Personality and Job Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Job Characteristics

Abstract

This study tested a model of the relationship between core self-evaluations, intrinsic job characteristics, and job satisfaction. Core self-evaluations was assumed to be a broad personality concept manifested in 4 specific traits: self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and low neuroticism. The model hypothesized that both subjective (perceived) job characteristics and job complexity mediate the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction. Two studies were conducted to test the model. Results from Study 1 supported the hypothesized model but also suggested that alternative models fit the data well. Results from Study 2 revealed that core self-evaluations measured in childhood and in early adulthood were linked to job satisfaction measured in middle adulthood. Furthermore, in Study 2 job complexity mediated part of the relationship between both assessments of core self-evaluations and job satisfaction.

Full text

Journal
of
Applied Psychology
2000,
Vol.
85, No. 2,
237-249
Copyright
2000
by
the
American Psychological Association, Inc.
0021-9010/00/S5.00
DOI:
10.1037//0021-9010.85.2.237
Personality
and Job
Satisfaction:
The
Mediating Role
of Job
Characteristics
Timothy
A.
Judge
and
Joyce
E.
Bono
University
of
Iowa
Edwin
A.
Locke
University
of
Maryland
This
study
tested
a
model
of the
relationship between core self-evaluations, intrinsic
job
characteristics,
and
job
satisfaction. Core self-evaluations
was
assumed
to be a
broad personality concept manifested
in 4
specific
traits: self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus
of
control,
and low
neuroticism.
The
model
hypothesized that both subjective (perceived)
job
characteristics
and job
complexity mediate
the
rela-
tionship between core
self-evaluations
and job
satisfaction.
Two
studies were conducted
to
test
the
model.
Results
from
Study
1
supported
the
hypothesized model
but
also
suggested that alternative models
fit the
data well. Results
from
Study
2
revealed that core self-evaluations measured
in
childhood
and in
early
adulthood were linked
to job
satisfaction measured
in
middle adulthood. Furthermore,
in
Study
2
job
complexity mediated part
of the
relationship between both assessments
of
core self-evaluations
and
job
satisfaction.
In
the
decade since
Staw,
Bell,
and
Clausen
(1986)
discovered
a
link between childhood personality
and job
satisfaction later
in
life,
there
has
been considerable interest
in the
relationship
be-
tween
individual dispositions
and job
satisfaction. Although this
literature
has had its
critics,
an
accumulating body
of
research
suggests that variance
in job
satisfaction across individuals
can be
traced
to
measures
of
affective temperament (House, Shane,
&
Herald,
1996; Motowidlo, 1996). There
is
even evidence that
the
job
satisfaction levels
of
identical twins reared apart
are
similar,
which
suggests
a
possible genetic basis
for
job
satisfaction
(Arvey,
Bouchard, Segal,
&
Abraham,
1989).
More recently, researchers
have begun
to
explore
the
psychological
processes
that might
underlie
dispositional
sources
of job
satisfaction.
For
example,
Weiss
and
Cropanzano
(1996)
suggested that
affective
tempera-
ment
may
influence
the
experience
of
emotionally
significant
events
at
work, which
in
turn
influence
job
satisfaction. Similarly,
both Brief (1998)
and
Motowidlo (1996) have recently
offered
theoretical
models
in an
attempt
to
illuminate
the
relationship
between dispositions
and job
satisfaction.
Continuing this theoretical development, Judge, Locke,
and
Durham
(1997)
offered
a
theory linking
"core
evaluations"
of the
self
to job
satisfaction. Judge
et
al.
(1997) defined core
self-
evaluations
as
fundamental assessments that individuals make
about
themselves
and
their self-worth. Incorporated into their
concept
of
core self-evaluations
are
four
dispositional traits:
self-
esteem, generalized
self-efficacy,
locus
of
control,
and low
neu-
Timothy
A.
Judge
and
Joyce
E.
Bono, Department
of
Management
and
Organizations, Henry
B.
Tippie College
of
Business, University
of
Iowa;
Edwin
A.
Locke, College
of
Business
and
Management, University
of
Maryland.
We
thank Terry Boles
and
Mick Mount
for
comments
on an
earlier
version
of
this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should
be
addressed
to
Timothy
A.
Judge, Department
of
Management
and
Organizations, Henry
B.
Tippie
College
of
Business, University
of
Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242.
Elec-
tronic
mail
may be
sent
to tim-judge@uiowa.edu.
roticism.
According
to
Judge
et al.
(1997), these specific traits
indicate
a
single, higher order
factor
that they argued forms
the
basis
for
other, more specific evaluations.
In a
test
of
this theory
on
three diverse samples, Judge, Locke, Durham,
and
Kluger
(1998)
demonstrated that individuals with positive self-evaluations were
more likely
to
assess their
job
satisfaction
at
higher levels than
individuals with less positive self-evaluations. Furthermore, Judge
et
al.
(1998)
found
that
the
link between core self-evaluations
and
job
satisfaction
was
mediated
by
perceptions
of
intrinsic
job
char-
acteristics. Drawing
from
Hackman
and
Oldham
(1980), Judge
et
al.
(1998)
considered intrinsic
job
characteristics
to
include
five
core
job
dimensions (identity, variety, feedback, autonomy,
and
significance).
Individuals with positive self-evaluations rated their
work
as
higher
on
these core dimensions,
and
thus were more
satisfied
with their jobs.
Though
the
Judge
et al.
(1998)
study
is a first
step toward
elucidating
the
role
of
intrinsic
job
characteristics
in the
relation-
ship
between personality
and job
satisfaction, their
findings are
limited
in
that they used only perceptual measures
of
work char-
acteristics.
The job
characteristics literature
has
clearly shown that
perceptual measures
of
intrinsic
job
characteristics
do not
perfectly
reflect
job
complexity (Spector
&
Jex,
1991). Furthermore, though
perceptual measures
of job
characteristics correlate more highly
with
job
satisfaction than
do
objective measures, perceptual mea-
sures have been criticized
for
their potential contamination
by
common
method variance
(Click,
Jenkins,
&
Gupta,
1986).
Thus,
it
is not
clear
from
Judge
et
al.'s
findings
to
what degree positive
self-evaluations
are
related
to
increased
job
complexity
as
opposed
(or in
addition)
to
enhanced perceptions
of
work characteristics.
On
the
basis
of
Judge
et
al.'s research,
it is
possible that
the
relationship between core self-evaluations
and job
characteristics
is
purely
the
result
of a
perceptual process. That
is,
individuals
with
positive self-evaluations
may see
their jobs
as
more challeng-
ing
simply because they
are
predisposed
to
perceive
all
aspects
of
their jobs positively. According
to
this explanation, there would
not
be a
link between core self-evaluations
and the
actual charac-
teristics
of
jobs
held
(i.e.,
positive
individuals
do not
really
have
237

238
JUDGE,
BONO,
AND
LOCKE
jobs
that
are
more challenging, they simply view their
jobs
as
more
challenging). Thus,
it is
critical
to
understanding
the
role
of
core
self-evaluations
in job
satisfaction
to
begin
to
sort
out
differences
in
perceptions
from
differences
in
actual jobs held.
The
purpose
of
this study
was to
advance
our
understanding
of
the
relationship between core self-evaluations,
job
characteristics,
and
job
satisfaction
in
several ways. First,
we
were interested
in
whether
core self-evaluations
are
linked
to
objective measures
of
job
complexity—do
people
with positive core evaluations actually
hold more complex
jobs?
Second,
we
investigated whether core
self-evaluations
relate
to
perceptions
of job
characteristics once
the
trait's relationship
with
objective
job
characteristics (complexity)
is
controlled. Finally,
we
sought
to
replicate Judge
et
al.
(1998)
by
using
a
longitudinal design, which should provide greater
confi-
dence
in the
causal nature
and
temporal stability
of the
results.
In
the
following section
of
this article
we
develop
a
hypothesized
model
of the
relationships among
core
self-evaluations,
perceived
job
characteristics,
job
complexity,
and job
satisfaction.
Hypothesized
Model
In
an
attempt
to
investigate
the
degree
to
which
job
character-
istics
are
related
to
core self-evaluations
and to
satisfaction,
we
hypothesized
a
structural model including both direct
and
indirect
relations
of
core
self-evaluations
and job
characteristics with
job
satisfaction. Figure
1
contains
the
hypothesized
model. With
the
exception
of the
indirect (mediated) relations, each hypothesized
relationship
in the
model
is
discussed below.
Core
Self-Evaluations
and Job
Complexity
We are
aware
of no
previous research that
has
investigated
a
link
between
core
self-evaluations
and job
complexity. However,
there
is
some theoretical support
for
such
a
link.
One
source
of
theoretical support
is
interactional psychology.
As
Diener,
Larsen,
and
Emmons
(1984)
pointed
out in
developing their interactional
theory,
individuals seek
out
situations
on the
basis
of
their perso-
nological
predispositions. Positively disposed individuals experi-
ence more objectively positive events
in
their lives, whereas neg-
atively disposed individuals actually experience more negative
events
(Magnus, Diener,
Fujita,
&
Pavot, 1993).
As
Magnusson
(1990) noted,
"An
individual's view
of
himself
or
herself...
with
respect
to
self-evaluation (overall approval
and
acceptance
of
himself
or
herself), plays
a
central role
in the
process
of
interaction
with
the
environment"
(p.
201). Thus,
it can be
argued that
individuals
with positive core evaluations would
be
attracted
to
challenging
jobs
because
they
see the
potential
for
greater intrinsic
rewards, whereas individuals with
a
negative self-concept could
be
expected
to
focus
on the
difficulty
and
potential
for
failure
of
challenging
work, thus avoiding
it.
In
addition,
Bandura's
theory
of
self-regulation also supports
a
link
between core self-evaluations
and job
complexity (although
it
should
be
noted that
Bandura
is not a
trait theorist). Bandura's
theory predicts that
individuals'
beliefs about their capabilities
to
perform
a
task will influence their motivation
to
seek
out or
avoid
the
task.
As
Bandura (1997) noted,
"People
avoid activities
and
environments they believe exceed their capabilities,
but
they
readily
undertake activities
and
pick social environments
they
judge
themselves capable
of
handling.
The
higher
the
perceived
self-efficacy,
the
more challenging
the
activities they
select"
(p.
160). Thus, individuals with
a
positive self-concept should
be
more willing
to
take
on
enriched
jobs
because they believe
in
their
ability
to
handle
the
challenges
the job
provides.
Furthermore,
one
might
also
view
the
link between
core
self-evaluations
and job
challenge
as the
process
by
which individuals with positive self-
concepts
gain control over their work environment,
as has
been
suggested
with respect
to
self-efficacy
(Bandura, 1997)
and
locus
of
control (Spector, 1982).
There
are
several other ways
in
which core self-evaluations
may
be
linked
to job
complexity.
In a
test
of the
impact
of
self-esteem
on
goal
difficulty,
Levy
and
Baumgardner
(1991)
found
that indi-
viduals high
in
self-esteem
chose
more
difficult
goals.
These
findings
were consistent with those
of
Hall
and
Foster
(1977),
who
found
a
relationship
not
only between self-esteem
and
goals
but
also between self-esteem
and
task involvement (which
was
related
Figure
1.
Hypothesized model.
AH
hypothesized linkages
are
hypothesized
to be
positive.

PERSONALITY
AND JOB
SATISFACTION
239
to
subsequent goal setting). Lending
further
support
to the
notion
of
a
relationship between core self-evaluations
and job
complexity,
Spector (1982) noted that locus
of
control
is
related
to
greater
efforts
toward goal achievement
and
perseverance
in the
face
of
failure.
Because complex jobs implicitly present more challenging
goals
for
individuals, these findings
are
consistent with
a
hypoth-
esized
link between core self-evaluations
and job
complexity.
Several
of the
traits that compose self-evaluations have also
been linked
to the way
individuals cope with complex
tasks.
For
example, Spector (1982) reported that high levels
of
anxiety (one
of
the two
primary facets
of
neuroticism)
cause individuals
to
experience performance deficits
on
complex tasks
but not on
simple tasks.
In
addition, both locus
of
control
and
self-efficacy
have been shown
to
affect
coping
and
perseverance
in the
face
of
obstacles
(C. R.
Anderson, 1977;
Bandura,
1997).
Furthermore,
there
are
other, less direct
and
more long-range ways that core
self-evaluations
may be
related
to
more complex
jobs.
Racket
and
Betz
(1981)
found
self-efficacy
to be an
important variable
in
their
career choice model. Although
the
focus
of
their work
was
ana-
lyzing
the
different
career choices made
by men and
women, they
found
that regardless
of
gender,
self-efficacy
within
a
particular
skill
set was
correlated with interest
and
entry into careers that
required that skill set. Thus,
the
early socialization experiences
and
educational preparation
of
individuals high
on
core self-
evaluations
may
lead
to
self-selection into more complex
jobs.
In
summary, there
are a
number
of
ways
that
core
self-
evaluations might
be
expected
to be
related
to job
complexity.
First,
individuals high
on
core self-evaluations will
be
more likely
to
seek
out and
attempt complex
jobs.
Second, they might
be
expected
to
exert more
effort
(because
of
goal-setting activities
and
higher task involvement)
and be
less
likely
to
withdraw
from
complex jobs
if
they experience failure (because they believe
in
their abilities). Finally, their high coping skills, particularly
for
complex tasks,
may
lead
to
better performance, resulting
in in-
creased
attempts
to
keep
and
attain more enriched
jobs.
For
these
reasons,
we
hypothesized
a
positive link between core self-
evaluations
and job
complexity.
Core
Self-Evaluations
and
Perceived
Job
Characteristics
There
is
considerable evidence that perceptions
of
work char-
acteristics
are
related
to
dispositions. Research
has
shown that
positively disposed individuals rate characteristics
of the
task
or
the
job as
more
enriched
than
do
less
positively
disposed
individ-
uals (Brief, Butcher,
&
Roberson,
1995; James
&
Jones, 1980;
Judge
et
al.,
1998;
Kraiger,
Billings,
&
Isen,
1989; Necowitz
&
Roznowski,
1994). Conceptually, several basic areas
of
research
support
the
link between personality
and
perceptions
of
work
characteristics. Research shows that individuals prone
to the ex-
perience
of
positive emotions respond favorably
to
situations
de-
signed
to
induce positive
affect,
whereas individuals predisposed
to
experience negative emotions
and
negative self-appraisals
are
less
likely
to
respond positively
to
such situations
(Larsen
&
Ketelaar,
1991). Similarly, self-verification theory
(Swann,
Stein-
Seroussi,
&
Giesler, 1992) indicates that individuals
seek
to
verify
their self-concepts
by
selecting situations that will supply them
with
feedback that reinforces that self-concept.
In the job
context,
Judge
et al.
(1997)
noted that individuals with positive
core
eval-
uations might
seek
out and
categorize information
in
their work
environment that would lead
to
positive conclusions about their
work, whereas individuals with negative core self-evaluations
might
attend
to
negative aspects
of
their jobs. Thus,
on the
basis
of
previous
findings
and
theoretical support,
we
expected
that
core
self-evaluations
would
be
related
to
perceived
job
characteristics.
Job
Complexity
and
Perceived
Job
Characteristics
As
noted
earlier,
there
is
evidence that
the
relationship between
perceptions
of job
characteristics
and job
complexity
is not
perfect
(Spector
&
Jex,
1991).
However,
the
existence
of a
relationship
between
objective
and
subjective work characteristics
is
well
es-
tablished. Fried
and
Ferris (1987),
in
their
meta-analytic
investi-
gation, noted,
"The
data clearly suggest that objective
and
per-
ceived
job
characteristics
are
related"
(p.
309). James
and
Jones
(1980)
found
support
for
their hypothesis that perceptions
of job
characteristics
are
influenced "causally
and
positively"
(p.
125)
by
job
complexity. Although James
and
Jones cautioned
the
reader
not
to
assume that
job
perceptions represent veridical descriptions
of
job
characteristics, they concluded that objective measures
of
job
complexity
do
influence
perceptions
of job
characteristics.
Furthermore,
Gerhart
(1988)
found
that perceptions
of job
char-
acteristics
are a
positive
function
of job
complexity.
On the
basis
of
these
findings,
we
expected that
job
complexity would
be
related
to
perceived
job
characteristics.
Perceived
Job
Characteristics
and Job
Satisfaction
The job
characteristics model
(Hackman
&
Oldham,
1980)
proposed
job
satisfaction
as one of the
essential outcomes resulting
from
intrinsically enriched jobs. According
to the job
characteris-
tics
model, intrinsic work characteristics positively
affect
job
sat-
isfaction
through
a
perceptual process. Specific
job
characteristics
(e.g., skill variety, task significance) lead
to
positive psychological
states such
as
feelings
of
meaningfulness
and
responsibility, which
in
turn
lead
to
satisfaction with
the
job. Research clearly supports
the
link between perceived work characteristics
and job
satisfac-
tion.
Two
meta-analyses
indicated
a
positive, moderately strong
correlation between perceptual measures
of
intrinsic
job
charac-
teristics
and job
satisfaction (Fried
&
Ferris, 1987;
Loher,
Noe,
Moeller,
&
Fitzgerald, 1985). Thus, consistent with Judge
et al.
(1997),
we
hypothesized that subjective
job
characteristics
would
be
positively related
to job
satisfaction.
Job
Complexity
and Job
Satisfaction
Although
the
process
of
translating
job
characteristics into
job
satisfaction
is a
perceptual one,
the job
characteristics model
assumes
that these perceptions originate
from
job
conditions.
If
this
assumption
is
valid, there should
be a
positive association
between
objective measures (i.e.,
nonperceptual)
of
work charac-
teristics
and job
satisfaction. However, there have been
few
tests
of
the
relationship between
job
complexity
and job
satisfaction.
Al-
though
some
studies
found
only
a
small relationship between
complexity
and
satisfaction (Spector
&
Jex, 1991), Fried
and
Ferris's
(1987) review suggested
a
consistently positive relation-
ship between objective measures
of job
characteristics
and job
satisfaction.
Although
job
complexity explained less
of the
vari-
ance
in job
satisfaction than
did
subjective measures
of job
char-

240
JUDGE,
BONO,
AND
LOCKE
acteristics,
the
relationship
was
both positive
and
significant across
all
studies Fried
and
Ferris
reviewed.
On the
basis
of
these small
but
consistently positive relationships,
we
hypothesized
a
direct
positive relationship between
job
complexity
and job
satisfaction.
We
note that
it is
possible that
the
relationship between
job
complexity
and job
satisfaction
is
entirely mediated through sub-
jective perceptions
of job
characteristics. Although this explana-
tion
seems reasonable,
no
previous research
has
investigated this
relationship. Thus,
we
hypothesized
a
direct relationship between
job
complexity
and job
satisfaction, although
we did
recognize
and
investigate
the
possibility that this relationship
is
mediated
by
perceived
job
characteristics.
Core
Self-Evaluations
and Job
Satisfaction
Consistent with
the
previous hypotheses,
an
indirect link
from
self-evaluations
to job
satisfaction (mediated
by job
characteris-
tics) would
be
expected. However, there
is
also evidence
of a
direct relationship between these concepts. Judge
et
al.
(1998)
hypothesized
and
found
a
direct link between core self-evaluations
and
job
satisfaction.
In
fact,
in
most cases
the
direct relationship
was
larger than
the
mediated relationship.
A
direct link between
core
self-evaluations
and job
satisfaction, within
the
variables
measured
in
this model,
is
consistent with
the
direct
effects
model
discussed
by
Judge
et al.
(1997).
In
that model, core
self-
evaluations
influence
job
satisfaction through
a
process
of
emo-
tional
generalization—individuals'
positive feelings about them-
selves spill over onto their jobs.
To be
sure, these direct
effects
may
not be
purely direct; they
may be
mediated
by
cognitive
processes
or
other mediating variables. However, because this
study
does
not
focus
on, and
thus
does
not
include, cognitive
processes
or
other factors that
may
mediate
the
relationship
be-
tween
core self-evaluations
and job
satisfaction,
we
hypothesized
a
direct relationship between core self-evaluations
and job
satisfaction.
In
an
effort
to
investigate
the
robustness
of the
hypothesized
model,
we
conducted
two
separate studies. Because
the
data col-
lection procedures
for
each study were quite
different,
we
present
separate method
and
results sections
for
each study.
Study
1
Method
Data
and
Procedure
Participants
in
Study
1
were randomly selected
from all zip
codes
of a
midsized
midwestem
city.
In an
attempt
to
minimize
the
number
of
surveys
sent
to
households without working adults,
we
purchased
a
mailing list that
was
limited
to
individuals between
the
ages
of 24 and 58
(excluding most
college students
and
retirees),
and
with
a
household income
of
$20,000
or
more
(so as to
exclude those working part time). Surveys were mailed
to
1,981
men and
women along with
a
cover letter assuring participants that
individual responses were confidential. Included
in the
mailing
was a
second survey
to be
completed
by a
significant other. Significant others
were
instructed
to
complete their surveys away
from
the
focal person
and
to
return
it
directly
to the
researchers
in a
separate postage-paid envelope
that
was
included with
the
questionnaire. Questionnaires were numbered
so
that significant-other responses could
be
matched
with
those
of
respon-
dents.
In
return
for
their participation, respondents were
offered
the op-
portunity
to
enter their names into
a
drawing
for
$200.
We
received
424
completed surveys
from
respondents
(39
surveys were
returned
as
undeliverable),
representing
a 22%
response rate.
We
received
389
significant-other surveys, which indicated that
for 92% of the
respon-
dents
a
significant-other survey
was
also
returned.
Removal
of
surveys
with
missing data resulted
in a
total
of 384
usable responses
with
351
matching significant-other reports. Sixty-five percent
of
significant-other
surveys
were completed
by
spouses, with
the
remaining
35%
completed
by
siblings
(2%),
parents
(3%),
friends
(21%),
and
others
(9%).
No
mean
difference
on any
study variable
was
observed between those respondents
who
had a
significant-other survey returned
and
those
who did
not.
The
mean
age of
respondents
was 41
years.
On
average, respondents
worked
46
hr
per
week
and had
held
1.9
jobs over
the
past
5
years. Mean
annual
salary
for
respondents
was
$40,940.
Twenty-four percent
of
respon-
dents
had a
high school diploma
or
less,
55% had
some
college
or a
bachelor's degree,
and 21% had
some graduate credit
or a
graduate degree.
Sixty-four
percent
of
respondents were male
and 66%
were married. When
we
compared
our
sample information
to
U.S.
Census data
for the
city
surveyed,
our
sample seemed reasonably representative
of the
working
population
in
terms
of
age,
area
of
residence (measured
by zip
code),
education level, marital status,
and
hours worked
per
week. Members
of
our
sample
did
earn somewhat higher salaries than indicated
by the
census
data.
It is
important
to
note that although
our
inclusion criteria limited
our
initial mailing
to
households with incomes over
$20,000,
24% of the
individuals
who
responded earned incomes
of
$20,000
or
less. Nonethe-
less,
it is
possible that
our
sampling procedure produced
a
somewhat
unrepresentative sample,
at
least with respect
to
some characteristics.
Measures
Self-esteem.
The first
core evaluations trait discussed
by
Judge
et al.
(1997)
is
self-esteem. Self-esteem
was
measured using Rosenberg's (1965)
10-item
self-esteem scale, which includes items such
as "I
feel
that
I am a
person
of
worth,
at
least
on an
equal basis with others"
and "At
times
I
think
I am no
good
at
all"
(reverse scored). Scores
for
individual items,
which
ranged
from
1
(strongly
disagree)
to 5
(strongly
agree), were
summed
to
produce
a
single self-esteem score
for
each respondent.
Sig-
nificant
others completed these same
10
self-esteem items.
Generalized
self-efficacy.
As the
second core evaluations
trait
dis-
cussed
by
Judge
et al.
(1997), generalized
self-efficacy
was
measured using
seven
items
from a
scale developed
by
Judge
et al.
(1998). Respondents
were asked
to use a 1
(strongly
disagree)
to 5
(strongly
agree)
scale
to
indicate their level
of
agreement with statements
such
as "I am
strong
enough
to
overcome
life's
struggles"
and "I
often
feel
that there
is
nothing
that
I can do
well" (reverse scored). Each individual's scores
on the
seven
items
were summed
to
form
a
single generalized
self-efficacy
score.
Significant
others completed these same seven generalized
self-efficacy
items.
Locus
of
control.
To
measure
the
locus-of-control
component
of
core
self-evaluations,
four
items measuring internal locus
of
control were taken
from
the
Internality,
Powerful Others,
and
Chance Scale (Levenson, 1981).
Individuals were asked
to
indicate their agreement with statements regard-
ing the
extent
to
which they have control over events
in
their lives, such
as
"When
I get
what
I
want,
it's
usually because
I am
lucky" (reverse scored)
and
"My
life
is
determined
by my own
actions."
As
with
the
other core
self-evaluations
measures,
the
scale ranged
from 1
(strongly
disagree)
to 5
(strongly
agree), with higher scores representing
an
internal locus
of
control. Scores
for
each item were summed
to
produce
a
single locus-of-
control score
for
each respondent.
For the
significant-other survey, these
same
four
items were used.
Neuroticism.
To
measure
the final
component
of
core
self-evaluations,
neuroticism,
we
used
the
12-item
Eysenck Personality Inventory (Eysenck
&
Eysenck,
1968)
Neuroticism scale. Individuals were asked
to
indicate
their
agreement with statements concerning
the
degree
to
which they
experience feelings
of
irritability, nervousness, worry, embarrassment,
or
guilt,
such
as "I am a
nervous
person"
and "I am a
worrier."
The
same
1-5

PERSONALITY
AND JOB
SATISFACTION
241
response scale used with
the
other core self-evaluation traits
was
used
for
the
Neuroticism
scale.
Individual items were combined
to
form
a
single
neuroticism
score
for
each respondent. Significant others completed
the
same
12
neuroticism items.
Perceived
job
characteristics. Perceptions
of
work characteristics (i.e.,
autonomy,
feedback, task variety, identity,
and
significance) were mea-
sured
using
a
14-item
version
of the Job
Diagnostic Survey (JDS;
Hackman
&
Oldham,
1980).
Respondents were asked
to use a
scale ranging
from
1
(very
inaccurate)
to 7
(very
accurate)
to
assess
the
accuracy
of
statements
such
as
"The
job is
quite simple
and
repetitive" (reverse scored)
and
"The
job
gives
me
considerable opportunity
for
independence
and
freedom
in
how
I do the
work."
The JDS was
designed
to be a
multidimensional scale;
however,
job
characteristics measures have been shown
to
collapse
to a
single dimension (Dunham,
Aldag,
&
Brief, 1977). Dunham (1976,
p.
408)
found
that
the
"most
parsimonious factorial solution
was a
single-factor
solution
representing
job
complexity."
Also,
Loher
et
al.'s
(1985)
meta-
analytic
results support
the
unidimensional
nature
of job
characteristics
measures. Therefore,
the 14
individual item responses were summed
to
form
a
single perceived
job
characteristics
score
for
each respondent.
Job
complexity.
Respondents were asked
to
report
the
title
of
their
current
job.
These
job
titles were assigned
a
three-digit occupational code
according
to the
1970 U.S. Census occupational coding scheme. That
census
code
was
converted
to a
complexity
score
on the
basis
of
complex-
ity
scores
derived
by
Roos
and
Treiman
(1980)
from
the
fourth
edition
of
the
Dictionary
of
Occupational
Titles
(DOT).
Roos
and
Treiman submit-
ted 46
items
from
the DOT to
exploratory factor analysis
and
identified
a
factor
they labeled Substantive Complexity.
There
are two
primary (non-incumbent-based) methods that have been
used
to
assess
job
complexity.
The first is job
analysis,
a
procedure that
involves
the
direct
observation
of
workers
and the
activities they perform.
Although
job
analysis
is the
more thorough
and
complete non-incumbent-
based method
of
rating
job
complexity,
it is not
feasible
in
studies that
attempt
to
assess
job
complexity
across
multiple jobs
in
many organiza-
tions. Therefore, consistent
with
Gerhart
(1987),
Adelmann
(1987),
and
Spector
and Jex
(1991),
we
used
the
second method,
the
DOr-based
coding
for
job
complexity.
One
clear advantage
to
this particular measure
of job
characteristics
is the
fact
that
it is
based
not on reports of
workers
or
their
colleagues
but on
independent assessments
of job
descriptions
and
on-site
job
observations. However,
it
should
be
noted that
DOT
codes
are
based
on
occupations rather than
on
jobs.
For
example,
the DOT
code
for
police
officer
represents the
average complexity
of the job of a
police
officer
across police departments, rather than
the job
complexity
of the
specific
police
officer
who
responded
to our
survey. However,
reliability
estimates
for
DOT
codes
are
calculated
to reflect
both
interrater
agreement
and
error
introduced
by
aggregating information about several jobs
to the
occupa-
tional level. Results have suggested that there
is
less
variation
in
complex-
ity
across
different
jobs
in the
same occupation than across occupations
in
the
same organization, supporting
the
validity
of the DOT
measurement
system. Psychometric information
on the DOT
measure
can be
found
in
Cain
and
Green
(1983)
and
Gerhart
(1985).
Job
satisfaction.
We
obtained
two
assessments
of job
satisfaction.
Overall
job
satisfaction
was
measured with
five
items taken
from
the
Brayfield-Rothe
(1951)
measure
of job
satisfaction.
These
five
items were
"I
feel
fairly satisfied with
my
present job," "Most days
I am
enthusiastic
about
my
work,"
"Each
day at
work
seems
like
it
will
never end" (reverse
scored),
"I find
real enjoyment
in my
work,"
and "I
consider
my job to be
rather unpleasant" (reverse scored). Responses
to the
Brayfield-Rothe
items
were evaluated
on a 1
(strongly
disagree)
to 7
(strongly
agree)
scale.
In
addition, global
job
satisfaction
was
also
measured using
the
three-item
scale developed
by
Judge,
Boudreau,
and
Bretz
(1994),
which includes
the
nongraphic version
of the G. M.
Faces
Scale
(Scarpello
&
Campbell, 1983,
replaced faces with affective
state
descriptions),
an
adapted version
of the
Fordyce Percent Time Happy Item,
and the
Gallup Poll measure
of job
satisfaction.
Because these three items were measured using
different
response formats, they were standardized
and
combined into
a
three-item
composite measure
of job
satisfaction.
Covariance
Structure
Analysis
Covariance
structure analysis, which
was
estimated
in the
present
study
by
using
LISREL
8
(Joreskog
&
Sorbom,
1993),
was
used
to
test
the
structure
of the
core self-evaluations concept
as
well
as the
hypothesized
model.
To
prevent
the
interpretational
problems inherent
in
simultaneous
estimation
of
measurement
and
structural models
(J. C.
Anderson
&
Gerbing,
1988),
we
used confirmatory
factor
analysis
to
test
the
measure-
ment
model separately prior
to
simultaneous estimation
of the
measure-
ment
and the
structural
models.
The first
structural model tested (the
self-report model)
is
based
on
self-reports
of
all
study variables,
with
the
exception
of job
complexity.
The
second model (the mixed data model)
is
the
same
as the
self-report model, except that significant-other reports
of
core evaluations were used.
The
advantage
of the
mixed data model
is
that
it
allows inferences about
the
relations among
the
concepts
to be
mostly
free
of
percept-percept
inflation.
The
relationship between perceived
job
characteristics
and job
satisfaction
is
susceptible
to
this
inflation;
however,
we
considered
it
impractical
to
measure these
two
concepts
by any
other
means.
We
specified
the
structural model
by
allowing
the
four
core
self-
evaluation
traits
to
load
on a
latent
factor
and the two job
satisfaction
measures
to
load
on
another latent factor
(to
allow this factor
to be
identified,
one of the
loadings
was fixed at
1.0). Because perceived
job
characteristics
was
measured
with
a
multi-item scale, correction
for
mea-
surement
error
was
based
on its
estimated reliability.
The
reliability
of the
Z>0r-based
measure
of job
complexity
has
been extensively analyzed;
we
used
Cain
and
Green's (1983) average estimate
of
interrater reliability (.69)
in
correcting
job
complexity
for
measurement error.
In the
covariance
structure
model,
the
measurement error
for all
directly observed variables
(in
Study
1,
perceived
job
characteristics
and job
complexity;
in
Study
2,
all
three variables
in the
model)
was fixed as the
variance
of the
variable
times
one
minus
the reliability of the
variable.
When
interpreting
the results of
covariance structure analysis,
it is
important
to
evaluate
the
model
by
using several indices
of
overall
fit.
Accordingly,
we
report
the
following
fit
statistics:
chi-square,
root mean
square
error
of
approximation (RSEA),
goodness-of-fit
index
(GFI),
normed
fit
index
(NFI),
non-normed
fit
index
(NNFI),
incremental
fit
index
(IFI),
and
relative
fit
index
(RFI;
Medsker, Williams,
&
Holahan,
1994).
Although
levels
of the
chi-square statistic cannot
be
interpreted indepen-
dently
of the
sample size, rules
of
thumb suggest that
the
RSEA should
be
no
greater than
.10,
whereas values
of
GFI, NFI, NNFI, IFI,
and RFI
should
be
greater than
.90
(Medsker
et
al.,
1994). Finally,
we
also report
two fit
statistics that correct
for
lack
of
parsimony,
the
adjusted
goodness-of-fit
index
(AGFI)
and the
parsimony normed
fit
index
(PNFI).
Rules
of
thumb
for
judging
the
latter statistics have
not
been established.
Results
Descriptive
Statistics,
Scale
Reliabilities,
and
Intercorrelations
Table
1
presents descriptive statistics, scale reliabilities,
and
intercorrelations
of
study variables.
To
permit examination
of
unconnected
relations among
the
concepts
in the
model, also
in-
cluded
in
Table
1 are two
composite core self-evaluations indices
(one
for
self-reports
and one for
significant-other reports) that
were equally weighted combinations
of the
four
core traits
and a
similar composite index
for the two
individual measures
of job
satisfaction.
As was the
case with Judge
et al.
(1998), locus
of
control displayed
the
lowest correlations
with
the
other core traits

242
JUDGE,
BONO,
AND
LOCKE
Table
1
Descriptive
Statistics, Scale Reliabilities,
and
Intercorrelations
of
Study
1
Variables
Variable
M
SD
1
10 11 12 13 14 15
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Self-esteem
Generalized
self-efficacy
Locus
of
control
Neuroticism
Core
self-evaluations
composite
Self-esteem,
SOR
Self-efficacy,
SOR
Locus
of
control,
SOR
Neuroticism,
SOR
Core
self-evaluations
composite,
SOR
Perceived
job
characteristics
Job
complexity
Job
satisfaction
(Brayfield
&
Rothe,
1951)
Job
satisfaction
(Judge
et
al.,
1994)
Job
satisfaction
composite
41.52
29.49
14.95
27.14
0.00
41.35
29.41
15.51
26.17
0.00
70.77
5.13
25.88
0.00
0.00
6.29
4.21
2.51
8.59
3.27
6.06
4.39
2.43
8.38
3.15
11.81
2.11
6.89
2.67
1.92
87
77
46
-65
89
44
41
16
-33
43
36
20
40
43
43
86
47
-60
88
41
40
15
-28
39
36
16
31
32
33
70
-29
69
26
26
29
-12
29
29
13
27
27
28
90
-79
-41
-38
-12
50
-44
-27
-16
-27
-28
-29
84
47
45
22
-38
48
39
20
39
40
41
86
80
35
-62
88
26
24
22
24
24
86
41
-58
88
21
18
17
20
19
70
-22
63
13
-02
12
11
12
90
-77
-13
-19
-07
-11
-09
80
23
19
18
21
19
73
23
59
59
62
69"
16
89
16
84
86
17
96 96 91
Note.
Coefficient
alpha
reliability
estimates
are on the
diagonal. Decimals
are
omitted
from
correlations
and
reliabilities.
N =
348.
SOR =
significant-
other
reports,
p £ .05 at r =
.11.
p
<
.01 at r =
.14.
a
From
Cain
and
Green
(1983).
and
with
the
other variables. Correlations between self-reports
and
significant-other
reports
of
core evaluations were moderate (rang-
ing
from
.29 for
locus
of
control
to .50 for
neuroticism). Although
it
is not
reported
in
Table
1, it is
worth noting that
self-other
correlations
were only slightly
(r =
.02) higher when
the
spouse
was
the
significant other.
Overall,
correlations
between study
variables were
in the
direction expected.
Confirmatory
Factor
Analysis
of
Core
Traits
To
analyze
the
factor
structure
of the
data,
we
conducted
a
second-order
factor
analysis. (Because similar results were
ob-
tained
for the
significant-other reports
of the
core traits,
for
sim-
plicity
we
confine
our
discussion
to
self-reports
of the
core traits.)
In
the first
stage
of the
analysis,
we
created three parcels
for
each
of
the
core traits. These parcels were formed
from
the
individual
scale items (e.g.,
two of the
three self-esteem parcels were formed
by
adding three randomly selected items
from
the
self-esteem
scale,
and the
third parcel
was
formed
by
adding
the
remaining
four
items).
When each
of
these parcel sets
was
constrained
to
load
on
its
respective traits, results indicated that this model
fit
the
data
reasonably
well.
The fit
statistics were
as
follows:
^(48,
N =
414)
=
123.08
(p <
.01), RSEA
=
.06,
GFI
=
.95,
AGFI
=
.92,
NFI
=
.96,
NNFI
=
.96,
IFI
=
.97,
RFI
=
.94,
PNFI
=
.70.
In the
second
stage
of
this analysis, following
Joreskog
and
Sorbom
(1989,
p.
160),
we
conducted
a
second-order
factor
analysis
in
which
the
four
core traits contributed
to an
overall core self-
evaluations
factor.
This second-order model appeared
to fit the
data
acceptably,
^(54,
N =
414)
=
159.00
(p <
.01), RSEA
=
.07,
GFI
=
.94, AGFI
=
.91,
NFI =
.95, NNFI
=
.96,
IFI =
.96,
RFI
=
.94, PNFI
=
.77.
The
factor
loadings
from
the
first-
and
second-order factor analyses
from
the
self-report model
are
dis-
played
in
Figure
2.
As
the
second-order factor analysis results show, self-esteem
and
self-efficacy
were nearly perfectly correlated with
the
core
self-evaluations
factor.
Furthermore,
the
parcels
for
locus
of
con-
trol displayed lower
factor
loadings than
the
other core traits,
and
locus
of
control contributed less
to the
core concept. Thus,
it
might
be
asked whether locus
of
control
is
necessary
to
form
the
core
self-evaluations
concept.
As
suggested
by a
reviewer,
to
test this
possibility
we
constrained
the
second-order loading involving
lo-
cus
of
control
to
zero.
If
locus
of
control
contributes
little
to the
core
concept,
the fit of the
model will
not be
reduced. However,
estimation
of
this model revealed that constraining
the
locus-of-
control
second-order loading
to
zero significantly reduced
the fit of
the
second-order model,
Ax^l,
N =
414)
=
107.62,
p <
.01.
Constraining
the
second-order loadings
of the
other core traits
to
zero reduced
the fit of the
model
to an
even greater degree. Thus,
within
the
confines
of
this measurement model,
it
appears that
all
four
traits
are
important elements
of the
core concept, though
future
research should investigate
the
adequacy
of
locus
of
control
in
identifying
the
core self-evaluations concept, which
may
also
require looking
at the
adequacy
of
locus-of-control
measures.
Structural
Model
Results
LISREL estimates
for the
self-report model, which relates self-
reports
of the
core evaluations
to
perceived
job
characteristics
and
job
complexity
and to job
satisfaction,
are
provided
in the
upper
row
of
Figure
3.
Results show that core self-evaluations
had a
moderately strong
and
significant relationship both with percep-
tions
of job
characteristics
and
with
job
complexity. Core self-
evaluations also displayed
a
direct relation with
job
satisfaction.
Results
also show that
job
complexity
was
related
to
perceived
job
characteristics. Finally, perceptions
of job
characteristics
and job
satisfaction
were strongly related, whereas
job
complexity
had no
direct relationship with
job
satisfaction. However,
it is
important
to
note that
job
complexity
had a
significant indirect relationship
to
job
satisfaction
(r =
.13,
p <
.05),
as
mediated through perceived
job
characteristics.
Fit
statistics
for the
self-report model were
as
follows:
x*(l6,
N =
384)
=
26.41
(p =
.05), RSEA
=
.04,
GFI =

PERSONALITY
AND JOB
SATISFACTION
243
Self-Esteem
#1
Self-Esteem
#2
Self-Esteem
#3
Self-Efficacy
#1
Self-Efficacy
#2
Self-Efficacy
#3
Neuroticism
#1
Neuroticism
#2
Neuroticism
#3
Locus
of
Control
#1
Locus
of
Control
#2
Locus
of
Control
#3
Figure
2.
Second-order
factor analysis
results—self-report
data.
First-order
factor loadings were estimated
from
first-order factor analysis.
* p <
.01.
.98,
AGFI
=
.96,
NFI
=
.98, NNFI
=
.99,
IFI
=
.99,
RFI
=
.97,
PNFI
=
.56.
LISREL
estimates
for the
mixed data model, which relates
significant-other
reports
of the
core
evaluations
to
self-reports
of
job
characteristics,
job
complexity,
and job
satisfaction,
are
pro-
vided
in the
lower
row of
Figure
3.
Results show that core
evaluations
(as
reported
by
significant others)
had a
significant
relationship
to job
complexity. However,
the
relationship between
core evaluations
and
perceptions
of job
characteristics
was
weaker
in
this model, leading
to the
inference that some
of the
relationship
between
core
evaluations
and
perceptions
of
work characteristics
in
the
self-report model
may be
based
on
common method vari-
ance. Another
difference
from
the
self-report model
was
that core
self-evaluations
no
longer
had a
significant direct relationship with
job
satisfaction. Results also show that
job
complexity
had a
relationship,
in
this model, with perceptions
of job
characteristics
similar
to
that
found
in the
self-report model. Finally, consistent
with
the
self-report model, perceptions
of
work characteristics
and
job
satisfaction were strongly related, whereas
job
complexity
had
no
direct relationship with
job
satisfaction. However,
as in the
self-report model,
job
complexity
had a
significant indirect rela-
tionship
with
job
satisfaction
(r =
.19,
p <
.05)
as
mediated
through
perceived
job
characteristics.
Fit
statistics
for the
mixed
data
model were comparable
to
those
of the
serf-report
model,
^(16,
N =
351)
=
21.95
(ns),
RSEA
=
.03,
GFI
=
.98, AGFI
=
.96,
NFI =
.98, NNFI
=
.99,
IFI =
1.00,
RFI =
.97, PNFI
=
.56.
The
second
and
third columns
of
Table
2
contain
the
direct,
indirect,
and
total (direct
+
indirect) relationships
of
core self-
evaluations
with
job
satisfaction
for the
self-report
and
mixed data
models, respectively.
The
results show that most
of the
significant
relationship between core self-evaluations
and job
satisfaction
was
mediated
by
perceived
job
characteristics
and job
complexity.
Given
the
presence
of
significant indirect relationships
and the
fact
that
more than half
of the
total relationship
is
mediated,
we can
infer
from
these results that
job
characteristics mediated
the
rela-
tionship between core self-evaluations
and job
satisfaction.
Alternative
Model
Tests
To
investigate
the
validity
of the
hypothesized model,
we
con-
sidered three alternative models.
One
alternative model stipulated
no
direct relationship between core self-evaluations
and job
satis-
faction.
This
model
is
plausible
if the
relationship between core
self-evaluations
and job
satisfaction
is
entirely mediated
by job
complexity
and
perceived
job
characteristics.
A
second alternative
model
stipulated
no
direct relationship between
job
complexity

244
JUDGE, BONO,
AND
LOCKE
Perceived
Job
Characteristics.63*
Core Self-
Evaluations
.24*7
.26*\
i
N.'6*
.20*
_^—
-^
.24*
X^
( Job
H
Satisfaction
.04
^—
_,^__-^'
L
/
.28*
Job
Complexity
Figure
3.
LISREL
results—Study
1.
Estimates
in top row
represent results
from
self-report model; estimates
in
bottom
row
represent results
from
mixed data model.
* p <
.01.
and
job
satisfaction.
This
model
is
also
a
plausible alternative
because
it is
quite
possible
that
the
effects
of job
complexity
are
completely mediated through
perceptions
of
those characteristics.
Because these more parsimonious models
are
nested within
the
hypothesized model,
the
difference
in
chi-square
between these
models
can be
tested
for
significance.
The
previous
two
alternative models entailed removing paths
to
determine whether
a
more parsimonious model
was
possible.
A
third alternative model would posit
a
different
order
of
relation-
ships,
such that
job
satisfaction mediates
the
relationship between
core self-evaluations
and
perceived
job
characteristics
(as
opposed
to
the
hypothesized model, which hypothesized that perceived
job
characteristics mediated
the
relationship between core self-
evaluations
and job
satisfaction). This model
is
justified
in
light
of
research that suggests that
the
relationship between perceived
job
characteristics
and job
satisfaction
may be
bidirectional
or
from
job
satisfaction
to
perceived
job
characteristics (James
&
Jones,
1980; James
&
Tetrick,
1986). This third model would reverse
the
relationship between perceived
job
characteristics
and job
satis-
faction,
so
that
job
satisfaction influences (rather than
is
influenced
by)
perceived
job
characteristics. Although this model
is a
reason-
able
alternative
to the
hypothesized model,
it
would
fit
the
data
exactly
the
same
as the
hypothesized model because
it
would
simply
reverse
the
link between perceived
job
characteristics
and
job
satisfaction. Thus,
it was not
tested
in
this
study
but is
con-
sidered
in the
Discussion section.
In
the
model that drops
the
link between core self-evaluations
and
job
satisfaction, results indicate that dropping
the
link
signif-
icantly
decreased
the fit of the
model
for the
self-report model,
Ax^l,
N =
384)
=
15.38,
p <
.01,
but not for the
mixed data
model,
A^2(l,
N =
351)
=
0.48,
ns.
Even though
the
A^2
statistic
was
significant
for the
self-report model,
the
other standardized
fit
statistics showed
little
difference
(the
mean
difference
was
.015).
Furthermore,
the fit
statistics that take parsimony into account,
AGFI
and
PNFI,
were actually higher
for the
alternative model
(which suggests that
the
decrease
in fit
because
of the
added
constraint
was
more than
offset
by the
increase
in
parsimony).
For
the
model that drops
the
link between
job
complexity
and job
satisfaction,
results indicated that dropping
the
link
did not de-
crease
the fit of the
model
for
either
the
self-report,
Ay2(l,
N =
384)
=
0.20,
ns, or
mixed data,
A^l,
N =
351)
=
0.61,
ns,
models.
Thus,
it
appears that
two of the
direct links
in the
hypoth-
esized model could
be
eliminated (thus
simplifying
the
model)
without
causing
it
great damage.
Study
2
Study
2 was
conducted
in an
attempt
to
examine
the
extent
to
which
the
relationships
between core self-evaluations,
job
charac-
teristics,
and job
satisfaction
are
robust over time. This
study
uses
longitudinal data collected over
a
period
of 30
years
to
test
the
hypothesized model.
Method
Data
and
Procedure
The
data
for
this study were obtained
from
the
Intergenerational
Studies
(IGS),
administered
by the
Institute
of
Human Development, University
of
Table
2
Direct,
Indirect,
and
Total
Relationships Between
Core
Self-
Evaluations
and Job
Satisfaction
Study
1
Study
2
Relationship
Self-report
Mixed data Childhood Adulthood
model model model model
Direct
Indirect
Total
Proportion
of
relationship
mediated
22**
.28**
.50**
.56
.04
.22**
.26**
.85
.20
.16**
.36**
.44
.34**
.11**
.45**
.24
Note.
Proportion
of
relationship mediated
was
calculated
by
dividing
the
indirect relationship
by the
total relationship.
**p
<
.01.

PERSONALITY
AND JOB
SATISFACTION
245
California
at
Berkeley.
The
IGS
were
a
combination
of
three studies
conducted
at the
Institute, beginning
in the
early
1920s.
Because,
for the
most part,
the
same measures were
collected
in the
three studies, they were
combined
in the
analyses.
The
participants included
in our
study
were
predominantly White
and
were roughly evenly divided between males
and
females.
The
average participant
had at
least some college education,
and
approximately
60%
were
bom
into
middle-class
homes. Finally,
85% of
the
participants were married
and had an
average
of 2.7
children.
(For
a
more
complete description
of the IGS
procedures
and
measures,
see
Block,
1971,
and
Clausen, 1993.)
The
IGS
participants' personality
was
assessed
twice during
the
partic-
ipants'
childhood—when
children were approximately
13
years
old and
again when participants were
16
years
old.
Participants'
personality
was
also assessed
in
adulthood—to
preserve
the
temporal ordering
of the
variables,
when adulthood measures
of
personality were used
in the
anal-
yses,
we
used
only
the
early adulthood
personality
measures,
which were
collected
when
the
participants were
30-38
years
old.
During
the
course
of
the
IGS,
participants'
job
satisfaction
was
assessed
with
a
multi-item
measure once, when participants were
41-50
years
old.
(Because
of the
intensive
nature
of the
data collection,
the
adult interviews took place over
approximately 8-year increments.)
There were
192
individuals
who had
complete personality data
(age
13,
age 16, and
ages
30-38).
Of the
individuals
who had
complete personality
data,
107
also
had
complete
job
satisfaction data.
Of the
individuals whose
personality
was
assessed when they were
30-38
years
old,
151
individuals
also
had
complete
job
satisfaction data. Post
hoc
analyses indicated that
the
core self-evaluations
for
those
who had
incomplete data were
not
different
from
the
evaluations
for
those
who had
complete data.
Measures
Core
self-evaluations.
On the
basis
of the
interview transcripts
and
archives
for
each participant, expert psychologists trained
in
personality
assessment were asked
to
sort
104
personality descriptors into nine cate-
gories,
ranging
from
most descriptive
to
least descriptive
of the
partici-
pants' personality.
These
categories were then numbered,
from
9
being
the
most descriptive
to 1
being
the
least descriptive.
To
eliminate
the
possi-
bility that
assessors'
subsequent personality ratings
of a
participant were
influenced
by
earlier ratings,
no
assessor
evaluated
the
same participant
over
more
than
one time
period. Because
the
multiple assessors rated each
participant
according
to the Q set
items,
it is
possible
to
estimate
interrater
reliability
of
the
ratings. Across
all
assessments,
the
average
reliabilities
ranged
from
.72 to
.78.
Thus,
the
assessors were reliable
in
their assessment
of
participants' personality. Participants' scores
on
each item were
com-
puted
as the
average score across
the
assessors.
The 104
items measured many aspects
of
participants' personality.
Of
these items,
8 met the
requirements
of
core self-evaluations measures:
(a)
self-focused,
(b)
evaluative,
and (c)
carried
a
positive
or
negative
affective
connotation.
For
example, descriptions such
as "Is
hostile,"
"Is
sociable,"
and
"Is
productive; gets things done" were excluded because they
did not
meet
one or
more
of the
evaluative criteria. Sample items
from
the
8-item
scale
include
"Is
self-defeating" (reverse
scored),
"Is
satisfied with self,"
and
"Is
self-pitying" (reverse
scored).
Responses
to
these
8
items were
summed
to
form
a
measure
of
core self-evaluations
for
each
time
period.
The
reliability
of
this scale
was a = .72 for
children ages
13 and 16, and
a = .74 for the
adult assessment. Childhood core self-evaluations were
assessed
as the
average
of the age 13 and age 16
assessments, whereas
adulthood core
self-evaluations
were assessed with
the
single (ages
30-38)
early
adulthood assessment.
Job
satisfaction.
Overall
job
satisfaction
was
measured when partici-
pants
were
41-50
years
old,
with
an
eight-item scale that asked participants
to
report their satisfaction with various
facets
of
their
job
(e.g., income,
supervision,
job
security,
coworkers).
Interviewers coded
responses on a 1
(dislike
it
very
much)
to 5
(like
it
very
much)
scale.
Responses
to
these eight
items
were summed
to
form
a
measure
of
overall
job
satisfaction.
The
reliability
of
this scale
was a =
.92.
Job
complexity.
At the
same
time
participants'
job
satisfaction
was
measured,
job
complexity
was
measured
by
matching
the DOT
rating
of
job titles to the
participants' jobs.
The DOT
evaluates
job
complexity
in
terms
of
complexity
in
dealing with people (rated
on a 0-8
scale anchored
by
mentoring
[0] and
taking
instructions
[8]),
data (rated
on a 0-6
scale
anchored
by
synthesizing
[0] and
coordinating
[6]),
and
things (rated
on a
0-7
scale anchored
by
setting
up [0] and
handling
[7]).
These three facets
were
summed
(a
=
.72)
to
form
an
overall measure
of job
complexity.
After
summing
the
facets,
the
scale
was
reverse scored
to
make high scores
indicate more complex jobs.
Results
Table
3
presents descriptive statistics, scale reliabilities,
and
intercorrelations
of
study variables. Correlations between study
variables were consistent with Study
1
results. Specifically, core
self-evaluations, measured
in
both childhood
and
early adulthood,
were significantly correlated with
job
complexity
and job
satisfac-
tion.
Job
complexity
was
also significantly correlated
with
job
satisfaction,
at a
level higher than that
in
Study
1.
Results
also
revealed relatively strong correlations between
the
childhood
as-
sessments
of
core self-evaluations
and the
early adulthood
assess-
ment.
From
the
time individuals were teenagers
to
when they were
in
their 30s,
the
correlation between their core self-evaluations
was
.46. When corrected
for
unreliability,
this correlation rose
to
.62.
Structural
Model
Results
We
tested
two
models
in
this study.
One
model related
the
childhood assessment
of
core self-evaluations
to job
complexity
and
job
satisfaction;
the
other model related
the
early adult assess-
ment
(ages
30-38)
to
these concepts.
Covariance
structure analy-
sis
procedures
in
this study were consistent with those
in
Study
1.
LISREL
estimates
for the
hypothesized models
are
provided
in
Table
3
Descriptive
Statistics, Scale Reliabilities,
and
Intercorrelations
of
Study
2
Variables
Variable
M
SD
1
1.
Core self-evaluations: childhood
2.
Core self-evaluations: ages
30-38
3. Job
complexity
4. Job
satisfaction
0.00
0.00
5.21
27.96
1.76
1.00
2.35
5.71
74
46
22
27
74
19
43
72
41
92
Note.
Decimals
are
omitted
from
correlations
and reliability
coefficients.
Coefficient
alpha reliability estimates
are on the
diagonal.
All
correlations
are
significant
at p <
.05.
Listwise
N =
107.

246
JUDGE,
BONO,
AND
LOCKE
Figure
4.
Results indicate that core self-evaluations
had a
signif-
icant
relationship with
job
complexity
in
both models. However,
core self-evaluations
had a
significant direct relationship with
job
satisfaction
only
in the
early adult model
(in
which core evalua-
tions
were assessed when participants were ages
30-38).
Results
also showed that
job
complexity
was
significantly related
to job
satisfaction
in
both models.
The fit
statistics
for the
childhood
model were
as
follows:
^(3,
N =
107)
=
2.70
(ns),
RSEA
=
.01,
GFI
=
.99,
AGFI
=
.96,
NFI
=
.97,
NNFI
=
1.00,
IFI
=
1.00,
RFI
=
.93,
PNFI
=
.48.
For the
adult model,
the fit
statistics were
as
follows:
)?(2,
N =
151)
=
0.11,
ns,
RSEA
=
.01,
GFI =
1.00,
AGFI
=
1.00,
NFI =
1.00, NNFI
=
1.00,
IFI =
1.00,
RFI =
1.00,
PNFI
=
.67.
The
last
two
columns
of
Table
2
contain
the
direct, indirect,
and
total
(direct
+
indirect)
relations
of the
core
self-evaluations
concept
to job
satisfaction
for the
childhood
and
adulthood models.
As
with
Study
1,
results indicated
a
significant indirect relationship
between core self-evaluations
and job
satisfaction. Also similar
to
Study
1,
results were somewhat inconsistent regarding
the
direct
relationship.
There
was
also
some inconsistency
in the
percentage
of
the
relationship that
was
mediated
by job
characteristics.
In
total, results indicated that
at
least part
of the
relationship between
core self-evaluations
and job
satisfaction
was
mediated
by job
characteristics, though
the
exact magnitude
of the
mediation
is not
clear.
Alternative
Model
Tests
In
Study
2, we
investigated
two of the
same alternative models
as
in
Study
1
(with
no
direct relationship between core self-
evaluations
and job
satisfaction
and no
direct relationship between
job
complexity
and job
satisfaction).
For the
model that dropped
the
link between
core
self-evaluations
and job
satisfaction, results
indicated that dropping
the
link significantly decreased
the fit of
the
adulthood model,
A^2(l,
N =
151)
=
13.69,
p <
.01,
but not
the
childhood model,
A^2(l,
N =
107)
=
2.82,
ns. For the
model
that
dropped
the
link between
job
complexity
and job
satisfaction,
results
indicated that dropping this link decreased
the fit of
both
the
childhood
and
adulthood models,
A^(l,
N =
107)
=
12.66,
p
<
.01,
and
A^(l,
N =
151)
=
18.81,
p <
.01, respectively.
The
parsimony
fit
statistics increased
for the
alternative models that
dropped
the
core self-evaluations link
but
decreased
in the
alter-
native models that dropped
the job
complexity link. Thus,
as in
Study
1, it
appears that
a
direct link between core self-evaluations
and
job
satisfaction
is not
required. However, unlike Study
1,
Study
2
results indicated that there must
be a
direct link between
job
complexity
and job
satisfaction
for the
model
fit to be
ade-
quate.
This
was
probably
due to the
fact
that perceived
job
char-
acteristics were
not
measured
in
Study
2.
Discussion
The
primary contribution
of
these studies
was to
reveal that
job
complexity—the
actual attainment
of
challenging
jobs—was
an
important
explanatory variable
in the
relationship between core
self-evaluations
and job
satisfaction,
and to
show that
the
relation-
ship between core self-evaluations
and job
satisfaction persisted
over
time.
Brief
(1998)
discussed
two
different
models
of job
satisfaction:
top-down,
in
which satisfaction
is
derived
from
how
one
interprets
one's
environment,
and
bottom-up,
in
which satis-
faction
is
derived
from
the
experience
of
more positive
job
con-
ditions. Previous research
has
supported
the
top-down model
(Judge
et
al.,
1998).
At the
same time, results
of the
present studies
appear
to
support
the
bottom-up model. Regardless
of
which
alternative model
is
adopted, core self-evaluations
had a
signifi-
cant
total relationship with
job
satisfaction
in all
four
models
tested,
and
similarly, core self-evaluations
had a
direct relationship
with
job
complexity. Because
job
complexity, core
self-
evaluations,
and job
satisfaction were measured with independent
methods
and,
in the
case
of
Study
2,
core self-evaluations were
measured before
job
satisfaction
(in the
case
of the
childhood
model,
30
years before
job
complexity
and job
satisfaction), con-
fidence
can be
placed
in the
results.
Results
from
Study
2
indicated that core self-evaluations were
related
to job
satisfaction over time.
As is to be
expected,
the
relationship
was
stronger when core evaluations were measured
in
adulthood,
but it is
impressive that independent childhood
assess-
ments correlated with
job
satisfaction
30
years later. Only
one
previous study (Staw
et
al.,
1986)
has
related
IGS
data
to job
satisfaction,
and
similar results were
found
with respect
to
Staw
et
al.'s
measure
of
affective
disposition, which they acknowledged
to
have
some conceptual ambiguities. However, Staw
et al. did not
link
personality
to job
complexity.
Results
from
Study
2
also provided insight into
the
stability
of
the
core
self-evaluations concept. Research
on the Big
Five per-
sonality
traits suggests that
the
average correlation between
the
Figure
4.
LISREL
results—Study
2.
Estimates
in top row
represent results using childhood personality ratings;
estimates
in
bottom
row
represent results using early adult (ages
30-38)
personality ratings.
* p <
.01.

PERSONALITY
AND JOB
SATISFACTION
247
traits
is .58
over roughly
the
same time period
(20
years)
as
that
in
Study
2
(Costa
&
McCrae,
1994).
The
stability
of
core
self-
evaluations
in
Study
2 was
somewhat lower:
.46
(.62 when cor-
rected
for
unreliability).
The
slightly lower stability
may be due to
the
fact
that
the
time interval included
an
individual's formative
years
(whereas Costa
&
McCrae's,
1994,
data only considered
stability
in
adult personality),
or it may be due to the
fact
that some
traits
may be
somewhat less stable than others (House
et
al.,
1996).
Thus, although
the
stability
of
core self-evaluations
is
moderately
high,
it is not so
high
to
suggest that
it is
immutable
to
change.
We
are
aware
of no
previous research
on the
stability
of the
core
self-evaluations
concept,
so
future
research should explore this
issue
further.
Some degree
of
confidence
can be
placed
in the
interpretation
of
our
results because
we
used independent sources
of
data
to
elim-
inate
response-response
bias
and a
longitudinal design
to
support
the
assumed causal ordering
of the
variables. However, with
respect
to
several important aspects
of the
model, causal inferences
cannot
be
drawn. Specifically,
it is
just
as
likely that
the
hypoth-
esized link
from
perceived
job
characteristics
to job
satisfaction
is
also
(or
instead)
in the
opposite
direction,
from
job
satisfaction
to
perceived
job
characteristics. Ideally,
we
would have tested
a
nonrecursive
model that tested
a
reciprocal relationship between
the
two
concepts, something that
has
been done
in
past research
(James
&
Jones, 1980; James
&
Tetrick,
1986).
Unfortunately,
such
tests require
a
number
of
instrumental variables that uniquely
influence
each
concept;
it was not
possible
to use
such variables
in
this study. Thus,
little
weight
can be
placed
on the
hypothesized
causal
ordering
of the
perceived
job
characteristics-job satisfac-
tion
relationship.
For
this reason,
the
results involving perceived
job
characteristics
are
merely exploratory. Only experimental stud-
ies
involving core self-evaluations, perceived task characteristics,
and
task satisfaction would confirm
the
hypothesized causal
structure.
More weight
can be
placed
on the
relationship between core
self-evaluations
and job
complexity, which
is
where
the
unique
contribution
of
this
study
lies.
For the
first
time,
it has
been shown
that
part
of the
reason individuals with positive core self-
evaluations perceive more challenging jobs
and
report higher
levels
of job
satisfaction
is
that they actually have obtained more
complex
(and thus more challenging
and
intrinsically enriching)
jobs. Judge
et
al.'s
(1997) theory
of
core evaluations suggests three
possible paths
from
core self-evaluations
to job
satisfaction: direct,
indirect through
job
attribute perceptions,
and
indirect through
on-the-job
actions taken
to
make
the job
more rewarding (e.g.,
showing
initiative).
This
study
provides
the
first
general
support
for
the
action mediator.
Correlations between self-
and
significant-other reports
of
core
self-evaluations
in
Study
1
were
far
from
perfect (the mean cor-
rected correlation between
the
core traits
was
.49),
and
self-reports
of
core self-evaluations
had a
higher relationship with
job
satis-
faction than
the
significant-other
reports.
One
might question
the
use of
significant-other reports
for
self-evaluations. Whereas
an
individual's
own
core self-evaluations
can be
perceived directly,
from
the
perspective
of
others they must
be
inferred. However,
errors
can be
made
in
both cases.
On the one
hand, self-reports
may
not be
completely accurate because
of the
possibility
of
self-enhancement. Further,
in
this
case,
self-reports also introduce
the
possibility
of
response-response
bias
in the
results.
On the
other hand, significant-other reports
may be
less accurate because
significant
others
have
no
opportunity
to
directly
observe
the
type
of
internal trait
we
were measuring with self-evaluations.
Use of
peer reports
is a
common practice
in
personality research.
As
noted
by
Funder
and
Colvin (1997),
one of the
reasons
re-
searchers study
self-other
agreement
is to
investigate
the
degree
to
which
self-enhancement
or
self-serving
biases
affect
self-reports
of
personality. Although this area continues
to be
investigated,
evidence does suggest that some degree
of
self-enhancement
oc-
curs
(Funder
&
Colvin, 1997).
For
this reason,
we
assessed core
self-evaluations
with both self-reports
and
other reports, though
the
latter certainly have limitations
of
their own.
As
Costa
and
McCrae
(1992)
noted,
the
joint inclusion
of
self-reports
and
other
reports provides valuable information, particularly when
the
sources produce mostly equivalent results.
In the
case
of
Study
1,
there
are
some
differences
in the
results
of the
self-
and
other-
report models.
It
is
possible that
the
best
way to
assess another
person's
core
self-evaluations
would
be a
clinical
interview,
and
this
is
what
we
did in
Study
2. It is
interesting
to
note that, across
the two
studies,
all
three sources
of
data
(self-,
significant-other,
and
clinical
rat-
ings) produced generally similar
results—in
all
cases, core self-
evaluations
were significantly related
to
both
job
satisfaction
and
job
complexity. Because
the
sources
are not
purely equivalent,
we
think
future
research should continue
to use
multiple sources
of
core
self-evaluations. However,
it
would
also
be
useful
for
future
research
to
model
the
causes
of
agreement
and
disagreement
among
the
sources
of
core self-evaluations data. This mimics
a
more general call
for
more research
on the
causes
and
meaning
of
self-other
agreement recently voiced
by
Funder
and
Colvin
(1997).
In
interpreting
the
results
of the
present studies,
it is
important
to
note
that
job
complexity
had a
direct relationship with
job
satisfaction
only
in
Study
2.
This should
not be
surprising consid-
ering
that virtually
all of the
effects
of
environmental conditions
are
mediated
by
conscious perceptions (although there could
be
subconscious
mechanisms involved
in
some cases). However,
a
cautionary
note should
be
sounded here. Although
the
measure
of
job
complexity
was
correlated
with
perceptions,
it is not a
com-
plete
measure.
A job
title
or
brief
job
description does
not
provide
a
detailed picture
of a
job's
characteristics because jobs with
the
same
title can be
very
different.
As
House
et al.
(1996)
noted,
the
somewhat
imprecise measurement
of job
complexity makes
it
more
difficult
to
find
associations
with
other variables. Thus,
the
imperfections
in our
measure
of job
complexity suggest
that
the
results might
be
conservative.
It
would
be
useful
for
future
re-
search
to
investigate whether individuals
with
a
positive self-
concept attain more complex
job
duties within
the
same type
of
job.
The
response rate
for
Study
1 is a
limitation
of the
study.
Because
the
majority
of
individuals receiving surveys
did not
respond,
it
raises
the
question
of
whether
the
same
relationships
would
be
observed
if all
individuals
had
responded.
Viswesvaran,
Barrick,
and
Ones
(1995)
developed
a
methodology
to
determine
the
response level
of
nonrespondents
that would invalidate
the
conclusions
on the
basis
of the
survey
of
respondents. Using their
formula,
we
estimated that
the
correlation between core self-
evaluations
and job
satisfaction among nonrespondents would
have
to be .03 to
render
the
correlations that were observed (.41
for

248
JUDGE,
BONO,
AND
LOCKE
self-reported core self-evaluations,
.19 for
significant-other
re-
ported core evaluations;
see
Table
1)
nonsignificant.
The
nonre-
spondent correlation between core
self-evaluations
and job
com-
plexity
that would
render
the
observed
correlation
nonsignificant
is
.09. Because both
of
these values
are
well below
the
observed
correlations (see Table
1), the
relationships among
nonrespondents
would
have
to be
quite
different
than those that were observed
in
this study. Furthermore,
the
representativeness
of the
sample—all
data were collected
from
residents
of a
single Midwestern
city—is
a
limitation.
It is
critical that
future
research replicate these results
with
more diverse, particularly international, samples.
Future studies should attempt
to
build
on the
theory
of
core
evaluations
offered
by
Judge
et
al.
(1998).
Although
our
findings
demonstrate
a
relationship between core self-evaluations
and job
complexity (and
thus
extend previous
findings
that considered
only
perceptions
of job
characteristics), they
do not
shed light
on
the
processes leading
to the
relationship. There
are a
number
of
mechanisms that
may
link core self-evaluations
to job
complexity.
Job
choice
was one of the
actions specifically mentioned
by
Judge
et
al.
(1997).
People
who are
generally confident
in
themselves
should
be
more likely
to
think they
can get
challenging jobs.
People
with high self-esteem also tend
to
have better social net-
works
and
make more favorable impressions
on
others (Locke,
McClear,
&
Knight,
1996),
enhancing their ability
to
obtain com-
plex
jobs. Other possible mechanisms linking core self-evaluations
and
job
complexity include
job
behaviors such
as
goal setting, goal
commitment,
effort
and
tenacity
in the
face
of
setbacks,
and
coping
with
negative events
at
work. Other actions that might assist
positively disposed individuals
in
obtaining complex jobs include
efforts
to
improve one's skills
and to
exercise leadership. Finally,
given
the
link between
core
self-evaluations
and job
complexity
found
in two
separate studies here,
and
given
the
somewhat inexact
measurement
of job
complexity, more work
is
needed
on the
construct
validity
of job
complexity. Thus, although
the
present
study
extends recent work
on
core self-evaluations, there
is a
need
for
further
extension.
References
Adelmann,
P.
K.
(1987). Occupational
complexity,
control,
and
personal
income: Their relation
to
psychological well-being
in men and
women.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
72,
529-537.
Anderson,
C. R.
(1977). Locus
of
control, coping behaviors,
and
perfor-
mance
in a
stress setting:
A
longitudinal study. Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
62,
446-451.
Anderson,
J.
C.,
&
Gerbing,
D. W.
(1988). Structural equation modeling
in
practice:
A
review
and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological
Bulletin,
103, 411-423.
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.
Bandura,
A.
(1997).
Self-efficacy:
The
exercise
of
control.
New
York:
Freeman.
Block,
J.
(1971). Lives through time. Berkeley,
CA:
Bancroft Books.
Brayfield,
A. H., &
Rothe,
H. F.
(1951).
An
index
of job
satisfaction.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
35,
307-311.
Brief,
A. P.
(1998). Attitudes
in and
around
organizations.
Thousand Oaks,
CA:
Sage.
Brief,
A. P.,
Butcher,
A.,
&
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.
Cain,
P. S., &
Green,
B. F.
(1983). Reliabilities
of
selected
ratings available
from
the
Dictionary
of
Occupational
Titles. Journal
of
Applied
Psychol-
ogy,
68,
155-165.
Clausen,
J. A.
(1993). American lives: Looking back
at the
children
of
the
Great
Depression.
New
York:
Free
Press.
Costa,
P.
T.,
Jr.,
&
McCrae,
R. R.
(1994).
Set
like plaster? Evidence
for the
stability
of
adult personality.
In T. F.
Heatherton
& J. L.
Weinberger
(Eds.),
Can
personality change?
(pp. 21-40).
Washington,
DC:
Amer-
ican
Psychological Association.
Diener,
E.,
Larsen,
R.
J.,
&
Emmons,
R. A.
(1984). Person
X
Situation
interactions: Choice
of
situations
and
congruence response models.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
47,
580-592.
Dunham,
R. B.
(1976).
The
measurement
and
dimensionality
of job
char-
acteristics. Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
61,
404-409.
Dunham,
R.
B.,
Aldag,
R.
J.,
&
Brief,
A. P.
(1977). Dimensionality
of
task
design
as
measured
by the Job
Diagnostic Survey. Academy
of
Manage-
ment
Journal,
20,
209-223.
Eysenck,
H.
J.,
&
Eysenck,
S. B. G.
(1968).
Manual
for the
Eysenck
Personality
Inventory.
San
Diego,
CA:
Educational
and
Industrial Test-
ing
Service.
Fried,
Y., &
Ferris,
G. R.
(1987).
The
validity
of the job
characteristics
model:
A
review
and
meta-analysis.
Personnel
Psychology,
40,
287-
322.
Funder,
D.
C.,
&
Colvin,
C. R.
(1997). Congruence
of
others'
and
self-
judgments
of
personality.
In R.
Hogan,
J.
Johnson,
& S.
Briggs
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
personality psychology
(pp.
617-647).
San
Diego,
CA:
Academic Press.
Gerhart,
B. A.
(1985). Sources
of
variance
in
perceptions
of
job
complex-
ity.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of
Wisconsin—Mad-
ison.
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.
Gerhart,
B.
(1988). Sources
of
variance
in
incumbent perceptions
of job
complexity. Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
73,
154-162.
Click,
W.
H.,
Jenkins,
G.
D.,
Jr.,
&
Gupta,
N.
(1986). Method versus
substance:
How
strong
are
underlying relationships between
job
char-
acteristics
and
attitudinal
outcomes? Academy
of
Management
Jour-
nal,
29,
441-464.
Hacket,
G.,
&
Betz,
N. E.
(1981).
A
self-efficacy approach
to the
career
development
of
women. Journal
of
Vocational
Behavior,
18,
326-339.
Hackman,
J.,
&
Oldham,
G.
(1980).
Work
redesign. Reading,
MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Hall,
D.
T.,
&
Foster,
L. W.
(1977).
A
psychological success cycle
and
goal
setting: Goals, performance,
and
attitudes. Academy
of
Management
Journal,
20,
282-290.
House,
R.
J.,
Shane,
S.
A.,
&
Herold,
D. M.
(1996).
Rumors
of the
death
of
dispositional research
are
vastly exaggerated. Academy
of
Manage-
ment
Review,
21,
203-224.
James,
L.
R.,
&
Jones,
A. P.
(1980). Perceived
job
characteristics
and job
satisfaction:
An
examination
of
reciprocal causation. Personnel Psychol-
ogy,
33,
97-135.
James,
L.
R.,
&
Tetrick,
L. E.
(1986). Confirmatory analytic tests
of
three
causal models relating
job
perceptions
to job
satisfaction. Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
71,
77-82.
Joreskog,
K.
G.,
&
Sorbom,
D.
(1989).
USREL
7: A
guide
to the
program
and
applications.
Chicago: SPSS.
Joreskog,
K.
G.,
&
Sorbom,
D.
(1993). USREL
8
user's
reference
guide.
Chicago: Scientific Software.
Judge,
T.
A.,
Boudreau,
J.
W.,
&
Bretz,
R. D.
(1994).
Job and
life
attitudes
of
male executives. Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
79,
767-782.
Judge,
T.
A.,
Locke,
E.
A.,
&
Durham,
C. C.
(1997).
The
dispositional

PERSONALITY
AND JOB
SATISFACTION
249
causes
of job
satisfaction:
A
core 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
role
of
core
evaluations.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
83,
17-34.
Kraiger,
K.,
Billings,
R. S., &
Isen,
A. M.
(1989).
The
influence
of
positive
affective
states
on
task perceptions
and
satisfaction.
Organizational
Behavior
and
Human
Decision Processes,
44,
12—25.
Larsen,
R. J., &
Ketelaar,
T.
(1991). Personality
and
susceptibility
to
positive
and
negative emotional states.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
61,
132-140.
Levenson,
H.
(1981). Differentiating among
internality,
powerful
others,
and
chance.
In H. M.
Lefcourt
(Ed.),
Research with
the
locus
of
control
construct
(pp. 15-63).
New
York: Academic
Press.
Levy,
P.
E.,
&
Baumgardner,
A. H.
(1991).
Effects
of
self-esteem
and
gender
on
goal choice.
Journal
of
Organizational
Behavior,
12,
529-
541.
Locke,
E.
A.,
McClear,
K.,
&
Knight,
D.
(1996).
Self-esteem
and
work.
International
Review
of
Industrial
&
Organizational
Psychology,
11,
1-32.
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.
Magnus,
K.,
Diener,
E.,
Fujita,
F., &
Pavot,
W.
(1993).
Extraversion
and
neuroticism
as
predictors
of
objective
life
events:
A
longitudinal anal-
ysis.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
65,
1046-1053.
Magnusson,
D.
(1990).
Personality development
from
an
interactional
perspective.
In L. A.
Pervin
(Ed.),
Handbook
of
personality
(pp. 193-
222).
New
York:
Guilford
Press.
Medsker,
G.
J.,
Williams,
L.
J.,
&
Holahan,
P. J.
(1994).
A
review
of
current
practices
for
evaluating causal models
in
organizational behavior
and
human resources management research.
Journal
of
Management,
20,
439_464.
Motowidlo,
S. J.
(1996). Orientation toward
the job and
organization.
In
K.
R.
Murphy
(Ed.),
Individual
differences
and
behavior
in
organiza-
tions
(pp. 175-208).
San
Francisco: Jossey Bass.
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.
Roos,
P.
A.,
&
Treiman,
D. J.
(1980).
Worker
functions
and
worker traits
for
the
1970 U.S.
census classification.
In A. R.
Miller,
D. J.
Treiman,
P. S.
Cain,
& P. A.
Roos
(Eds.),
Work,
jobs,
and
occupations:
A
critical
review
of the
Dictionary
of
Occupational
Titles
(pp. 336-389).
Wash-
ington,
DC:
National Academy Press.
Rosenberg,
M.
(1965).
Society
and the
adolescent
self-image.
Princeton,
NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Scarpello,
V.,
&
Campbell,
J. P.
(1983).
Job
satisfaction:
Are all the
parts
there?
Personnel
Psychology,
36,
577-600.
Spector,
P. E.
(1982). Behavior
in
organizations
as a
function
of
employ-
ee's locus
of
control.
Psychological
Bulletin,
91,
482-497.
Spector,
P.
E.,
&
Jex,
S. M.
(1991). Relations
of job
characteristics
from
multiple
data sources
with
employee
affect,
absence, turnover intentions,
and
health.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
76,
46-53.
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.
Swann,
W.
B.,
Jr.,
Stein-Seroussi,
A.,
&
Giesler,
R. B.
(1992).
Why
people
self-verify.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
62,
392-401.
Viswesvaran,
C.,
Barrick,
M.
R.,
&
Ones,
D. S.
(1995).
How
definitive
are
conclusions based
on
survey data: Estimating robustness
to
nonresponse.
Personnel
Psychology,
46,
551-567.
Weiss,
H.
M.,
&
Cropanzano,
R.
(1996).
Affective
events theory:
A
theoretical discussion
of the
structure, causes,
and
consequences
of
affective
experiences
at
work. Research
in
Organizational
Behavior,
18,
1-74.
Received
June
24,
1998
Revision
received
May 8,
1999
Accepted
May 8,
1999