.70 17 Wrk 0.02 -0.12 -0.03 0.09 0.03 0.06 -0.12 0.00 0.14 0.04 -0.08 0.08 0.16 0.19 **0.44 **0.39 0.93 18 NA *-0.21 -0.11 0.04 -0.07 -0.03 0.02 0.06 0.01 *-0.21 0.04 -0.09 -0.09 0.02 0.00 -0.17 *-0.22 *-0.24 0.95 19 PA 0.16 0.07 -0.05 0.02 0.03 -0.01 0.00 0.05 *0.29 0.07 0.15 0.08 0.01 0.15 0.19 0.13 **0.27 **-0.52 0.95 20 Extr 0.14 0.05 0.10 0.01 0.05 -0.04 0.09 0.04 0.03 -0.04 0.19 0.05 -0.05 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.05 *-0.20 **0.38 0.91 tt 21 Neur *0.21 0.08 0.06 0.09 0.00 -0.10 -0.06 -0.02 0.20 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.11 0.00 *0.24 **0.26 **-0.67 **0.49 0.15 0.89 22 Open 0.02 0.05 -0.03 -0.08 0.02 0.01 -0.19 -0.16 -0.09 -0.06 -0.12 0.02 -0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 -0.09 *0.23 **0.27 0.02 0.81 23 Turn -0.03 0.04 0.06 -0.07 -0.03 -0.02 0.08 0.08 -0.16 -0.06 0.16 -0.01 **-0.33 **-0.31 **-0.43 **-0.41 **-0.41 0.17 -0.02 0.03 -0.14 0.01 0.90 24 Perf 0.15 0.06 -0.16 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.02 0.07 *0.25 0.05 0.16 0.17 -0.08 -0.06 0.07 0.00 *0.23 **-0.30 **0.44 0.16 *0.24 0.06 0.01 0.73 Note. tt Neuroticism is scored such that high scores indicate high emotional stability (i.e. low neuroticism) *p < .05, **p< .01, Reliability along the diagonal were appropriate, PayF = Frequency variation in pay satisfaction, PayA = Amplitude variation in pay satisfaction, ProF = Frequency variation in promotion satisfaction, ProA = Amplitude variation in promotion satisfaction, SupF = Frequency variation in supervisor satisfaction, SupA = Amplitude variation in supervisor satisfaction, CoF = Frequency variation in coworker satisfaction, CoA = Amplitude variation in coworker satisfaction, WrkF = Frequency variation in work satisfaction, WrkA = Amplitude variation in work satisfaction, StrsF = Frequency variation in job stressors, StrsA = Frequency variation in job stressors, Pay = Non-momentary pay satisfaction, Pro = Non-momentary promotion satisfaction, Sup = Non-momentary supervisor satisfaction, Co = Non-momentary coworker satisfaction, Wrk = Non-momentary nature of work satisfaction, NA = Negative affectivity, PA = Positive affectivity, Extr = Extraversion, Neur = Neuroticism, Open = Openness to experience, Turn = Turnover intentions, Perf = Job performance 75 Table 7 Regressing Job Satisfaction Frequency and Amplitude Variation on Personality Criterion Predictor R 2 f 2 B SE B t Pay Freq .065 .0695 NA -.022 .028 -.108 -.770 PA .002 .024 .013 .097 Extra .016 .017 .104 .942 tt Neur .017 .021 .118 .838 Open -.005 .024 -.021 -.200 Pay Amp .015 .0152 NA -.089 .123 -.105 -.723 PA -.005 .103 -.007 -.049 Extra .012 .073 .018 .158 tt Neur .004 .090 .007 .050 Open .038 .106 .040 .362 Pro Freq .036 .0373 NA .024 .029 .119 .825 PA -.022 .024 -.121 -.918 Extra .021 .017 .146 1.128 tt Neur .026 .021 .175 1.222 Open -.008 .025 -.037 -.344 Pro Amp .016 .0163 NA -.075 .255 -.044 -.295 PA -.050 .217 -.032 -.232 Extra .028 .149 .022 .191 tt Neur .093 .186 .074 .501 Open -.169 .217 -.086 -.779 Sup Freq .003 .003 NA -.007 .032 -.034 -.230 PA .001 .027 .007 .049 Extra .006 .018 .041 .353 tt Neur -.005 .023 -.028 -.195 Open .000 .026 .002 .018 Sup Freq .016 .0163 NA -.166 .330 -.076 -.502 PA .097 .277 .048 .351 Extra -.067 .197 -.041 -.343 tt Neur -.272 .253 -.165 -1.076 Open .028 .291 .011 .095 76 Table 7 (continued) Criterion Predictor R 2 f 2 B SE B t Co Freq .064 .0695 NA .011 .028 .054 .388 PA .012 .024 .062 .486 Extra .022 .016 .149 1.346 tt Neur -.011 .021 -.073 -.533 Open -.053 .024 -.233 -2.215* Co Amp .043 .0449 NA .039 .241 .024 .163 PA .180 .203 .117 .890 Extra .076 .139 .062 .550 tt Neur -.083 .174 -.067 -.476 Open -.384 .203 -.205 -1.896 Wrk Freq .114 .1287 NA -.015 .028 -.075 -.547 PA .057 .024 .291 2.329* Extra -.010 .017 -.062 -.576 tt Neur .004 .021 .023 .172 Open -.033 .024 -.143 -1.395 Wrk Amp .022 .0225 NA .225 .254 .126 .884 PA .239 .222 .141 1.077 Extra -.077 .149 -.059 -.517 tt Neur .070 .187 .053 .376 Open -.134 .216 -.067 -.619 Note. tt Neuroticism is scored such that high scores indicate high emotional stability (i.e. low neuroticism) *p < .05. Pay Freq = Frequency variation in pay satisfaction, Pay Amp = Amplitude variation in pay satisfaction, Pro Freq = Frequency variation in promotion satisfaction, Pro Amp = Amplitude variation in promotion satisfaction, Sup Freq = Frequency variation in supervisor satisfaction, Sup Amp = Amplitude variation in supervisor satisfaction, Co Freq = Frequency variation in coworker satisfaction, Co Amp = Amplitude variation in coworker satisfaction, Wrk Freq = Frequency variation in work satisfaction, Wrk Amp = Amplitude variation in work satisfaction, NA = Negative affectivity, PA = Positive affectivity, Extra = Extraversion, Neur = Neuroticism, Open = Openness to Experience. 77 Table 8 Regressing Job Satisfaction Frequency and Amplitude Variation on Job Stressor Frequency and Amplitude Variation Criterion Predictor R 2 B SE B t Pay Freq .014 Strs Freq .122 .102 .120 1.187 Pay Amp .008 Strs Amp .123 .144 .090 .855 Pro Freq .004 Strs Freq .064 .102 .064 .627 Pro Amp .001 Strs Amp -.104 .298 -.037 -.349 Sup Freq .013 Strs Freq .125 .111 .114 1.129 Sup Amp .000 Strs Amp -.061 .344 -.019 -.178 Co Freq .049 Strs Freq .227 .101 .222 2.250* Co Amp .002 Strs Amp .120 .284 .044 .423 Wrk Freq .002 Strs Freq -.050 .108 -.047 -.461 Wrk Amp .002 Strs Amp -.123 .297 -.044 -.415 Note. *p < .05. Pay Freq = Frequency variation in pay satisfaction, Pay Amp = Amplitude variation in pay satisfaction, Pro Freq = Frequency variation in promotion satisfaction, Pro Amp = Amplitude variation in promotion satisfaction, Sup Freq = Frequency variation in supervisor satisfaction, Sup Amp = Amplitude variation in supervisor satisfaction, Co Freq = Frequency variation in coworker satisfaction, Co Amp = Amplitude variation in coworker satisfaction, Wrk Freq = Frequency variation in work satisfaction, Wrk Amp = Amplitude variation in work satisfaction, Strs Freq = Frequency variation in job stressors, Strs Amp = Amplitude variation in job stressors. 78 Table 9 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining the Moderating Effect of Personality on the Relationship Between Frequency Variation in Job Stressors and Frequency Variation in Pay Satisfaction Moderator Variable R 2 R 2 f 2 B SE B t NA Step 1 .055 Strs Freq .013 .013 .103 1.034 NA -.026 .013 -.203 -2.043 Step 2 .056 .001 .001 Strs Freq(StFr) .013 .013 .102 1.022 NA -.027 .013 -.207 -1.999 (StFr) x (NA) -.002 .013 -.014 -.140 PA Step 1 .035 StFr .013 .013 .097 .956 PA .019 .013 .147 1.446 Step 2 .035 .000 .000 StFr .013 .013 .098 .954 PA .019 .013 .146 1.433 (StFr) x (PA) -.001 .013 -.008 -.080 Extraversion Step 1 .029 StFr .012 .013 .095 .921 Extra .016 .014 .124 1.204 Step 2 .063 .024 .024 StFr .013 .013 .104 1.020 Extra (Ex) .009 .014 .070 .665 (StFr) x (Ex) -.025 .013 -.192 -1.861 Neuroticism Step 1 .059 StFr .015 .013 .115 1.161 tt Neur .027 .013 .211 2.136* Step 2 .064 .004 .004 StFr .014 .013 .111 1.111 Neur (Nr) .013 .013 .228 2.230* (StFr) x (Nr) .008 .012 .069 .676 Openness Step 1 .016 StFr .016 .013 .125 1.221 Open .005 .013 .037 .361 Step 2 .018 .002 .002 StFr .016 .013 .127 1.235 Open (Op) .007 .014 .054 .494 (StFr) x (Op) .007 .014 .050 .462 Note. tt Neuroticism is scored such that high scores indicate high emotional stability (i.e. low neuroticism) *p < .05. f 2 = effect size for R 2 . Strs Freq = Frequency variation in job stressors 79 Table 10 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining the Moderating Effect of Personality on the Relationship Between Frequency Variation in Job Stressors and Frequency Variation in Promotion Satisfaction Moderator Variable R 2 R 2 f 2 B SE B t NA Step 1 .006 Strs Freq .009 .013 .068 .659 NA .006 .013 .044 .427 Step 2 .006 .000 .000 Strs Freq(StFr) .009 .013 .068 .651 NA .005 .014 .042 .393 (StFr) x (NA) -.001 .013 -.007 -.068 PA Step 1 .007 StFr .009 .013 .072 .698 PA -.007 .013 -.057 -.553 Step 2 .031 .024 .025 StFr .007 .013 .055 .534 PA -.007 .013 -.052 -.507 (StFr) x (PA) .020 .013 .155 1.510 Extraversion Step 1 .011 StFr .006 .013 .047 .448 Extra .011 .013 .087 .828 Step 2 .055 .044* .046 StFr .005 .013 .041 .402 Extra (Ex) .018 .014 .143 1.341 (StFr) x (Ex) .028 .013 .217 2.081* Neuroticism Step 1 .008 StFr .008 .013 .063 .611 tt Neur .007 .013 .058 .568 Step 2 .013 .005 .005 StFr .007 .013 .057 .551 Neur (Nr) .010 .014 .075 .711 (StFr) x (Nr) .008 .012 .074 .693 Openness Step 1 .005 StFr .008 .013 .061 .588 Open -.003 .014 -.025 -.240 Step 2 .020 .015 .015 StFr .008 .013 .063 .606 Open (Op) .002 .014 .013 .118 (StFr) x (Op) .016 .014 .128 1.192 Note. tt Neuroticism is scored such that high scores indicate high emotional stability (i.e. low neuroticism) *p < .05. f 2 = effect size for R 2 . Strs Freq = Frequency variation in job stressors 80 Table 11 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining the Moderating Effect of Personality on the Relationship Between Frequency Variation in Job Stressors and Frequency Variation in Supervisor Satisfaction Moderator Variable R 2 R 2 f 2 B SE B t NA Step 1 .013 Strs Freq .016 .014 .113 1.110 NA -.003 .014 -.090 -.184 Step 2 .020 .007 .007 Strs Freq(StFr) .016 .014 .115 1.125 NA .001 .015 .005 .045 (StFr) x (NA) .011 .014 .085 .797 PA Step 1 .013 StFr .016 .014 .113 1.103 PA .002 .014 .129 .129 Step 2 .039 .026 .027 StFr .017 .014 .125 1.226 PA .000 .014 -.002 -.017 (StFr) x (PA) -.023 .015 -.161 -1.586 Extraversion Step 1 .014 StFr .015 .014 .110 1.059 Extra .003 .014 .025 .243 Step 2 .017 .003 .003 StFr .016 .015 .112 1.071 Extra (Ex) .001 .015 .010 .089 (StFr) x (Ex) -.008 .015 -.057 -.536 Neuroticism Step 1 .013 StFr .016 .014 .114 1.123 tt Neur .000 .014 .003 .027 Step 2 .026 .013 .013 StFr .016 .014 .117 1.150 Neur (Nr) -.004 .015 -.030 -.282 (StFr) x (Nr) -.015 .014 -.117 -1.101 Openness Step 1 .014 StFr .017 .014 .119 1.155 Open .004 .014 .032 .315 Step 2 .015 .001 .001 StFr .017 .014 1.145 1.145 Open (Op) .004 .015 .235 .235 (StFr) x (Op) -.003 .015 -.202 -.202 Note. tt Neuroticism is scored such that high scores indicate high emotional stability (i.e. low neuroticism) *p < .05. f 2 = effect size for R 2 . Strs Freq = Frequency variation in job stressors 81 Table 12 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining the Moderating Effect of Personality on the Relationship Between Frequency Variation in Job Stressors and Frequency Variation in Coworker Satisfaction Moderator Variable R 2 R 2 f 2 B SE B t NA Step 1 .056 Strs Freq .030 .013 .228 2.301* NA .010 .013 .080 .811 Step 2 .056 .000 .000 Strs Freq(StFr) .030 .013 .228 2.292* NA .011 .013 .084 .818 (StFr) x (NA) .002 .013 .016 .151 PA Step 1 .050 StFr .029 .013 .225 2.252* PA -.003 .013 -.024 .807 Step 2 .050 .000 .000 StFr .030 .013 .225 2.243* PA -.003 .013 -.025 -.252 (StFr) x (PA) -.001 .013 -.011 -.106 Extraversion Step 1 .051 StFr .028 .013 .212 2.107* Extra .006 .013 .047 .468 Step 2 .059 .008 .008 StFr .027 .013 .209 2.072* Extra (Ex) .009 .014 .071 .680 (StFr) x (Ex) .012 .013 .090 .880 Neuroticism Step 1 .053 StFr .029 .013 .222 2.246* tt Neur -.008 .013 -.061 -.617 Step 2 .057 .004 .004 StFr .029 .013 .224 2.261* Neur (Nr) -.010 .013 -.080 -.772 (StFr) x (Nr) -.008 .013 -.067 -.652 Openness Step 1 .074* StFr .026 .013 .202 2.048* Open -.021 .013 -.160 -1.267 Step 2 .084 .010 .010 StFr .026 .013 .199 2.025* Open (Op) -.025 .013 -.193 -1.861 (StFr) x (Op) -.013 .013 -.104 -1.009 Note. tt Neuroticism is scored such that high scores indicate high emotional stability (i.e. low neuroticism) *p < .05. f 2 = effect size for R 2 . Strs Freq = Frequency variation in job stressors 82 Table 13 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining the Moderating Effect of Personality on the Relationship Between Frequency Variation in Job Stressors and Frequency Variation in Nature of Work Satisfaction Moderator Variable R 2 R 2 f 2 B SE B t NA Step 1 .048 Strs Freq -.008 .014 -.060 -.601 NA -.029 .013 -.215 -2.142* Step 2 .050 .002 .002 Strs Freq(StFr) -.008 .014 -.060 -.595 NA -.027 .014 -.202 -1.925 (StFr) x (NA) .006 .014 .045 .425 PA Step 1 .087* StFr -.010 .013 -.077 -.786 PA .040 .014 .293 2.978** Step 2 .088 .001 .001 StFr -.011 .013 -.078 -.786 PA .041 .014 .295 2.949** (StFr) x (PA) .001 .014 .010 .102 Extraversion Step 1 .004 StFr -.008 .014 -.056 -.534 Extra .006 .014 .044 .044 Step 2 .005 .001 .001 StFr -.008 .014 -.057 -.057 Extra (Ex) .007 .014 .053 .053 (StFr) x (Ex) .005 .014 .037 .037 Neuroticism Step 1 .041 StFr -.006 .014 -.043 -.432 tt Neur .027 .014 .197 1.959 Step 2 .041 .000 .000 StFr -.006 .014 -.044 -.431 Neur (Nr) .027 .014 .201 1.901 (StFr) x (Nr) .002 .013 .015 .142 Openness Step 1 .012 StFr -.008 .014 -.060 -.583 Open -.013 .014 -.098 -.950 Step 2 .021 .009 .009 StFr -.007 .014 -.055 -.536 Open (Op) -.009 .015 -.064 -.586 (StFr) x (Op) .014 .014 .103 .952 Note. tt Neuroticism is scored such that high scores indicate high emotional stability (i.e. low neuroticism) *p < .05. f 2 = effect size for R 2 . Strs Freq = Frequency variation in job stressors 83 Table 14 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining the Moderating Effect of Personality on the Relationship Between Amplitude Variation in Job Stressors and Amplitude Variation in Pay Satisfaction Moderator Variable R 2 R 2 f 2 B SE B t NA Step 1 .023 Strs Amp .044 .059 .080 .756 NA -.067 .058 -.122 -1.155 Step 2 .029 .006 .006 StrsAmp(StAm) -.018 .102 -.033 -.179 NA -.071 .059 -.130 -1.219 (StAm) x (NA) -.086 .115 -.137 -.746 PA Step 1 .014 StAm .047 .059 .084 .794 PA .049 .059 .075 .708 Step 2 .030 .017 .017 StAm -.019 .080 -.035 -.244 PA .050 .059 .091 .852 (StAm) x (PA) .111 .091 .176 1.223 Extraversion Step 1 .012 StAm .048 .059 .087 .819 Extra .035 .059 .063 .594 Step 2 .024 .012 .012 StAm -.047 .108 -.086 -.438 Extra (Ex) .059 .063 .105 .926 (StAm) x (Ex) .232 .221 .208 1.050 Neuroticism Step 1 .018 StAm .047 .059 .086 .809 tt Neur .054 .059 .097 .917 Step 2 .027 .010 .010 StAm .013 .069 .023 .186 Neur (Nr) .054 .059 .096 .911 (StAm) x (Nr) .063 .068 .116 .924 Openness Step 1 .009 StAm .050 .059 .090 .846 Open .020 .059 .036 .338 Step 2 .028 .019 .019 StAm .035 .060 .062 .575 Open (Op) .015 .059 .028 .262 (StAm) x (Op) -.113 .088 -.139 -1.288 Note. tt Neuroticism is scored such that high scores indicate high emotional stability (i.e. low neuroticism) *p < .05. f 2 = effect size for R 2 . Strs Freq = Frequency variation in job stressors 84 Table 15 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining the Moderating Effect of Personality on the Relationship Between Amplitude Variation in Job Stressors and Amplitude Variation in Promotion Satisfaction Moderator Variable R 2 R 2 f 2 B SE B t NA Step 1 .009 Strs Amp -.051 .122 -.045 -.417 NA -.096 .121 -.085 -.792 Step 2 .009 .000 .000 StrsAmp(StAm) -.031 .214 -.027 -.144 NA -.094 .123 -.084 -.770 (StAm) x (NA) .028 .241 .022 .115 PA Step 1 .002 StAm -.045 .122 -.040 -.366 PA .031 .123 .027 .253 Step 2 .002 .000 .000 StAm -.062 .167 -.055 -.369 PA .033 .124 .029 .267 (StAm) x (PA) .029 .191 .022 .150 Extraversion Step 1 .002 StAm -.044 .122 -.039 -.358 Extra .024 .122 .022 .200 Step 2 .002 .000 .000 StAm -.020 .225 -.018 -.088 Extra (Ex) .018 .134 .016 .133 (StAm) x (Ex) -.058 .457 -.026 -.126 Neuroticism Step 1 .011 StAm -.047 .121 -.042 -.390 tt Neur .114 .123 .100 .929 Step 2 .011 .000 .000 StAm -.048 .145 -.042 -.329 Neur (Nr) .114 .124 .100 .923 (StAm) x (Nr) .001 .143 .001 .004 Openness Step 1 .010 StAm -.042 .121 -.037 -.344 Open .105 .123 -.092 -.854 Step 2 .010 .000 .000 StAm -.044 .125 -.039 -.353 Open (Op) -.106 .124 -.092 -.853 (StAm) x (Op) -.016 .184 -.010 -.088 Note. tt Neuroticism is scored such that high scores indicate high emotional stability (i.e. low neuroticism) *p < .05. f 2 = effect size for R 2 . Strs Freq = Frequency variation in job stressors 85 Table 16 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining the Moderating Effect of Personality on the Relationship Between Amplitude Variation in Job Stressors and Amplitude Variation in Supervisor Satisfaction Moderator Variable R 2 R 2 f 2 B SE B t NA Step 1 .000 Strs Amp -.025 .141 -.019 -.177 NA -.001 .143 -.001 -.005 Step 2 .000 .000 .000 StrsAmp(StAm) -.040 .248 -.031 -.161 NA -.002 .144 -.001 -.011 (StAm) x (NA) -.021 .280 -.014 -.074 PA Step 1 .000 StAm -.024 .141 -.019 -.173 PA -.008 .146 -.006 -.052 Step 2 .001 .001 .001 StAm -.045 .193 -.035 -.233 PA -.005 .148 -.004 -.035 (StAm) x (PA) .035 .221 .024 .157 Extraversion Step 1 .003 StAm -.022 .141 -.017 -.157 Extra -.064 .146 -.048 -.438 Step 2 .006 .003 .003 StAm -.139 .263 -.108 -.527 Extra (Ex) -.038 .155 -.028 -.242 (StAm) x (Ex) .282 .537 .109 .525 Neuroticism Step 1 .012 StAm -.018 .140 -.014 -.129 tt Neur -.149 .149 -.110 -1.005 Step 2 .015 .033 .034 StAm -.062 .167 -.049 -.373 Neur (Nr) -.151 .149 -.111 -1.014 (StAm) x (Nr) .081 .164 .064 .492 Openness Step 1 .005 StAm -.027 .140 -.021 -.191 Open .096 .147 .071 .652 Step 2 .010 .005 .005 StAm -.045 .144 -.035 -.314 Open (Op) .090 .147 .068 .614 (StAm) x (Op) -.134 .211 -.071 -.634 Note. tt Neuroticism is scored such that high scores indicate high emotional stability (i.e. low neuroticism) *p < .05. f 2 = effect size for R 2 . Strs Freq = Frequency variation in job stressors 86 Table 17 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining the Moderating Effect of Personality on the Relationship Between Amplitude Variation in Job Stressors and Amplitude Variation in Coworker Satisfaction Moderator Variable R 2 R 2 f 2 B SE B t NA .002 Step 1 Strs Amp .050 .116 .045 .426 NA .009 .115 .009 .082 Step 2 .013 .011 .011 StrsAmp(StAm) -.112 .202 -.102 -.554 NA -.002 .116 -.002 -.019 (StAm) x (NA) -.223 .228 -.179 -.977 PA Step 1 .004 StAm .044 .116 .040 .381 PA .052 .116 .047 .450 Step 2 .018 .014 .014 StAm -.074 .158 -.067 -.470 PA .068 .116 .063 .588 (StAm) x (PA) .200 .180 .158 1.110 Extraversion Step 1 .004 StAm .046 .116 .042 .396 Extra .051 .114 .047 .444 Step 2 .008 .004 .004 StAm -.061 .212 -.055 -.288 Extra (Ex) .080 .125 .074 .642 (StAm) x (Ex) .260 .430 .118 .603 Neuroticism Step 1 .002 StAm .049 .116 .045 .426 tt Neur -.016 .116 -.014 -.134 Step 2 .015 .012 .012 StAm -.029 .138 -.026 -.209 Neur (Nr) -.016 .116 -.015 -.140 (StAm) x (Nr) .143 .135 .132 1.060 Openness Step 1 .032 StAm .052 .114 .047 .456 Open -.187 .112 -.173 -1.667 Step 2 .033 .001 .001 StAm .044 .117 .040 .374 Open (Op) -.190 .113 -.176 -1.682 (StAm) x (Op) -.061 .172 -.038 -.357 Note. tt Neuroticism is scored such that high scores indicate high emotional stability (i.e. low neuroticism) *p < .05. f 2 = effect size for R 2 . Strs Freq = Frequency variation in job stressors 87 Table 18 Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses Examining the Moderating Effect of Personality on the Relationship Between Amplitude Variation in Job Stressors and Amplitude Variation in Nature of Work Satisfaction Moderator Variable R 2 R 2 f 2 B SE B t NA Step 1 .002 Strs Amp -.048 .122 -.042 -.391 NA .024 .122 .021 .197 Step 2 .008 .005 .005 StrsAmp(StAm) -.167 .213 -.146 -.784 NA .015 .123 .013 .125 (StAm) x (NA) -.164 .240 -.127 -.684 PA Step 1 .006 StAm -.058 .122 -.051 -.476 PA .078 .127 .066 .615 Step 2 .006 .000 .000 StAm -.059 .166 -.051 -.353 PA .078 .128 .066 .609 (StAm) x (PA) .001 .191 .001 .005 Extraversion Step 1 .003 StAm -.048 .122 -.042 -.392 Extra -.043 .121 -.038 -.356 Step 2 .008 .005 .005 StAm .072 .223 .063 .325 Extra (Ex) -.077 .132 -.068 -.581 (StAm) x (Ex) -.292 .453 -.128 -.645 Neuroticism Step 1 .002 StAm -.051 .122 -.045 -.422 tt Neur .022 .124 .019 .174 Step 2 .003 .001 .001 StAm -.067 .145 -.059 -.463 Neur (Nr) .021 .125 .018 .172 (StAm) x (Nr) .029 .143 .026 .203 Openness Step 1 .008 StAm -.048 .121 -.042 -.396 Open -.091 .121 -.080 -.756 Step 2 .008 .000 .000 StAm -.049 .124 -.043 -.393 Open (Op) -.092 .122 -.081 -.752 (StAm) x (Op) -.007 .184 -.004 -.035 Note. tt Neuroticism is scored such that high scores indicate high emotional stability (i.e. low neuroticism) *p < .05. f 2 = effect size for R 2 . Strs Freq = Frequency variation in job stressors 88 Table 19 Regressing Job Performance on Frequency and Amplitude Variation in Job Satisfaction Criterion Predictor R 2 f 2 B SE B t Perf .112 .1261 Pay Freq .653 .481 .140 1.357 Pro Freq -.724 .485 -.155 -1.493 Sup Freq .210 .479 .047 .439 Co Freq .034 .523 .007 .065 Wrk Freq 1.200 .499 .254 2.403* Perf .028 .0288 Pay Amp -.007 .162 -.005 -.045 Pro Amp .053 .060 .103 .882 Sup Amp .052 .053 .113 .975 Co Amp .031 .073 .051 .424 Wrk Amp .041 .066 .072 .617 Note. *p < .05. Perf = Job Performance, Pay Freq = Frequency variation in pay satisfaction, Pay Amp = Amplitude variation in pay satisfaction, Pro Freq = Frequency variation in promotion satisfaction, Pro Amp = Amplitude variation in promotion satisfaction, Sup Freq = Frequency variation in supervisor satisfaction, Sup Amp = Amplitude variation in supervisor satisfaction, Co Freq = Frequency variation in coworker satisfaction, Co Amp = Amplitude variation in coworker satisfaction, Wrk Freq = Frequency variation in work satisfaction, Wrk Amp = Amplitude variation in work satisfaction, Strs Freq = Frequency variation in job stressors, Strs Amp = Amplitude variation in job stressors. 89 Table 20 Regressing Turnover Intentions on Frequency and Amplitude Variation in Job Satisfaction Criterion Predictor R 2 f 2 B SE B t Turn Int .019 .0194 Pay Freq -.129 .862 -.016 -.149 Pro Freq .326 .870 .041 .374 Sup Freq -.123 .858 -.016 -.144 Co Freq .483 .937 .059 .515 Wrk Freq -.822 .895 -.102 -.918 Turn Int .039 .0406 Pay Amp .309 .267 .136 1.156 Pro Amp -.088 .099 -.103 -.886 Sup Amp .006 .088 .008 .073 Co Amp .086 .085 .085 .715 Wrk Amp -.017 -.018 -.018 -.156 Note. *p < .05. Turn Int = Turnover Intentions, Pay Freq = Frequency variation in pay satisfaction, Pay Amp = Amplitude variation in pay satisfaction, Pro Freq = Frequency variation in promotion satisfaction, Pro Amp = Amplitude variation in promotion satisfaction, Sup Freq = Frequency variation in supervisor satisfaction, Sup Amp = Amplitude variation in supervisor satisfaction, Co Freq = Frequency variation in coworker satisfaction, Co Amp = Amplitude variation in coworker satisfaction, Wrk Freq = Frequency variation in work satisfaction, Wrk Amp = Amplitude variation in work satisfaction, Strs Freq = Frequency variation in job stressors, Strs Amp = Amplitude variation in job stressors. 90 Table 21 Summary of Hierarchical Regressions Examining the Impact of Job Satisfaction Variability on Job Performance Criterion Predictor R 2 R 2 f 2 B SE B t Perf .104 Step 1 NM Pay .007 .079 .011 .083 NM Pro -.049 .079 -.081 -.623 NM Sup .031 .059 .062 .526 NM Co -.098 .079 -.147 -1.237 NM Wrk .167 .059 .323 2.802* Step 2 .216* .112 .1261 NM Pay -.041 .079 -.071 -.527 NM Pro -.056 .077 -.093 -.725 NM Sup .028 .060 .057 .470 NM Co -.100 .078 -.149 -1.274 NM Wrk .159 .058 .308 2.750** Pay Freq .467 .486 .100 .960 Pro Freq -.747 .481 -.160 -1.555 Sup Freq .257 .471 .057 .545 Co Freq .283 .519 .059 .545 Wrk Freq 1.345 .507 .285 2.655** Perf .122 Step 1 NM Pay .028 .084 .047 .335 NM Pro -.082 .088 -.127 -.932 NM Sup .040 .068 .075 .599 NM Co -.101 .083 -.153 -1.225 NM Wrk .183 .065 .349 2.820** Step 2 .155 .033 .0341 NM Pay .038 .091 .062 .411 NM Pro -.087 .092 -.136 -.951 NM Sup .043 .071 .080 .604 NM Co -.115 .086 -.174 -1.334 NM Wrk .194 .070 .368 2.578** Pay Amp .122 .169 .090 .723 Pro Amp .046 .061 .089 .752 Sup Amp .056 .052 .122 1.075 Co Amp .007 .072 .011 .097 Wrk Amp .049 .066 .087 .747 Note. *p < .05., **p < .01, Perf = Job Performance, Pay Freq = Frequency variation in pay satisfaction, Pay Amp = Amplitude variation in pay satisfaction, Pro Freq = Frequency variation in promotion satisfaction, Pro Amp = Amplitude variation in promotion satisfaction, Sup Freq = Frequency variation in supervisor satisfaction, Sup Amp = Amplitude variation in supervisor satisfaction, Co Freq = Frequency variation in coworker satisfaction, Co Amp = Amplitude variation in coworker satisfaction, Wrk Freq = Frequency variation in work satisfaction, Wrk Amp = Amplitude variation in work satisfaction, Strs Freq = Frequency variation in job stressors, Strs Amp = Amplitude variation in job stressors. NM Pay = non-momentary pay satisfaction, NM Pro = Non-momentary promotion satisfaction, NM Sup = Non-momentary supervisor satisfaction, NM Co = Non-momentary coworker satisfaction, NM Wrk = Non-momentary nature of work satisfaction. 91 Table 22 Summary of Hierarchical Regressions Examining the Impact of Job Satisfaction Variability on Turnover Intentions Criterion Predictor R 2 R 2 f 2 B SE B t Turn Int .302** Step 1 NM Pay -.184 .119 -.185 -1.549 NM Pro -.101 .119 -.097 -.844 NM Sup -.175 .089 -.204 -1.959 NM Co -.180 .119 -.158 -1.510 NM Wrk -.156 .090 -.177 -1.739 Step 2 .312** .010 .0101 NM Pay -.202 .126 -.204 -1.609 NM Pro -.112 .124 -.108 -.905 NM Sup -.160 .097 -.187 -1.655 NM Co -.200 .125 -.175 -1.596 NM Wrk -.158 .092 -.179 -1.709 Pay Freq -.496 .777 -.062 -.638 Pro Freq -.125 .768 -.016 -.163 Sup Freq .622 .753 .081 .825 Co Freq .138 .829 .017 .166 Wrk Freq .033 .810 .004 .041 Turn Int Step 1 .324** NM Pay -.176 .123 -.177 -1.432 NM Pro -.018 .128 -.017 -.140 NM Sup -.197 .098 -.221 -2.008* NM Co -.205 .120 -.186 -1.704 NM Wrk -.202 .095 -.231 -2.132* Step 2 .336** .011 .0111 NM Pay -.147 .134 -.148 -1.099 NM Pro -.044 .135 -.041 -.328 NM Sup -.217 .104 -.244 -2.085* NM Co -.184 .127 -.167 -1.449 NM Wrk -.193 .103 -.221 -1.870 Pay Amp .023 .249 .010 .093 Pro Amp -.060 .090 -.070 -.671 Sup Amp .031 .077 .040 .401 Co Amp .080 .106 .078 .754 Wrk Amp -.017 .097 -.018 -.171 Note. *p < .05., **p < .01, Turn Int = Turnover Intentions, Pay Freq = Frequency variation in pay satisfaction, Pay Amp = Amplitude variation in pay satisfaction, Pro Freq = Frequency variation in promotion satisfaction, Pro Amp = Amplitude variation in promotion satisfaction, Sup Freq = Frequency variation in supervisor satisfaction, Sup Amp = Amplitude variation in supervisor satisfaction, Co Freq = Frequency variation in coworker satisfaction, Co Amp = Amplitude variation in coworker satisfaction, Wrk Freq = Frequency variation in work satisfaction, Wrk Amp = Amplitude variation in work satisfaction, Strs Freq = Frequency variation in job stressors, Strs Amp = Amplitude variation in job stressors. NM Pay = non-momentary pay satisfaction, NM Pro = Non-momentary promotion satisfaction, NM Sup = Non-momentary supervisor satisfaction, NM Co = Non-momentary coworker satisfaction, NM Wrk = Non-momentary nature of work satisfaction. 92 Figure 1 The Moderating Effect of Extraversion on the Relationship Between the Frequency Variation in Job Stressors and the Frequency Variation in Promotion Satisfaction 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 Frequency of Variation in Job Stressors F r e q u e n c y o f V a r i a t i o n i n P r o m o t i o n S a t i s f a c t i o n Moderate Extraversion Low Extraversion High Extraversion .11 .08 .06 93 APPENDIX A Recruitment Letter Attention WSU Staff: I am currently a graduate student collecting data for a research project in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Specifically, I am investigating how individuals job satisfaction changes over time. This research has important implications for the study of job satisfaction within my field, as well as for organizations interested in better understanding the satisfaction of their employees. I am looking for WSU staff willing to volunteer their time to participate in this study. In order to participate, staff must: 1. Work full time 2. Have continuous access to a computer at work In general, interested individuals will be asked to complete a 5-minute job satisfaction survey three times a day on six different business days scattered over a three week period. This survey will be available on-line, and thus can be accessed from any computer with Internet access. Volunteers will be compensated $30.00 for their participation. All information collected during the course of this study will remain confidential and will only be used for research purposes. If you are interested, please contact me via email at lmyoung@wayne.edu. We can then further discuss your involvement in this study. Thank you, Lindsey M. Young Psychology Department 94 APPENDIX B Momentary Job Satisfaction Survey 1. At this moment, I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do. 2. At this moment, there is really too little chance for promotion on my job. 3. At this moment, my supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job. 4. At this moment, I am not satisfied with the benefits I receive. 5. At this moment, I feel that I receive the recognition that I should for doing a good job. 6. At this moment, many of the rules and procedures make doing a good job difficult. 7. At this moment, I like the people I work with. 8. At this moment, I feel my job is meaningless. 9. At this moment, communications seem good within this organization. 10. At this moment, I feel that raises are too few and far between. 11. At this moment, those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted. 12. At this moment, my supervisor is unfair to me. 13. At this moment, I feel that the benefits we receive are as good as most other organizations offer. 14. At this moment, I do not feel that the work I do is appreciated. 15. At this moment, my efforts to do a good job are seldom blocked by red tape. 95 16. At this moment, I find I have to work harder at my job because of the incompetence of people I work with. 17. At this moment, I like doing the things I do at work. 18. At this moment, the goals of this organization are not clear to me. 19. At this moment, I feel unappreciated by the organization when I think about what they pay me. 20. At this moment I feel that people get ahead as fast here as they do in other places. 21. At this moment, my supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates. 22. At this moment, the benefit package we have is equitable. 23. At this moment, there are few rewards for those who work here. 24. At this moment, I have too much to do at work. 25. At this moment, I enjoy my coworkers. 26. At this moment, I feel that I do not know what is going on with the organization. 27. At this moment, I feel a sense of pride in doing my job. 28. At this moment, I feel satisfied with my chances for salary increases. 29. At this moment, there are benefits we do not have which we should have. 30. At this moment, I like my supervisor. 31. At this moment, I have too much paperwork. 32. At this moment, I don't feel my efforts are rewarded the way they should be. 33. At this moment, I am satisfied with my chances for promotion. 96 34. At this moment, there is too much bickering and fighting at work. 35. At this moment, my job is enjoyable. 36. At this moment, work assignments are not fully explained. 97 APPENDIX C Reduced Momentary Job Satisfaction Survey 1. At this moment, I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do. 2. At this moment, there is really too little chance for promotion on my job. 3. At this moment, my supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job. 4. At this moment, I like the people I work with. 5. At this moment, I feel my job is meaningless. 6. At this moment, I feel that raises are too few and far between. 7. At this moment, those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted. 8. At this moment, my supervisor is unfair to me. 9. At this moment, I find I have to work harder at my job because of the incompetence of people I work with. 10. At this moment, I like doing the things I do at work. 11. At this moment, I feel unappreciated by the organization when I think about what they pay me. 12. At this moment I feel that people get ahead as fast here as they do in other places. 13. At this moment, my supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates. 14. At this moment, I enjoy my coworkers. 15. At this moment, I feel a sense of pride in doing my job. 16. At this moment, I feel satisfied with my chances for salary increases. 98 17. At this moment, I like my supervisor. 18. At this moment, I am satisfied with my chances for promotion. 19. At this moment, there is too much bickering and fighting at work. 20. At this moment, my job is enjoyable. 99 APPENDIX D Reduced Non-Momentary Job Satisfaction Survey 1. I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do. 2. There is really too little chance for promotion on my job. 3. My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job. 4. I like the people I work with. 5. I feel my job is meaningless. 6. I feel that raises are too few and far between. 7. Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted. 8. My supervisor is unfair to me. 9. I find I have to work harder at my job because of the incompetence of people I work with. 10. I like doing the things I do at work. 11. I feel unappreciated by the organization when I think about what they pay me. 12. I feel that people get ahead as fast here as they do in other places. 13. My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates. 14. I enjoy my coworkers. 15. I feel a sense of pride in doing my job. 16. I feel satisfied with my chances for salary increases. 17. I like my supervisor. 18. I am satisfied with my chances for promotion. 19. There is too much bickering and fighting at work. 20. My job is enjoyable. 100 APPENDIX E Momentary Job Stressors Scale 1. At this moment, I have too much work to do. 2. At this moment, I am unsure about what people expect of me. 3. At this moment, I feel that I am unable to influence my supervisors decisions- even when they affect me. 4. At this moment, I feel that I have a lot of responsibility for the work of others. 5. At this moment, I am working very hard- either physically or mentally. 6. At this moment, I can use my own initiative to do things. 7. At this moment, I am under pressure to keep up with new ways of doing things. 8. At this moment, I have to decide things where mistakes could be quite costly. 9. At this moment, I feel I work too many hours. 10. At this moment, I have too little help or equipment to get the job done well. 11. At this moment, I feel my supervisor keeps a close watch on me. 12. At this moment, I have important responsibilities. 13. At this moment, I am confused about exactly what I am supposed to do. 14. At this moment, I feel I am given a lot of freedom to decide how to do my work. 15. At this moment, there are clear, planned goals and objectives that exist for my job. 16. At this moment, I have the freedom to do as I like on my job. 17. At this moment, I am clear about what needs to be done on my job. 18. At this moment, I feel I am encouraged to make my own decisions. 19. At this moment, I know exactly what is expected of me. 101 20. At this moment, I feel certain about how much or how little authority I have. 102 REFERENCES Agho, A. O., Mueller, C. W., & Price, J. L. (1993). Determinants of employee job satisfaction: An empirical test of a causal model. Human Relations, 46, 1007- 1027. Arvey, R.D., Bouchard, T.J., Segal, N.L. & Abraham, L.M. (1989). Job satisfaction: environmental and genetic components. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 187-192. Babakus, E., Cravens, S. W., Johnston, M., Moncreif, W. C. (1996). Examining the role of organizational variables in the Salesperson job satisfaction model. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 16, 33-46. Barsky, A., Thoresen, C. J., Warren, C. R., Kaplan, S. A. (2004). Modeling negative affectivity and job stress: A contingency based approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 915-936. Bing, M. N., & LeBreton, J. M. (2001). A Microsoft Excel worksheet for graphing a regression interaction for a model with 2 continuous regressors. Bolger, N., & Schilling, E. A. (1991). Personality and the problems of everyday life: The role of neuroticism in exposure and reactivity to daily stressors. Journal of Personality, 59, 358-386. Borman, W., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In Schmitt, & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection (pp. 71-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 103 Boswell, W. R., Boudreau, J. W., & Tichy, J. (2005). The relationship between employee job change and job satisfaction: The honeymoon-hangover effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 882-892. Bowling, N. A., Beehr, T. A., Wagner, S. H., & Libkum, T. M. (2005). Adaptation-level theory, opponent process theory, and dispositions: An integrated approach to the stability of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1044- 1053. Brief, A. P, Burke, M. J., George, J. M., Robinson, B. S., & Webster, J. (1988). Should negative affectivity remain an unmeasured variable in the study of job stress? Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 193-198. Brief, A. P., Butcher, A. H., George, J. M., & Link, K. E. (1993). Integrating top-down and bottom-up theories of subjective well-being: the case of health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 646-653. Brief, A. P., Butcher, A. H., & Roberson, L. (1995). Cookies, disposition, and job attitudes: The effects of positive mood inducing events and negative affectivity on job satisfaction in a field experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 55-62. Bring, J. (1994). How to standardize regression coefficients. The American Statistician, 48, 209-213. Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 104 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2 nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3 rd Edition. Lawerence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ. Connolly, J. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The role of affectivity in job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 265-281. Cranny, C. J., Smith, P. C., & Stone, E. F. (Eds.) (1992). Job Satisfaction: Advances in Research and Applications. The Free Press: New York. Dormann, C. Fay, D., Zapf, D., & Frese, M. (2006). A state-trait analysis of job satisfaction: On the effect of core self evaluations. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 27-51. Fisher, C. A. (2003). Why do lay people believe that satisfaction and performance are correlated? Possible sources of commonsense theory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 753-777. Fisher, R. A. (1929). Tests of significance in harmonic analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series A, 125, 54-59. Fisher, C. D., & Gitelson, R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the correlates of role conflict and role ambiguity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 320-333. 105 Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287-322. Frijda, N. H. (1986). The Emotions. Cambridge University Press: New York, NY. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family conflict: Testing a model of the work-family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(1), 65-78. Gerhart, B. (1987). How important are dispositional factors as determinants of job satisfaction? Implications for job design and other personnel programs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 366-373. Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463-488. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe, Vol. 7 (pp. 7-28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279. Hartenian, L. S., Hadaway, F. J., & Badovick, G. J. (1994). Antecedents and consequences of role perceptions: A path analytic approach. Journal of Applied Business Research, 10, 40-50. 106 Heller, D., Judge, T.A. & Watson, D. the confounding role of personality and trait in the relationship between job and life satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 815-835. Hepburn, L., & Eysenck, M. W. (1989). Personality, average mood and mood variability. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 975-983. Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2002). Understanding the dynamic relationships among personality, mood and job satisfaction: a field experience sampling study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 1119-1139. Ilies, R. & Judge, T. A. (2004). An experience sampling measure of job satisfaction and its relationships with affectivity, mood at work, job beliefs, and general job satisfaction. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(3), 367-389. Jamal, M. (1990). Relationship of job stress and Type A behavior to employees job satisfaction, organizational commitment, psychosomatic health problems, and turnover motivation. Human Relations, 43(8), 727-738. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits- self- esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability- with job satisfaction and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80-92. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 237- 249. 107 Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530-541. Judge, T. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1993). Job satisfaction as a reflection of disposition: A multiple-source causal analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 388-421. Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2004). Affect and job satisfaction: A study of their relationship at work and at home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 661- 673. Judge, T. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). Dispositional affect and job satisfaction: a review and theoretical extension. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 67-98. Judge, T. A., & Locke, E. A. (1993). Effect of dysfunctional thought jprocesses on subjective well-being and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 475-490. Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core self-evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151-188. Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The core self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 17-34. Kahneman, D. (1999). Objective Happiness. In Well-being the Foundations Hedonic Psychology, p. 3-25 (E. Diener & N. Schwartz, eds.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 108 Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Wanberg, C. R., Glomb, T. M., & Ahlburg, D. (2005). The role of temporal shifts in turnover processes: Its about time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 644-658. Katzell, R. A., Thompson, D. E. & Guzzo, R. A. (1992). How job satisfaction and performance are and are not linked in C. Cranny, P. Smith, & E. Stone (Eds.), Job Satisfaction: How People Feel About Their Jobs and How it Effects Their Performance. New York: Lexington Books. Keppel, G. & Wickens, T. D. (2004). Design and Analysis: A Researchers Handbook 4 th ed.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kemey, E. R., Mossholder, K. W. & Bedian, A. (1985). Role stress, physical symptomatology and turnover intentions: A causal analysis of three alternative specifications. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 8, 11-23. Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to positive and negative emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 132-140. Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Theory-based stress measurement. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 3-13. Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (1994). An alternative approach: The unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management Review, 19, 51-89. Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., McDaniel, L. S., & Hill, J. W. (1999) The unfolding model of voluntary turnover: A replication and extension. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 450-462. 109 Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Wise, L., & Fireman, S. (1996). An unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 5-36. Levin, I., & Stokes, J. P. (1989). Dispositional approach to job satisfaction: Role of negative affectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 752-758. Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analyses with missing data. New York: Wiley. Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: Rand McNally. Loher, B. T., Noe, R. A., Moeller, N. L., & Fitzgerald, M. P. (1985). A meta-analysis of the relation of job characteristics to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 280-289. Marco, C. A., & Suls, J. (1993). Daily stress and the trajectory of mood: Spillover, response assimilation, contrast, and chronic negative affectivity. The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 102-111. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. P. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality, Journal of Personality, 57, 17-40. Necowitz, L. B., & Roznowski, M. (1994). Negative affectivity and job satisfaction: Cognitive processes underlying the relationship and effects on employee behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 270-294. Newton, T. & Keenan, T. (1991). Further analyses of the dispositional argument in organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 781-787. 110 Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802. Parkes, K. R. (1990). Coping, negative affectivity, and the work environment: Additive and interactive predictors of mental health. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 399-408. Podsakoff, P. M., & Williams, L. J. (1986). The relationship between job performance and job satisfaction. In Generalizing From Laboratory to Field Settings, Edwin A. Locke (ed.), Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Quarstein, V. A., McAfee, R. B., & Glassman, M. (1992). The situational occurrences theory of job satisfaction. Human Relations, 45(8), 859-873. Raaijmakers, Q. A. (1999). Effectiveness of different missing data treatments in surveys with likert-type data: Introducing the relative mean substitution approach. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 725-748. Rain, J. S., Lane, I. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1991). A current look at the job satisfaction/life satisfaction relationship: Review and future considerations. Human Relations, 44, 287-307. Roth, R. L, & Switzer, F. S. (1995). A monte carlo analysis of missing data techniques in a HRM setting. Journal of Management, 21, 1003-1023. Roznowski, M., & Hulin, C. (1992). The scientific merit of valid measures of general constructs with special reference to job satisfaction and job withdrawal. In C.J. Cranny, P.C. Smith & E. F. Stone, (Eds.), Job Satisfaction, Lexington Books, New York. 111 Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi- Experimental Designs: For Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston. Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of Human Service Staff Satisfaction: Development of the Job Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 693-713. Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E., & Clausen, J. A. (1986). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 56- 77. Staw B. M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst of change. A dispositional approach to job attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 469-480. Steel, R. P., & Rentsch, J. R. (1997). The dispositional model of job attitudes revisited: findings of a 10-year study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 873- 879. Suls, J., Green, P., & Hillis, S. (1998). Emotional reactivity to everyday problems, affective inertia, and neuroticism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 127-136. van Eck, M., Nicolson, N. A., & Berkof, J. (1998). Effects of stressful daily events on mood states: Relationship to global perceived stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1572-1585. Velting, D. M., & Liebert, R. M. (1997). Predicting three mood phenomena from factors and facets of the NEO-PI. Journal of Personality Assessement, 68, 165-172. 112 Warner, R. M. (2003). Spectral Analysis of Time-series data. The Guilford Press: New York. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070. Watson, D., & Slack, A. K. (1993). General factors of affective temperament and their relation to job satisfaction over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 181-202. Weaver, C. N. (1980). Job satisfaction in the united states in the 1970s. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 364-367. Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experience at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1-74. Weiss, H. M., Nicholas, J. P., & Daus, C. S. (1999). An examination of the joint effects of affective experiences and job beliefs on job satisfaction and variations in affective experiences over time. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 78, 1-24. Young, L. M., & Baltes, B. B. (2006). Understanding the Variability of Job Satisfaction. Poster presented at the 21 st annual Society for Industrial/Organizational Society. Dallas, TX. 113 ABSTRACT THE ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE VARIABILITY IN JOB SATISFACTION by LINDSEY M. KOTRBA August 2007 Advisor: Dr. Boris Baltes Major: Psychology (Industrial/Organizational Psychology) Degree: Doctor of Philosophy Given the recent increase in the investigation of the intraindividual variability of job satisfaction (e.g., Ilies & Judge, 2002) the present study sought to further our understanding of this topic through more comprehensively investigating the potential predictors and criteria of the frequency and amplitude with which individuals vary in their levels of job satisfaction over short time frames. It was hoped that by including both personality (i.e., NA, PA, Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness to Experience) and situational predictors (i.e. job stressors), results from this study would help clarify how individual differences interact with situational characteristics to explain patterns of within-person variability. In addition, this study also sought to determine the extent to which job satisfaction variability is important to the prediction of employee job performance and turnover intentions. Results from the current study suggest that it may not be useful to distinguish between the frequency and amplitude with which individuals vary in their levels of job satisfaction over short time frames. Aside from this general conclusion, the situational predictor and three of the five personality traits investigated were shown to be important in explaining the frequency 114 with which individuals coworker, nature of work and promotion satisfaction varied. Variation in the facet of work satisfaction was also found to be an important predictor of job performance, and this remained true after accounting for mean levels of work satisfaction measured cross-sectionally. Finally, results lend some support to suggest the facets of coworker and nature of work satisfaction to be particularly important when considering short-term within-person variation. While many of the hypothesized relationships were not supported, given the current results, it seems worthwhile to continue to investigate the roles that personality and situational change play in describing the within-person variation of different facets of job satisfaction as well as the role of this within-person variation in predicting organizational outcomes. 115 AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL STATEMENT LINDSEY M. KOTRBA Lindsey Kotrba attended Winston Churchill High School in Livonia, Michigan. Due to her efforts there she was awarded the Presidential Academic Scholarship from Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan where she later attended. Lindsey earned a Bachelor of Science, graduating Cum Laude with a major in honors psychology. Her undergraduate thesis entitled Gender Stereotypes and Performance Evaluation Accuracy: The Impact of Individual-difference Measures was accepted into the 17 th annual conference of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Lindsey obtained her Master degree from the Department of Psychology (Industrial/Organizational) at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. Her thesis entitled Understanding the Variability of Job Satisfaction was completed in 2005. She has remained active in the department through teaching both graduate and undergraduate behavioral statistics courses as well as introductory I/O psychology and social psychology courses. Lindsey currently works as a Research Consultant for Denison Consulting in Ann Arbor, MI where she supports Denisons research efforts through conducting custom analyses and preparing both academic and trade publications. Her research interests center around age in the workplace issues, work and family balance, organizational culture and statistics and measurement. In her free time, Lindsey tries to enjoy the outdoors by camping, gardening, and disc golfing in the summer and skiing in the winter. She loves to spend time with her family and long time friends and taking care of her many pets.