Content uploaded by Stephanie C Payne
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stephanie C Payne
Content may be subject to copyright.
Changes in Newcomer Job Satisfaction Over Time: Examining the Pattern
of Honeymoons and Hangovers
Wendy R. Boswell, Abbie J. Shipp,
and Stephanie C. Payne
Texas A&M University
Satoris S. Culbertson
Kansas State University
In this study, the authors contribute insight into the temporal nature of work attitudes, examining how job
satisfaction changes across the 1st year of employment for a sample of organizational newcomers. The
authors examined factors related to job change (i.e., voluntary turnover, prior job satisfaction) and
newcomer experiences (i.e., fulfillment of commitments, extent of socialization) that may strengthen or
weaken the job satisfaction pattern. Results of a study of 132 newcomers with data collected at 4 unique
time periods show a complex curvilinear pattern of job satisfaction, such that satisfaction reached a peak
following organizational entry and decreased thereafter. However, examination of moderating factors
revealed that individuals who reported less satisfaction with their prior job and those having more
positive experiences on the new job, such as greater fulfilled commitments and a higher degree of
socialization, were most likely to experience this pattern. Findings from this study offer important
implications for theory and research on changes in newcomer attitudes over time as well as practical
insight on key factors that shape the pattern of job attitudes as individuals enter and experience a new
workplace.
Keywords: job satisfaction, socialization, organizational newcomers, longitudinal research
An employee’s affective reaction toward his or her job plays an
important role in work motivation, behavior, and retention. Prior
research has contributed much to the understanding of employee
work attitudes, demonstrating the importance of both situational
factors and individual difference variables as determinants of em-
ployee attitudes toward the job (e.g., Gerhart, 1987; Porter, 1962;
Staw & Ross, 1985; Steel & Rentsch, 1997; Wolf, 1970). Recent
research has also recognized the temporal context in which em-
ployees experience and react to their work, examining how atti-
tudes change over time and how these changes impact important
outcomes. For example, several studies have examined the effect
of changes in attitudes on turnover, demonstrating that not just the
level of attitudes but also the rate of change over time is important
in predicting outcomes (e.g., Bentein, Vandenberg, Vandenberghe,
& Stinglhamber, 2005; Kammeyer-Mueller, Wanberg, Glomb, &
Ahlburg, 2005; Steel, 2002). Similarly, in a study of job satisfac-
tion over time, Boswell, Boudreau, and Tichy (2005) showed that
feelings about one’s job vary systematically as a function of job
change, suggesting a general and predictable pattern of an initial
peak and subsequent decline in job satisfaction as an individual
exits one organization and joins another.
Although the importance of time in understanding work-related
phenomena has received increasing research attention (Mitchell &
James, 2001), we have little understanding of how reactions to-
ward work evolve over time, such as when individuals transition
into a new job. Theoretical work on newcomer experiences and
sensemaking of those experiences (e.g., Louis, 1980; Weick, 1995)
suggests that there may be a pattern to work attitudes as individ-
uals enter and experience a new setting. Drawing on this work, in
the present study we contribute to the growing body of research on
the temporal nature of work attitudes, proposing and testing a
curvilinear pattern of job satisfaction and examining the role of job
change and newcomer experiences in shaping this pattern. In
particular, we conducted a longitudinal study of changes in job
satisfaction across the 1st year of employment, with an explicit
focus on several moderating conditions that may shape the pattern
over time as individuals experience and make sense of a new
situation.
Changes in Job Satisfaction Over Time
Job satisfaction is an affective reaction to one’s job (Locke,
1976; Wanous & Lawler, 1972) typically argued to be a function
of situational factors, including the nature of work, human re-
sources elements (e.g., pay, advancement opportunities), and the
organizational environment (e.g., Gerhart, 1987; Hackman & Old-
ham, 1975; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969). Other research takes
a more dispositional perspective (e.g., Judge, Heller, & Mount,
2002; Levin & Stokes, 1989; Staw, Bell, & Clausen, 1986; Staw &
Ross, 1985), suggesting there is some stability in an individual’s
Wendy R. Boswell and Abbie J. Shipp, Department of Management,
Mays Business School, Texas A&M University; Stephanie C. Payne,
Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University; Satoris S. Culbertson,
Department of Psychology, Kansas State University.
We thank Murray Barrick and Dan Newman for their helpful comments
on a draft of this article, and Paul Bliese, Jeffrey Edwards, and Dave
Hofmann for their helpful guidance on the statistical analyses. We also
wish to express our appreciation to Brian Payne, Eric Barger, and Matthew
Pariyothorn for their assistance with data collection.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Wendy
R. Boswell, Department of Management, Mays Business School, Texas
A&M University, 483D Wehner Building, College Station, TX 77843-
4221. E-mail: wboswell@tamu.edu
Journal of Applied Psychology © 2009 American Psychological Association
2009, Vol. 94, No. 4, 844– 858 0021-9010/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0014975
844
attitudes over time and across situations. Combining the situational
and dispositional perspectives suggests that individuals have a
tendency toward some level of job satisfaction, but there are
factors that lead to higher or lower levels of satisfaction with the
present situation (Steel & Rentsch, 1997). This is consistent with
the conceptualization of an affective set point (Avant, 1977; Die-
ner & Diener, 1996; Heady & Wearing, 1992), which is a dispo-
sitional mood or attitude level around which reactions occur.
Experiences may stimulate a shift around one’s attitudinal set
point, but over time there is likely to be convergence toward a
more stable level.
In particular, a job change and the accompanying “newness of
the ‘changed to’ situation” (Louis, 1980, p. 235) is likely to
stimulate an initial high in job satisfaction, but over time, satis-
faction will decline as an individual becomes more settled and the
situation normalizes (Ashforth, 2001). There are aspects of job
change and organizational entry that would suggest such a pattern.
It has been argued that organizations present their most favorable
side to employees initially, leading employees to perceive a par-
ticularly positive picture of the organization (Van Maanen, 1975;
Wanous, 1977; Ward & Athos, 1972). Positive initial attitudes are
likely to ensue in anticipation of the positive attributes of the new
situation and in contrast with the previous situation of which there
is greater familiarity (Louis, 1980). Indeed, the perception that the
new job will be better than the previous is often the impetus for job
change or at least acceptance of the new job (Boswell et al., 2005).
In addition, research on postdecision dissonance and rationaliza-
tion suggests that individuals are likely to think well of a new role
to which they have committed, regardless of the reasons for the job
choice, viewing it even more favorably than they did prior to
making the choice (Lawler, Kuleck, Rhode, & Sorenson, 1975;
Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Vroom, 1966; Vroom & Deci,
1971). Even if confronted with unfavorable elements of the new
job, individuals are likely to minimize their importance, thereby
shielding the new relationship (Ashforth, 2001). Yet, increased
tenure with the organization brings increased knowledge of work
systems and values (Chatman, 1991; Louis, 1980) and greater
recognition of and encounters with the less attractive aspects of the
job (Meglino & DeNisi, 1987). Even if the job is similar to what
was anticipated (i.e., little surprise; Louis, 1980), the initial high of
a new job is likely to wear off as employees engage in more
mundane job activities and normalization occurs (Ashforth, 2001;
Ashforth & Kreiner, 2002).
There is some empirical support for a general decline in job
attitudes following initial employment with an organization. For
example, Van Maanen’s (1975) study of police recruits revealed
significant decreases in employee motivation and commitment
following job entry when recruits settled into the organization.
Early research on the stability of postdecision dissonance (Lawler
et al., 1975; Vroom & Deci, 1971) revealed a marked reduction in
rated job attractiveness as individuals acquire knowledge of their
job. Employee turnover research generally finds that new entrants
to a job exhibit a decline in work attitudes over time (Hom &
Griffeth, 1991; Rusbult & Farrell, 1983; Youngblood, Mobley, &
Meglino, 1983). Most recently, Boswell et al. (2005) modeled the
temporal interplay between job satisfaction and turnover of high-
level managers, showing that for those that changed employers,
satisfaction decreased the year prior to turnover, increased the year
of the job change (honeymoon effect), and subsequently declined
(hangover effect).
Although Boswell et al. (2005) identified a honeymoon–
hangover effect, their study was limited in three ways. First, it
examined a main effect of a job change on job satisfaction, simply
revealing a general pattern of satisfaction as a function of whether
individuals quit their job in the preceding year. Second, this
general pattern was measured at 1-year intervals. Finally, the
sample was solely composed of executives. In the present study,
we identify several moderators of the change in job satisfaction
(discussed in the next section) to investigate when hangovers and
honeymoons would be stronger. In doing so, we provide important
theoretical and practical insight on why, and under what condi-
tions, newcomer job satisfaction may change. In addition, our
measurement approach offers greater precision in understanding
the temporal curvilinear pattern associated with job change by
focusing specifically on changes in job satisfaction over the 1st
year of employment at frequent intervals relative to entering a new
job. As such, we contribute insight on newcomer reactions as they
experience and make sense of a new situation (Louis, 1980).
Finally, we examine a sample of employees across a variety of
occupations and levels to generalize beyond executive-level em-
ployees.
As part of the pattern, we include one’s feelings toward the
previous job to examine the potential peak following a job change.
We consider satisfaction with the prior job at the point of job
change because it is the “baggage” that individuals bring with
them that serves as a referent for the new job and thus an important
part of the temporal pattern of newcomer attitudes. From a sense-
making perspective (Louis, 1980), a contrast effect emerges
whereby the prior job serves as background as individuals expe-
rience and react to the new situation. Notably, individuals react on
the basis of their “remembered experiences” (Schwarz, 2007, p.
19), even when these memories may be biased (Gutek & Winter,
1992; Howard et al., 1979; Wirtz, Kruger, Scollon, & Diener,
2003).
Upon organizational entry, what then is the rate at which we
would expect temporal changes in job satisfaction? There is little
agreement among researchers as to the timing of newcomer tran-
sitions; for example, there do not appear to be “inherently fixed
timeframes for becoming socialized” (Ashforth, Sluss, & Harrison,
2007, p. 48). Yet the majority of prior research suggests that
newcomers tend to adjust rapidly to their new jobs and organiza-
tions, within the first several months postentry (Ashforth & Saks,
1996; Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2005; Morrison, 1993a,
1993b; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Consistent with this, we would
expect the peak and subsequent tapering off in job satisfaction to
occur fairly quickly. Drawing on stage models of socialization
demarcating multiple periods of transition to a new organization
(e.g., Anderson, Riddle, & Martin, 1999; Jablin, 1987; Wanous,
1992), the newness and positive features of the new job should
facilitate an initial honeymoon period followed within a few
months by a hangover whereby job satisfaction will decline as a
newcomer experiences and makes sense of the new situation. The
frequency and timing of our measurement periods (discussed be-
low in the Method section) attempt to capture this expected rate of
change and are also consistent with measurement periods used in
prior research on newcomer socialization (cf. Bauer, Bodner,
845
CHANGES IN NEWCOMER JOB SATISFACTION
Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007; DeVos, Buyens, & Schalk,
2003; Nelson & Sutton, 1990).
In sum, we expect that organizational newcomers will view their
present job more favorably than their previous job, at least ini-
tially, and thus experience a peak in job satisfaction that tapers off
over time. Accordingly, one’s current job satisfaction will be
higher than satisfaction with the prior job, though over time,
satisfaction levels with the present job will begin to converge with
how one felt toward the prior job. The following hypothesis
incorporates these ideas:
Hypothesis 1. Satisfaction with the present job will be higher
initially than satisfaction with the prior job (i.e., honeymoon)
but will decline over time (i.e., hangover).
Moderating Factors
Beyond the general pattern of job satisfaction among newcom-
ers, research has yet to demonstrate why, and under what condi-
tions, such a pattern may change. We propose that a newcomer’s
change in job satisfaction depends upon two main dimensions of
making sense of the new situation: job change and newcomer
experiences. Specifically, we predict that key factors related to
these two dimensions will moderate the pattern of job satisfaction.
Job Change
Although job dissatisfaction is often a key determinant of em-
ployee turnover (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Harrison, New-
man, & Roth, 2006; Tett & Meyer, 1993), individuals change jobs
for various reasons and differing circumstances. Interestingly,
most studies on work attitudes focus on features of an individual’s
present situation without recognizing the possible baggage that
individuals bring with them as they exit one organization and join
another. Yet, as argued by Louis (1980), both making sense of
experiences in the new setting and what is even noticed in the new
setting are determined in part from a contrast effect with previous
experiences and the perceptions of those experiences. For exam-
ple, having a negative experience, such as harassment by a super-
visor (a work-related critical event; Kammeyer-Mueller et al.,
2005), could lead an employee to exit an organization and subse-
quently be more cognizant of and sensitive to supervisor behaviors
at a new organization.
We address this issue in the present study by first incorporating
attitudes toward the prior job as an important part of the temporal
pattern of newcomer job satisfaction as discussed above (Hypoth-
esis 1). Yet, we also expect that the baggage brought from the job
change will influence how one reacts to the new job. For example,
the psychological dynamics involved when one voluntarily
chooses to leave one job for another are likely quite different than
when a job change is involuntary (e.g., termination). The experi-
ence of changing to and entering a new situation should stimulate
an initial high in satisfaction and then tapering off regardless of the
reason for the job change, because even when job change is
involuntary, individuals need to make sense of a new job through
postdecision dissonance reduction and job choice rationalization
(Lawler et al., 1975; Vroom, 1966). However, we expect that
individuals who voluntarily chose to leave a prior job in lieu of a
different, and presumably more favorable, job will enter into that
new job with exceedingly positive anticipations and perceptions.
These anticipations may justify the job change yet may bring later
disappointment. Thus, voluntary job changes may produce stron-
ger honeymoon and hangover effects than involuntary job changes.
The above presumes that the circumstances surrounding the job
change are brought with an individual to the new job, serving as
background to the new situation (Louis, 1980). Also relevant is
how a newcomer feels about the prior job. Whereas we see this
variable as an important part of the general pattern of job satis-
faction (Hypothesis 1) by illustrating an initial peak in satisfaction
following organizational entry, we also expect the level of satis-
faction with the prior job to shape subsequent reactions. When
individuals have particularly negative feelings about the prior job,
regardless of why they left, they are likely to hold exceedingly
high hopes for the new job. This dissatisfaction with the prior job
may have motivated or justified the job change (Boswell et al.,
2005) and created expectations that the new job will be better. The
present job then represents, at least initially, a positive contrast to
the prior situation (Louis, 1980; Tversky & Griffin, 1991; Wanous,
1977). Yet a contrast effect is likely to facilitate a subsequent
decline in satisfaction when normalization (Ashforth, 2001) sets in
and/or the near inevitability of what is anticipated fails to materi-
alize (Porter, 1962). This is consistent with research on the role of
realism (e.g., realistic job previews; Phillips, 1998; Wanous, 1980)
whereby inflated expectations set up an individual for subsequent
disappointment and disillusionment about the job. On the basis of
the above logic, we therefore expect that changing jobs voluntar-
ily, as well as reporting lower satisfaction with the prior job, will
foster comparatively high initial attitudes toward the present job
but that this will diminish over time.
Hypothesis 2. Reason for the job change will moderate the
pattern of job satisfaction, such that voluntary job change will
associate with a stronger peak (i.e., honeymoon) and a stron-
ger decline (i.e., hangover) in job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3. Satisfaction with the prior job will moderate the
pattern of job satisfaction, such that lower satisfaction with
the prior job will associate with a stronger peak (i.e., honey-
moon) and a stronger decline (i.e., hangover) in job satisfac-
tion.
Newcomer Experiences
Above we discussed how experiences upon transitioning to a
new job are likely to foster a general pattern of newcomer job
satisfaction (Hypothesis 1). We also expect that differences in
newcomer experiences will play a role in accentuating or attenu-
ating the pattern.
Individuals will vary in their expectations of their new employer
because of prior employment experiences, personal values and
needs, and/or individual experiences during the recruitment pro-
cess (Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, 2006). As newcomers begin to
experience and gain more knowledge about the job, organizational
culture and values, and terms and conditions of employment (Chat-
man, 1991), there will likely emerge differences in what was
anticipated versus experienced. Louis (1980) discussed the key
role of these surprises to a newcomer’s adaptation as he or she
gives meaning to the discrepant situation. To the extent an indi-
846 BOSWELL, SHIPP, PAYNE, AND CULBERTSON
vidual perceives that the organization’s commitments are not being
fulfilled (unpleasant surprises; Louis, 1980) and the situation is not
as anticipated, he or she is likely to make negative attributions
about the job. This is consistent with research on violations or
breach of one’s psychological contract (cf. Morrison & Robinson,
1997; Rousseau, 1989). Such individuals are likely to be particu-
larly disappointed, even feel deceived (e.g., experience “on-the-job
disillusionment or disenchantment”; Wanous, 1973, p. 328). This
suggests that unfulfilled commitments will lead to not only nega-
tive reactions toward the job over time (thus, a stronger hangover)
but also an attenuated honeymoon as a positive contrast to the prior
situation fails to ensue. Conversely, fulfilled commitments help to
inoculate (McGuire, 1964) an individual against unpleasant job
elements, facilitating adjustment and more favorable (and sus-
tained) reactions toward the job (Wanous, 1973, 1977).
Thus, although individuals are generally likely to experience
some level of discontent as they become settled in and gain
knowledge about the less favorable elements of their jobs (Chat-
man, 1991; Van Maanen, 1975), we expect that the more an
individual perceives commitments are fulfilled by the organiza-
tion, the stronger the positive reactions toward the job, the less the
disillusionment in the job, and ultimately the weaker the decline in
job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 4. Perceived fulfillment of commitments will
moderate the change in job satisfaction, such that perceiving
a higher level of fulfilled commitments will associate with a
stronger peak (i.e., honeymoon) and a weaker decline (i.e.,
hangover) in job satisfaction.
An extensive literature has shown the important role of new-
comer socialization to positive outcomes, including work attitudes
(Bauer et al., 2007; Bauer, Morrison, & Callister, 1998). Through
the process of socialization, newcomers learn about and assimilate
to a new organizational context (Fisher, 1986; Van Maanen &
Schein, 1979). Drawing from Haueter, Macan, and Winter (2003),
being socialized entails that an employee is knowledgeable about
the organization, work group, and task and understands the appro-
priate role behaviors; that is, he or she “learn[s] the ropes in and
of” (Louis, 1980, p. 233) the new organization. We expect a
newcomer’s knowledge acquisition—which as a primary (or con-
tent) outcome of the socialization process is often discussed in
parallel with learning (cf. Bauer et al., 2007; Chao, Kelly, Wolf,
Klein, & Gardner, 1994; Louis, 1980; Klein & Weaver, 2000)—to
play a critical role in a newcomer’s transition to and sensemaking
of a new situation. Indeed, seminal work on newcomer socializa-
tion (e.g., Brim, 1966; Feldman, 1981; Fisher, 1986; Louis, 1980;
Schein, 1968, 1971; Van Maanen, 1976; Van Maanen & Schein,
1979) has emphasized the learning aspect of the process, and
empirical work in this area has shown that knowledge- and role-
related content is critical for an individual’s adjustment and sub-
sequent reactions (e.g., Bauer et al., 2007; Chao et al., 1994;
Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003; Klein & Weaver, 2000;
Morrison, 1993b; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992; Taormina, 2004).
Lacking this socialization, newcomers may become frustrated and
feel disconnected, thus unlikely to react positively to the job and
experience a particularly strong decline in satisfaction as they fail
to assimilate to their new role.
In addition, compared with organizational insiders, newcomers
typically lack a schema or other guides to interpret and make sense
of organizational experiences (Louis, 1980). Yet an understanding
of organizational norms and values and job duties and priorities
should help a newcomer attach meaning to and cope with surpris-
ing and less attractive aspects of the job and ultimately to accept
and adjust to the new situation. This would suggest a more sus-
tained positive reaction toward the job. Conversely, without this
knowledge and understanding, newcomers are less equipped to
cope as they are “confronted with the actuality of their organiza-
tional roles” (Major, Kozlowski, Chao, & Gardner, 1995, p. 418).
The following hypothesis incorporates these ideas.
Hypothesis 5. The extent of socialization (i.e., knowledge of
the organization, department, and job role) will moderate the
change in job satisfaction, such that a higher degree of so-
cialization will associate with a stronger peak (i.e., honey-
moon) and a weaker decline (i.e., hangover) in job satisfac-
tion.
Method
Procedure and Sample
Longitudinal data were collected from newcomers to a public
sector service organization located in the southwestern United
States. The organization provides extension training, technical
assistance, and technology transfer with an annual budget of over
$79 million and 1,500 employees. The host organization employs
a variety of socialization tactics that are commonly used in com-
panies (cf. Holton, 2001; Louis, Posner, & Powell, 1983). First, all
employees attend a 1-day new employee orientation that consists
of a series of presentations by various members of the organiza-
tion, including a visit by the director of the agency, a review and
history of the agency by the director of communication, a safety
briefing by the safety officer, and an overview of the insurance
options by the benefits coordinator. New employees learn about
organizational policies and procedures and professional develop-
ment opportunities. They also fill out payroll paperwork, complete
computer-based training modules (e.g., ethical guidelines,
discrimination-free workplace), and are given access to various
computer accounts. Beyond the 1st day, organizational newcomers
engage in company-sponsored social and recreational events, in-
formal mentoring, and training programs. Communication of or-
ganizational information to employees is facilitated by an intranet
site and monthly newsletters.
Surveys were administered at four times over the course of an
employee’s 1st year of employment. All surveys were completed
online. The first survey was completed on the 1st day of employ-
ment during the organization’s newcomer orientation (Time 0; T0)
to represent the break between the prior job and the new job (i.e.,
the point of job change). To increase participation and candor, we
were given time alone with employees during the orientation in
which we explained the process, informed participants that the
study was voluntary and that responses were confidential, and
administered informed consent forms. Though these new em-
ployee orientations occurred in batches as new individuals joined
the organization twice a month (typically 3– 4 employees at one
time), the orientation meetings and survey protocol were consistent
847
CHANGES IN NEWCOMER JOB SATISFACTION
across groups. Employees were then sent a link to complete
additional surveys online on their 3-month (Time 1; T1), 6-month
(Time 2; T2), and 1-year (Time 3; T3) anniversary dates. In an
effort to increase response rates at each time period, employees
were sent an e-mail from a member of the organization’s HR
department reminding them that the researchers would be contact-
ing them and that participation in the study was voluntary. For
nonrespondents, a reminder e-mail was sent 1 week after each
survey had been distributed. Note that if an employee failed to
respond to any survey after T0 (e.g., T1), they were still able to
participate in subsequent surveys (e.g., T2–T3).
We chose these four measurement time points (Day 1, 3 months,
6 months, and 1 year) in part on the basis of previous empirical
research on newcomer transitions and socialization (e.g., DeVos et
al., 2003; Nelson & Sutton, 1990), which has shown these as
frequently used and relevant intervals for data collection (Bauer et
al., 2007, 1998). Our decision was also influenced by what man-
agement at the host organization deemed a reasonable demand on
study participants’ time as well as the insight of the organization’s
director and human resources manager as to critical points to
capture attitudinal patterns given the timing of socialization expe-
riences and role transitions at this organization (e.g., performance
expectations). Most importantly, the timing and frequency of the
measurement periods allow for precision in understanding the
temporal pattern of job satisfaction consistent with the expected
rate of a newcomer’s attitudinal change from organizational entry
through the 1st year of employment. Thus, whereas an individual
should react positively toward the new job the first few months
(captured here at 3 months), by 6 months we would expect to see
a tapering off in satisfaction levels.
Study participants represented a wide array of jobs at this
organization (i.e., 62% professional/administrative, 22% clerical,
11% skilled craft/technical, 2% executive, 1.5% service mainte-
nance). Thus, the newcomers entered jobs that varied in terms of
task components and ranged in level of responsibility and com-
plexity, with example job duties such as customer service, finan-
cial analysis, software development, project management, market-
ing, instructional design, facility maintenance, construction, and
office work (e.g., data entry, invoicing, filing, shipping, and re-
ceiving). In sum, the participants held jobs generally representative
of the larger organization (i.e., 68% professional/administrative,
16% clerical, 10% skilled craft/technical, 3% executive, 1.5%
service maintenance) as well as the types of jobs typical within
many organizations.
The number of individuals who completed the initial survey
(T0) was 132 out of 141 available newcomers (94% T0 response
rate); the number participating at T1 was 120 out of 128 (i.e., 4
individuals had left the organization; 94% T1 response rate); the
number participating at T2 was 99 out of 113 (i.e., 15 more
individuals had left the organization; 88% T2 response rate);
the number participating at T3 was 88 out of 106 (i.e., 7 more
individuals had left the organization; 83% T3 response rate; 62.4%
overall final response rate). As we describe below, our analysis
method (random coefficient modeling; RCM) utilized responses
from all study participants (N⫽132). Of the sample, 35% were
female, and 86% were Caucasian, 8% were Hispanic, 3% were
African American, and 3% were other. Participants’ ages ranged
from 20 to 63 years, with an average age of 39 years (SD ⫽10.70).
The average salary for our sample was $41,451 (SD ⫽$15,800).
We note that our sample was quite representative of the larger
organization, which was 36% female and 85% Caucasian. Our
sample was somewhat younger and had a slightly lower salary
relative to the larger organization (44.5 years and $45,913, respec-
tively), which we would expect when comparing a sample of
organizational newcomers with more tenured organizational mem-
bers.
Measures
Job satisfaction and prior job satisfaction. We used the three-
item measure of overall job satisfaction from the Michigan Orga-
nizational Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann, Fichman, Jen-
kins, & Klesh, 1979). An example item read as follows: “All in all,
I am satisfied with my job” (1 ⫽strongly disagree,5⫽strongly
agree). Job satisfaction with the present job was measured at an
employee’s 3-month (T1; ␣⫽.86), 6-month (T2; ␣⫽.91), and
1-year (T3; ␣⫽.83) anniversary of his/her start date. Satisfaction
with the prior job was measured at the point of job change (i.e., 1st
day of the new job; T0) by rewording the three items from
Cammann et al.’s (1979) measure to focus on the individual’s
previous job (e.g., “All in all, I was satisfied with my previous
job”; ␣⫽.93).
Reason for job change. We coded the newcomers’ “reason for
leaving” the most recent job (0 ⫽voluntary, 1 ⫽involuntary) from
employment applications provided by the organization. Of the
respondents, 19% indicated involuntary departure (e.g., layoff,
position eliminated) from their prior job.
Perceived fulfillment of organizational commitments. We
asked respondents to indicate the extent to which the employer
fulfilled initial commitments to the employee using Rousseau’s
(1998) Psychological Contracts Inventory. This measure consists
of 18 items measuring various work elements, such as providing
developmental opportunities, providing stable pay and benefits,
supporting high levels of performance, and showing concern for
employee well being. Response choices ranged from 1 (not at all)
to5(great extent;␣⫽.96). We administered this measure at the
6-month anniversary date (T2) to allow time for the employee to
evaluate the fulfillment of perceived commitments (cf. Chatman,
1991).
Socialization. We assessed the extent to which a newcomer
was socialized with Haueter et al.’s (2003) Newcomer Socializa-
tion Questionnaire, a self-report measure of socialization content.
Given evidence that socialization typically occurs within the first
few months of employment, and consistent with prior socialization
research (Bauer et al., 1998, 2007), this measure was administered
at the 3-month anniversary date (T1). The Newcomer Socialization
Questionnaire contains 31 items that examine the extent to which
employees have factual knowledge and knowledge of expected
role behaviors in regards to their organization, department (re-
ferred to as “program” in the organization studied), and the job for
which they were hired. Sample items include the following: “I
understand the operations of this organization,” “I understand the
relationship between my program and other programs,” and “I
understand how to perform the tasks that make up my job.”
Response choices ranged from 1 (strongly disagree)to5(strongly
agree;␣⫽.94).
Control variables. For all analyses, we also included an array
of control variables to help eliminate alternative explanations for
848 BOSWELL, SHIPP, PAYNE, AND CULBERTSON
the results. First, we controlled for the time lag between jobs (in
days) and prior work experience (in years) given the potential role
of such variables in adaptation and reactions to the new job. These
data were coded from participants’ employment applications ob-
tained directly from the organization. In addition, prior research
suggests that job satisfaction is in part dispositional (e.g., Judge et
al., 2002; Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, & De Chermont,
2003), and individual tendencies to report experiences as positive
(or negative) may drive patterns of work attitudes. We thus con-
trolled for positive affectivity (PA) and negative affectivity (NA)
measured on the survey at organizational entry (T0) with the
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Watson, Clark, & Telle-
gen, 1988). Finally, given the possible role of an individual’s
initial expectations in driving subsequent reactions, we controlled
for perceived commitments by the organization measured at orga-
nizational entry (T0) using Rousseau’s (1998) Psychological Con-
tracts Inventory.
1
Analyses
We tested the hypotheses using repeated measures analysis with
the complementary approaches of the general linear model (GLM)
and RCM, which uses the restricted maximum likelihood estima-
tion method. Using restricted maximum likelihood estimation al-
lows for missing data at one or more periods, so that the entire
sample of respondents (N⫽132) is used and listwise deletion is
avoided (DeShon, Ployhart, & Sacco, 1998). As we discuss later,
we also analyzed all hypotheses using only those individuals
employed at the end of the 1st year (n⫽106), and we found no
difference between results from the full sample and from the
reduced sample of stayers. Only results from the full sample are
reported here.
We conducted the GLM analyses using SPSS 14.0, and we
conducted the RCM analyses using SAS 9.1 PROC MIXED sta-
tistical software. Hypothesis 1 was tested in the Level 1 analysis
(within individuals; i.e., main effects) and Hypotheses 2–5 were
tested in the Level 2 analyses (between individuals; i.e., modera-
tors).
Results
Descriptive statistics and correlations are depicted in Table 1.
As shown in the table, the three measures of satisfaction with the
present job significantly correlated with one another but were not
significantly related to satisfaction with the prior job. This latter
finding reflects the distinction between the feelings toward the
prior job and the present job. Fulfillment of commitments and
extent of socialization also correlated significantly with satisfac-
tion with the present job at all three measurement periods.
To test Hypothesis 1, we used repeated measures analyses in
GLM with both simple contrasts (e.g., contrasts to satisfaction with
prior job; T0) and repeated contrasts (e.g., contrasts among adja-
cent periods). Results show that satisfaction with the prior job was
lower than satisfaction with the current job from T1 to T3 ( p⬍
.05). Repeated contrasts further reveal that this difference became
smaller over time. For example, T2 job satisfaction was signifi-
cantly lower than T1 job satisfaction ( p⬍.05), but T3 job
satisfaction was not significantly different from job satisfaction at
T2. Thus, as shown in Figure 1 and consistent with Hypothesis 1,
we found satisfaction with the current job was higher than satis-
faction with the prior job but showed a decline and tapering off
across the 1st year of employment (i.e., honeymoon followed by
hangover).
RCM was used to clarify the form of the curve shown in
Figure 1. We followed Bliese and Ployhart’s (2002) recommended
model testing sequence. First, by examining ICC(1), we found that
24% of the variance in job satisfaction was accounted for by
between-individuals variance. We found significant linear (␥⫽
1.18, p⬍.01), quadratic (␥⫽⫺0.83, p⬍.01), and cubic (␥⫽
0.16, p⬍.01) trends in the curve. The cubic form indicates a curve
with two bends. Specifically, the findings show that on average,
the pattern shown in Figure 1 demonstrates a positive linear trend
with a significant turn at T1, trending downward by T2 before
turning to level off at T3. These results are consistent with the
GLM results and provide further support for Hypothesis 1.
Our results further reveal that there was significant variance
around the intercept (T0) and the linear function, suggesting that
individuals vary in their level of satisfaction with the prior job (i.e.,
intercepts) and the rate at which their job satisfaction changes over
time (i.e., slopes). This supports our use of RCM by allowing us to
model the variability in the trends we are examining. There was no
significant autocorrelation detected, thus we used unstructured
errors to allow for covariance between the random components.
To examine moderators of the pattern of job satisfaction (Hy-
potheses 2–5), we used the Level 1 model with linear and quadratic
fixed effects and random intercept and linear terms, then intro-
1
We also conducted the analyses controlling for pay level and job type
(dummy coded administrative, professional, clerical, technical, and other)
obtained from organizational records. Including these as controls did not
substantively change the findings. Accordingly, the results presented here
do not include pay and job type as controls so as to preserve power and
degrees of freedom and to simplify our results.
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
0123
JOB SATISFACTION
Job C hange
TIME
Figure 1. Job satisfaction pattern— estimated marginal means. Time 0 ⫽
satisfaction with prior job at entry; Time 1 ⫽job satisfaction at 3 months;
Time 2 ⫽job satisfaction at 6 months; Time 3 ⫽job satisfaction at 12
months.
849
CHANGES IN NEWCOMER JOB SATISFACTION
duced moderators at Level 2. The linear component describes the
overall trend (up or down) and the quadratic component describes
the strength of the curve. Although we supported a complex cubic
form in support of Hypothesis 1, for further analyses involving
moderators we used a quadratic model.
2
We made this choice
given our theoretical perspective and several criteria for model
selection (i.e., model fit, interpretability of parameters, and behav-
ior of the function) suggested by Cudeck and Harring (2007). First,
the fit of the quadratic model was approximately the same as the
cubic model. Second, although we tested both moderated quadratic
and cubic models, only the parameters for the moderated quadratic
models were interpretable (e.g., the moderated cubic models pro-
duced values outside the response ranges). This may be due to the
low degrees of freedom with only four measurement periods to fit
the cubic function (Cudeck & Harring, 2007). Finally, the behavior
of the cubic function was unsatisfactory in that many of the
moderated cubic models demonstrated an increase in satisfaction
by Time 3, which is counter to both our theory and previous
research (e.g., Boswell et al., 2005). From a theoretical perspec-
tive, we conceptualize a pattern of initial increase followed by a
downward trend in job satisfaction, suggesting that the selection of
the quadratic model is indeed appropriate for further analyses.
Hypothesis 2 described the moderating effect of a voluntary job
change and proposed that a stronger honeymoon and hangover
would emerge when job change was volitional rather than forced.
As shown in Table 2, the results do not support this hypothesis
given that the reason for job change (i.e., voluntary or involuntary)
did not interact with the linear or quadratic terms ( p⬎.05). We
also examined whether either part of the hypothesis (i.e., honey-
moon or hangover) was supported. Given the dichotomous nature
of the job change variable, we conducted an analysis of covariance
comparing the change from T0 to T1 and then from T1 to T2 for
the two job change groups (voluntary vs. involuntary), finding no
significant difference ( p⬎.05) for either the honeymoon or
hangover. Thus, the pattern of job satisfaction over time does not
depend upon the reason for leaving the prior job, and Hypothesis
2 is not supported.
Hypothesis 3 focused on the role of attitudes toward one’s prior
job, proposing that lower satisfaction with the prior job will
associate with a stronger decreasing pattern of job satisfaction
during the 1st year of employment in the new job. We analyzed a
linear model using T1–T3 job satisfaction as the dependent vari-
able, thus changing satisfaction with the prior job from part of the
dependent variable to a moderating variable of the remaining
periods of satisfaction. As shown in Table 2, the interaction term
between satisfaction with the prior job and the linear term only
approached significance ( p⫽.08), revealing slight differences in
the hangover pattern of job satisfaction for those with higher
versus lower levels of satisfaction with the prior job. Lower levels
of reported satisfaction with the prior job associated with a slight
negative pattern of job satisfaction with the current job, whereas
there was a relatively flat pattern of job satisfaction for those that
reported higher satisfaction with their prior job. This is shown
graphically in Figure 2 with satisfaction with the prior job graphed
one standard deviation above and below the mean. To explore the
honeymoon (i.e., the change in job satisfaction from T0 to T1), we
tested the difference between T0 and T1 satisfaction levels. We
found that for individuals reporting low satisfaction with the prior
job, satisfaction increased significantly ( p⬍.01) from T0 to T1,
thus revealing a honeymoon followed by a slight hangover over
the 1st year of employment. In contrast, for individuals reporting
high satisfaction with the prior job, there was neither a honeymoon
nor a hangover as there was no statistically significant change in
satisfaction through the 1st year. Together, these results provide
partial support for Hypothesis 3.
Hypothesis 4 proposed a stronger peak and a weaker decline in
job satisfaction for employees perceiving a higher level of fulfilled
commitments. As shown in Table 2, the linear and quadratic
interaction terms for this model were significant ( p⬍.01), re-
vealing a difference in the slope as well as the curve in job
satisfaction over time dependent on the employee’s perceived level
of fulfilled commitments. The nature of the pattern is shown
2
The test of Hypothesis 2 removes satisfaction with the prior job (T0)
as part of the dependent variable to include it as a moderator. Thus, for
Hypothesis 2 only, we tested a linear model with T1–T3 job satisfaction as
the dependent variable.
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of Study Variables
Variable MSD 123456789101112
1. Time lag between jobs (days) 68.95 161.50 —
2. Prior work experience (years) 15.74 10.19 .01 —
3. Positive affectivity 4.09 0.43 ⫺.05 .08 (.84)
4. Negative affectivity 1.59 0.46 ⫺.09 ⫺.14 ⫺.22
ⴱ
(.86)
5. Perceived commitments 3.86 0.65 ⫺.08 ⫺.16 .41
ⴱⴱ
.00 (.96)
6. Job satisfaction (T1) 4.24 0.76 .07 ⫺.04 .17 ⫺.05 .32
ⴱⴱ
(.86)
7. Job satisfaction (T2) 4.04 0.79 ⫺.09 .09 .11 .00 .32
ⴱⴱ
.62
ⴱⴱ
(.91)
8. Job satisfaction (T3) 4.09 0.81 .04 ⫺.02 .16 ⫺.14 .46
ⴱⴱ
.54
ⴱⴱ
.61
ⴱⴱ
(.83)
9. Reason for job change
a
0.19 0.39 .36
ⴱⴱ
⫺.13 ⫺.13 .05 .03 .14 .09 .00 —
10. Satisfaction with prior job 3.74 1.0 .04 .27
ⴱⴱ
.09 .00 .04 .01 .03 .17 .02 (.93)
11. Fulfillment of commitments 2.61 0.77 .06 .09 ⫺.07 ⫺.13 ⫺.45
ⴱⴱ
.51
ⴱⴱ
.74
ⴱⴱ
.56
ⴱⴱ
⫺.13 .03 (.96)
12. Extent of socialization 4.07 0.45 ⫺.08 ⫺.07 .39
ⴱⴱ
⫺.10 .38
ⴱⴱ
.58
ⴱⴱ
.54
ⴱⴱ
.46
ⴱⴱ
⫺.02 ⫺.01 ⫺.54
ⴱⴱ
(.94)
Note. N ⫽88 –131. Reliability coefficients (alphas) shown along the diagonal. Satisfaction with prior job measured at T0, extent of socialization measured
at T2, fulfillment of commitment measured at T3. T0 ⫽Time 0; T1 ⫽Time 1; T2 ⫽Time 2; T3 ⫽Time 3.
a
0⫽voluntary; 1 ⫽involuntary.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
850 BOSWELL, SHIPP, PAYNE, AND CULBERTSON
graphically in the left quadrant of Figure 3. The results are some-
what contrary to Hypothesis 4. In particular, job satisfaction was
consistently lower for those reporting lower fulfilled commit-
ments, and neither a honeymoon nor a hangover occurred as
satisfaction was relatively flat over time. Conversely, those report-
ing higher levels of fulfilled commitments, though generally more
satisfied, showed a decreasing pattern in job satisfaction over time
following an initial peak. This group appears to typify the
honeymoon– hangover pattern of job satisfaction. Hypothesis 4
was thus not supported.
Hypothesis 5 proposed that a higher degree of socialization
would associate with a stronger peak and a weaker decline in job
satisfaction. As shown in Table 2, the linear and quadratic inter-
action terms were significant ( p⬍.01) for socialization. As shown
in the right quadrant of Figure 3, the nature of the pattern was
somewhat contrary to Hypothesis 5. Job satisfaction was lower
with less socialization and decreased over time. Conversely, with
greater socialization, job satisfaction showed a honeymoon as
expected but then a hangover pattern over time. Although different
than our hypothesis, these results are consistent with the findings
above involving fulfillment of commitments in that newcomers
with a higher degree of socialization appear to typify the temporal
pattern of an initial peak followed by a decline in job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 5 was thus not supported.
We note that all of the results reported here are based on the full
set of participant responses, yet we might expect different patterns
for individuals that left the organization compared with those who
were still employed at the end of the study period. Twenty-six
individuals that completed at least one survey turned over by the
end of the study. To examine whether the inclusion of these
individuals changed the interpretation of the results, we re-ran all
analyses reported above using a reduced sample of the 106 who
were still employed at the end of their 1st year, and the results were
consistent with our findings above.
Discussion
The present study contributes to the literature on the temporal
nature of work attitudes by demonstrating a curvilinear pattern of
job satisfaction following a job change (i.e., an initial peak and
then tapering off in job satisfaction) and that factors related to job
change and newcomer experiences play a role in explaining this
pattern. Our findings thus offer important insight on why, and
under what conditions, satisfaction levels may change across the
1st year of employment. In particular, honeymoons and hangovers
were experienced among individuals who reported less satisfaction
with their prior job and, surprisingly, among individuals having
more positive experiences in the new job, including greater ful-
filled commitments and a higher degree of socialization.
Considering first the overall curve of job satisfaction, our meth-
odological approach demonstrated that newcomers experience an
initial high in job satisfaction within a few months after organiza-
tional entry, trending downward by 6 months on the job, with this
decline tapering off by 1 year on the job. This has implications for
research and theory on employee attitudes. Most importantly,
theories of work attitudes could be enriched by considering the
temporal nature of job satisfaction, and specifically, that a job
change is likely to stimulate a pattern of job satisfaction as an
individual experiences and makes sense of the new situation. The
finding that attitudes toward the prior job are lower than subse-
quent attitudes about the current job may not be surprising given
the link between job dissatisfaction and employee turnover. How-
ever, we also found that the difference between satisfaction with
the prior job and satisfaction with the current job becomes smaller
over time. This suggests that though initially the “grass is greener,”
it becomes less so over time as job satisfaction tends to taper off.
Finding that job satisfaction fluctuates within individuals over the
1st year of employment also reinforces the importance of longitu-
dinal research (beyond a single time lag: T1–T2) to capture po-
tential attitudinal patterns. Although prior work has shown linear
trends in work attitudes (e.g., Bentein et al., 2005), our findings
revealed a complex yet predictable pattern as individuals change to
and experience a new job. It is critical that future research on
newcomer socialization considers this pattern when selecting mea-
surement periods and interprets findings in light of the timing of
data collection.
An important contribution of this study was our focus on factors
related to job change and newcomer experiences as moderators of
the general pattern. Our finding of a stronger honeymoon followed
by a slight hangover for individuals that entered the organization
with lower satisfaction with their prior job suggests a contrast that
occurs between the prior and present situation (Louis, 1980). We
note that this honeymoon reflects this group being particularly
dissatisfied with the prior job, thus having greater opportunity for
a significant increase in the new job. Job satisfaction remained
higher for those individuals who were highly satisfied with their
prior job. Yet, it is the feelings about the prior job brought to the
new job rather than the reason for the job change (i.e., voluntary
vs. involuntary) that appear key to shaping subsequent reactions.
We suggest that theories of work attitudes specifically (and orga-
nizational behavior more generally) would be enhanced by greater
recognition that employees bring with them and are shaped by
their past. These prior experiences are likely to set a standard
TIME
1 2 3
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
JOBSATISFACTION
1 2 3
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Figure 2. Job satisfaction pattern moderated by satisfaction with prior
job. Solid line ⫽high (⫹1SD above mean) satisfaction with prior job;
dashed line ⫽low (⫺1SD below mean) satisfaction with prior job; Time
1⫽job satisfaction at 3 months; Time 2 ⫽job satisfaction at 6 months;
Time 3 ⫽job satisfaction at 12 months.
851
CHANGES IN NEWCOMER JOB SATISFACTION
against which the current job is evaluated (Shipp, 2006), serving as
background for subsequent reactions.
Our findings provide support for specific factors related to
newcomer experiences in explaining the pattern of newcomer job
satisfaction. However, the influence of such factors was different
than expected. Experiencing unfulfilled commitments or less so-
cialization appears to attenuate the pattern, associating with con-
sistently unchanged (and lower) attitudes about the job. To the
extent that we view a peak and then downward trend in satisfaction
levels as an “expected and typical reaction” (Boswell et al., 2005,
p. 889), it may be through the experience of learning about the
organization and feeling supported and invested in the job that
individuals become more reactive to the good as well as the bad
experiences of a new job. In particular, perceiving fulfilled com-
mitments and being socialized may certainly help to facilitate a
positive reaction toward the job, yet this honeymoon ultimately is
Table 2
Random Coefficient Models Predicting Job Satisfaction
Variable Parameter SE
95% CI lower
bound
95% CI upper
bound
Reason for job change
Intercept 3.618
ⴱⴱ
0.133 3.356 3.879
PA 0.102 0.141 ⫺0.175 0.379
NA ⫺0.022 0.123 ⫺0.264 0.219
Initial expectations 0.312
ⴱⴱ
0.088 0.140 0.485
Years work experience 0.011
ⴱ
0.005 0.001 0.021
Time between jobs 0.000 0.000 ⫺0.001 0.001
Linear 0.448
ⴱⴱ
0.150 0.154 0.742
Quadratic ⫺0.121
ⴱⴱ
0.042 ⫺0.204 ⫺0.038
Reason for job change 0.021 0.239 ⫺0.448 0.490
Linear ⫻Reason for Job Change 0.370 0.351 ⫺0.319 1.058
Quadratic ⫻Reason for Job Change ⫺0.132 0.100 ⫺0.327 0.063
Satisfaction with prior job
Intercept 4.215
ⴱⴱ
0.123 3.974 4.455
PA 0.041 0.162 ⫺0.276 0.358
NA 0.026 0.145 ⫺0.259 0.310
Initial expectations 0.371
ⴱⴱ
0.100 0.175 0.568
Years work experience 0.004 0.006 ⫺0.009 0.016
Time between jobs 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001
Linear ⫺0.108
ⴱⴱ
0.038 ⫺0.183 ⫺0.033
Satisfaction with prior job ⫺0.022 0.068 ⫺0.155 0.110
Linear ⫻Satisfaction With Prior Job 0.064
†
0.037 ⫺0.008 0.136
Fulfillment of commitments
Intercept 3.645
ⴱⴱ
0.126 3.397 3.892
PA 0.102 0.123 ⫺0.138 0.343
NA ⫺0.101 0.116 ⫺0.328 0.126
Initial expectations 0.051 0.082 ⫺0.110 0.212
Years work experience 0.008
†
0.005 0.000 0.017
Time between jobs 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001
Linear 0.458
ⴱⴱ
0.133 0.196 0.719
Quadratic ⫺0.128
ⴱⴱ
0.038 ⫺0.202 ⫺0.053
Fulfillment of commitments 0.049 0.134 ⫺0.214 0.313
Linear ⫻Fulfillment of Commitments 0.622
ⴱⴱ
0.175 0.280 0.964
Quadratic ⫻Fulfillment of Commitments ⫺0.146
ⴱⴱ
0.050 ⫺0.243 ⫺0.049
Extent of socialization
Intercept 3.620
ⴱⴱ
0.126 3.374 3.866
PA ⫺0.198 0.129 ⫺0.450 0.054
NA 0.004 0.113 ⫺0.217 0.226
Initial expectations 0.217
ⴱⴱ
0.081 0.059 0.375
Years work experience 0.008
†
0.005 ⫺0.001 0.017
Time between jobs 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001
Linear 0.610
ⴱⴱ
0.135 0.346 0.875
Quadratic ⫺0.172
ⴱⴱ
0.038 ⫺0.246 ⫺0.099
Extent of socialization ⫺0.023 0.230 ⫺0.475 0.428
Linear ⫻Extent of Socialization 0.990
ⴱⴱ
0.302 0.398 1.583
Quadratic ⫻Extent of Socialization ⫺0.227
ⴱⴱ
0.084 ⫺0.392 ⫺0.062
Note. For Level 1 parameter estimates, the degree of freedom (df) ranged from 171 to 269; for parameters in
Level 2 analyses, the df ranged from 85 to 105. For “Reason for job change,” voluntary is coded 0, and
involuntary is coded 1. For “Satisfaction with prior job,” we used Time 1–Time 3 job satisfaction as the
dependent variable. For all remaining analyses, we used Time 0 –Time 3 satisfaction as the dependent variable.
CI ⫽confidence interval; PA ⫽positive affect; NA ⫽negative affect.
†
p⬍.10.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
852 BOSWELL, SHIPP, PAYNE, AND CULBERTSON
accompanied by a hangover as newcomers settle into and are
exposed to the less attractive aspects of the new job. Whereas we
expected such experiences would forestall a tapering off in satis-
faction, the high was temporary as normalization set in (Ashforth,
2001) and newcomers converged toward their attitudinal set point
(Diener & Diener, 1996). Thus in a sense, the stronger the hon-
eymoon, the stronger the potential hangover will be (i.e., the
higher they are, the harder they fall).
These findings may also indicate that fulfillment of commit-
ments and socialization benefit newcomers most early in their
tenure and have a dissipating effect by the end of the 1st year of
employment. Indeed, though we expected job satisfaction to con-
verge over time toward how one felt about the prior job, it appears
that satisfaction with the present job may even dip lower by the
end of the 1st year (see Figure 3). We would, however, offer
caution in interpreting a specific point on a curve (e.g., T3 job
satisfaction relative to satisfaction with the prior job at the point of
job change). Our analytic method examines the trend in curvilin-
earity, and the plotted function simply represents the best fitting
line derived from individual data points at varying levels of a
moderator (i.e., ⫾1SD). Yet this finding further suggests that the
honeymoon associated with positive experiences in the new job,
such as being socialized and fulfillment of commitments, not only
establishes the possibility for a subsequent settling downward as
normalization sets in or the newness of the job wears off but also
indicates that newcomers may become relatively less satisfied as
they learn about their role and job and/or come to the realization
that commitments are fulfilled yet there are still unattractive as-
pects of the job. Organizational socialization models and theories
should reflect that newcomer experiences (e.g., becoming social-
ized) may not simply yield positive linear effects but help to shape
a complex curvilinear pattern of subsequent reactions.
It is important to note that we conducted the analyses controlling
for variables such as dispositional affect and initial expectations.
These robust findings suggest that the more stable satisfaction
levels were not simply the tendency for employees with unfulfilled
commitments and less socialization to report negative work expe-
riences. Rather, it appears that positive newcomer experiences
(e.g., fulfilled commitments, socialization) facilitate a general pat-
tern whereby individuals are reactive toward the job, perhaps
serving as a prerequisite for newcomers to experience the honey-
moon and the hangover. Conversely, without these experiences,
newcomers are unlikely to experience the high of the new job.
This research also makes several important contributions re-
garding organizational newcomer measurement and study design.
First, our results reveal the value of longitudinal research to
capture the complexities of newcomer affective reactions. The
timing and frequency of the measurement periods is also critical
(Mitchell & James, 2001): If the lag between periods is too long,
variation may be overlooked; yet if the lag is too short, change may
not be apparent. Our research added greater precision regarding the
timing of changes in attitudes upon organizational entry, showing
the potential changes in satisfaction by the 6th month of employ-
ment. This suggests the value of even greater precision in mea-
surement to identify other important time periods. In addition,
researchers should plan the data analyses before the data collec-
tion. Different approaches to longitudinal research require differ-
ent types of data and different periods of measurement (Collins,
2006; Raudenbush, 2001; Singer & Willett, 2003), and although
our random coefficient models with four periods could adequately
portray a quadratic function, a greater number of measurement
periods would be necessary should the function be more complex.
Within this, researchers must decide which variables will be time-
invariant or constant (e.g., personality or event focused) and which
variables will be time-varying or changing (e.g., repeated measures
of attitudes over time; Singer & Willett, 2003). In sum, the
measurement periods and ultimately the analytical approach se-
lected should fit the study context and theoretical framework
(Collins, 2006).
Practical Implications
The present study heeds calls for greater precision in assessing
changes in workplace phenomena as well as the important role of
time more generally (e.g., Bluedorn & Denhardt, 1988; George &
Jones, 2000; McGrath, 1988; Mitchell & James, 2001), thus of-
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
JOBSATISFACTION
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Job Cha nge
= Hi gh ful fille d commi t.
= Low fulfille d commit.
0123
TIME
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
JOBSATISFACTION
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
Job Change
= High level o f sociali zaon
= Low le vel of socializaon
0123
TIME
Figure 3. Job satisfaction patterns moderated by newcomer experiences. Solid line ⫽high level (⫹1SD above
mean) of fulfillment of commitments and socialization; dashed line ⫽low level (⫺1SD below mean) of
fulfillment of commitments and socialization; Time 0 ⫽satisfaction with prior job at entry; Time 1 ⫽job
satisfaction at 3 months; Time 2 ⫽job satisfaction at 6 months; Time 3 ⫽job satisfaction at 12 months.
853
CHANGES IN NEWCOMER JOB SATISFACTION
fering practical insight on when changes are likely to occur within
organizations. In particular, this study provided evidence on when
a newcomer’s hangover is likely to begin. There appear to be
“risky periods” in which employees are likely to experience de-
clining job attitudes and arguably be most susceptible to with-
drawal behaviors and turnover (Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2005).
During such periods, certain experiences could work to counteract
(e.g., new opportunities) or exacerbate (e.g., perceived mistreat-
ment) the risk of adverse reactions.
Organizations should consider timing when interpreting em-
ployee affective reactions toward their work. For example, we
would expect high satisfaction levels among a workforce initially
but should not be surprised (or necessarily alarmed) to see this
decline over time. Organizations could educate newcomers on the
expected pattern of job attitudes as part of their on-boarding
process and realistic job previews. Anticipating this pattern of an
initial high, followed by a tapering off in work attitudes may help
individuals to see this as a typical reaction rather than indicating a
poor job choice decision. It may also be informative should a
manager not observe the expected pattern. For example, relatively
flat satisfaction levels (i.e., no honeymoon) may suggest that early
experiences related to fulfilled commitments or socialization are
lacking. Conversely, to the extent that satisfaction continues to
decline, this may signal a need to intervene particularly for those
individuals that the organization hopes most to retain.
Our findings for the moderator effects also provide employ-
ers with insight on managing newcomer attitudes. First, an
individual’s attitudes about the prior job may offer the subse-
quent employer information about how the individual will react
toward the new job. For example, newcomers bringing with
them strong negative feelings about the previous job may be
particularly prone for a let down in the present job. This could
perhaps be countered through the on-boarding process as well
as expectation-lowering practices (cf. Buckley, Fedor, Veres,
Wiese, & Carraher, 1998; Buckley et al., 2002). Conversely,
newcomers with more positive attitudes toward the prior job
would be expected to be more unwavering in their subsequent
job attitudes. If such individuals respond negatively following
organizational entry, employers may need to evaluate the cause
(e.g., inflated expectations).
Although the importance of socialization to employee adjust-
ment is well documented (e.g., Bauer et al., 1998), newcomers are
still likely to experience highs and lows as they transition to the
new role. Similarly, employees who generally feel the job is as
anticipated will ultimately experience a settling downward in their
work attitudes. To the extent that these findings generalize to other
workplaces, continued organizational efforts aimed at maintaining
employee engagement (e.g., work challenges, role clarity) and a
supportive climate (e.g., voice initiatives, participatory manage-
ment) may be particularly valuable to countering the potential
swing in job attitudes. Yet the honeymoon associated with new-
comer knowledge acquisition and fulfilled commitments may help
to engage and retain employees through periods in which they are
less immersed in the organization with lower personal costs of
leaving and/or when investments in employees have yet to pay off.
Thus, a honeymoon, even if followed by a hangover, may be of
high utility for an employer. Indeed, without newcomer socializa-
tion and practices that foster the fulfillment of commitments (e.g.,
realism during recruitment), an individual’s work attitudes will
likely be consistently flat and lower, ultimately with implications
for withdrawal behavior and/or organizational exit.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Certain design and measurement challenges should be noted.
First, the modest sample size and sample attrition common in
longitudinal research are potential limitations to this study. How-
ever, our sample size did not preclude us from finding significant
and complex effects, and the analytical approach allowed us to
include responses from the full sample of the occupationally and
hierarchically diverse respondent set. Indeed, our findings demon-
strated that the general temporal pattern presented by Boswell et al.
(2005) was not unique to executive-level employees, as was the
sample examined in that previous study. Our sample included
employees in jobs with duties, levels of responsibility, and degree
of complexity represented in the broader workforce. Nonetheless,
the present study was limited by its focus on newcomers to only
one organization that may not be representative of other organi-
zations. Continued research involving diverse occupations and
organizations would enhance the understanding of the role of job
market conditions, industry and professional norms, employment
practices (e.g., socialization tactics, recruiting processes), and job
characteristics to patterns of work attitudes.
Related, though we obtained a respectable response rate across
each time period and our analysis method allowed us to include the
full set of responses (avoiding listwise deletion), a concern with
sample decrement over time is the potential for attrition bias, and
specifically that departure from the organization (or the reason for
the departure) before the end of the study period could affect the
observed relationships. For example, those that left the organiza-
tion within the 1st year may show a different magnitude or pattern
of attitude change. As we noted in the Results section, our results
did not differ when we used the full sample versus a reduced
sample excluding individuals that had left the organization by the
end of the study period. In addition, a comparison of those that had
left to those that remained on demographic variables, job group,
salary, and PA/NA revealed a statistically significant difference
only in regards to age (M⫽34.8 and 40.2 years, respectively; p⬍
.05). Finally, following Goodman and Blum (1996), we regressed
a dichotomous variable distinguishing those that remained from
those that had left on the variables of substantive interest in this
study (e.g., job satisfaction, fulfillment of commitments) to deter-
mine whether attrition bias contributed to the presence of nonran-
dom sampling. Results from this analysis indicate no nonrandom
sampling bias.
Second, because the reason for job change variable was derived
from the employment application responses, it may have been
susceptible to impression management in the reporting of invol-
untary turnover to a potential new employer. Though 19% of study
participants reported an involuntary job departure, the self-report
nature of the measure and potential social desirability affecting
responses may partly explain the nonsignificant results involving
this variable.
Third, we examined a peak in job satisfaction following a job
change by assessing attitudes toward the prior job at the point of
job change. It would also be interesting to include measures of past
experiences (and an individual’s complex history of the multitude
of experiences with different organizations) in real time to deter-
854 BOSWELL, SHIPP, PAYNE, AND CULBERTSON
mine whether there is a residual effect of attitudes independent of
the lasting impression that individuals have upon beginning a new
job (cf. Heller & Ilies, 2006; Karney & Frye, 2002). Related, it is
also possible that the honeymoon itself is dependent upon the
retrospective biases that individuals create when contrasting their
previous job to the present job. More specifically, one’s views and
evaluations of the prior job at entry are likely colored by more
favorable (even lenient) early perceptions of and expectations for
the new job, creating the potential for post hoc rationalization in
reports of job satisfaction. The peak in satisfaction (i.e., honey-
moon) was based on measures of satisfaction with the prior and
present jobs assessed 3 months apart, and we consider these
evaluations, even if biased, an important part of the pattern of
reactions to a job. However, it would also be interesting to exam-
ine how much of the bias is due to retrospection (e.g., inaccurate
memories) and/or the contrasts in evaluating the prior and present
job. To uncover such effects would require panel data of satisfac-
tion across past and present jobs, including real-time measures and
retrospective measures that could examine their potentially recip-
rocal relationships over time.
Finally, although our longitudinal approach is a significant
strength to our study, we focused on the 1st year of employment,
and an individual’s relationship with an employer may of course
extend beyond 1 year. Indeed, some stage models of socialization
discuss the likely transitions and adjustment that occur for em-
ployees until organizational exit (e.g., Anderson et al., 1999;
Jablin, 1987). It would be interesting, for example, to examine
whether individuals experience additional peaks or valleys in work
attitudes at certain points in their tenure or following specific
experiences (e.g., organizational restructuring, promotion). In ad-
dition, more frequent assessments within the 1st year of employ-
ment might reveal important time periods and experiences for
newcomers, as well as how these might vary across individuals and
contexts. Socialization researchers have lamented that we really do
not know how long it takes for a newcomer to become socialized
(e.g., Bauer et al., 1998). Some have speculated that it occurs
rather rapidly (Ashforth & Saks, 1996), even within weeks
(Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2005). Given that our data indicate
a leveling off of job satisfaction by 6 months, this may represent
a critical time period for the stabilization of newcomer job atti-
tudes (cf. Feldman, 1977; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). We also note
that our selection of time periods, though consistent with our
conceptualization of the temporal pattern, was largely influenced
by previous empirical work and the practicalities of doing field
research. We echo previous sentiments about the need for more
theory regarding the identification of critical transition periods for
organizational newcomers (e.g., Bauer et al., 1998) and the need
for discussions with management at the host organization regard-
ing typical socialization rates in their organization.
In this study, we focused on four factors related to job change
and newcomer experiences as potentially moderating the pattern of
a newcomer’s job satisfaction. We chose to examine these partic-
ular variables given the importance of job change and newcomer
experiences as individuals make sense of a new job. Future re-
search could explore additional factors that may accentuate (or
attenuate) the pattern, such as the role of specific elements of the
new job (e.g., job complexity, job decision latitude) and/or the new
job relative to the prior job (e.g., perceived or objective changes in
type of work, job level, or pay relative to the prior job). In addition,
though we controlled for PA and NA in our analyses, future
research could more directly examine the role of individual dif-
ferences in personality as well as human capital (e.g., alternative
opportunities) in an individual’s job satisfaction over time. Factors
related to the socialization process specifically, such as precise
on-boarding tactics, proactive newcomer behaviors, or an individ-
ual’s past socialization experiences, may influence the nature
and/or rate of the pattern and should be examined in future studies.
Finally, beyond overall job satisfaction, there are other important
work attitudes, such as organizational commitment and facets of
satisfaction (e.g., pay satisfaction, supervisor satisfaction), that
would be interesting to examine from a temporal perspective to
enhance the understanding of employee attachment to work
(Bowling, Beehr, & Lepisto, 2006).
In conclusion, in this study we contribute to the understanding
of the temporal nature of work attitudes by examining changes in
job satisfaction as individuals change to and experience a new job.
A temporal perspective is critical to the understanding of the
complexities of organizational phenomena (George & Jones, 2000;
Mitchell & James, 2001). Consistent with this, our findings dem-
onstrate a pattern in job satisfaction and the important role of
newcomer experiences and perceptions in explaining the pattern,
thus providing important theoretical and practical insight on atti-
tudinal reactions toward work.
References
Anderson, C. M., Riddle, B. L., & Martin, M. M. (1999). Socialization
processes in groups. In L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, & M. S. Pool (Eds.),
The handbook of group communication: Theory and research (pp.
139 –163). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ashforth, B. E. (2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-
based perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (2002). Normalizing emotion in organi-
zations: Making the extraordinary seem ordinary. Human Resource
Management Review, 12, 215–235.
Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. (1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal
effects on newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39,
149 –178.
Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Harrison, S. H. (2007). Socialization in
organizational contexts. International Review of Industrial and Organi-
zational Psychology, 22, 1–70.
Avant, L. L. (1977). Psychophysics and scaling. In M. H. Appley (Ed.),
Adaptation level theory (pp. 19 –25). New York: Academic Press.
Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. T., & Tucker, J. S.
(2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A
meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 707–721.
Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. R. (1998). Organizational
socialization: A review and directions for future research. In G. R. Ferris
(Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol.
16, pp. 149 –214). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bentein, K., Vandenberg, R., Vandenberghe, C., & Stinglhamber, F.
(2005). The role of change in the relationship between commitment and
turnover: A latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 90, 468 – 482.
Bliese, P. D., & Ployhart, R. E. (2002). Growth modeling using random
coefficient models: Model building, testing, and illustrations. Organiza-
tional Research Methods, 5, 362–387.
Bluedorn, A. C., & Denhardt, R. B. (1988). Time and organizations.
Journal of Management, 14, 299 –320.
Boswell, W. R., Boudreau, J. W., & Tichy, J. (2005). The relationship
855
CHANGES IN NEWCOMER JOB SATISFACTION
between employee job change and job satisfaction: The honeymoon-
hangover effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 882– 892.
Bowling, N. A., Beehr, T. A., & Lepisto, L. R. (2006). Beyond job
satisfaction: A five-year prospective analysis of the dispositional ap-
proach to work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 315–330.
Brim, O. G., Jr. (1966). Socialization through the life. In O. J. Brim Jr. &
S. Wheeler (Eds.), Socialization after childhood: Two essays (pp. 1– 49).
New York: Wiley.
Buckley, M. R., Fedor, D. B., Veres, J. G., Wiese, D. S., & Carraher, S. M.
(1998). Investigating newcomer expectations and job-related outcomes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 452– 461.
Buckley, M. R., Mobbs, T. A., Mendoza, J. L., Novicevic, M. M., Carraher,
S. M., & Beu, D. S. (2002). Implementing realistic job previews and
expectation-lowering procedures: A field experiment. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 61, 263–278.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1979). The Michigan
Organizational Assessment Questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Chao, G. T., Kelly, A. M. O., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner, P. D.
(1994). Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 730 –743.
Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and
socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quar-
terly, 36, 459 – 484.
Collins, L. M. (2006). Analysis of longitudinal data: The integration of
theoretical model, temporal design, and statistical model. Annual Review
of Psychology, 57, 505–528.
Cooper-Thomas, H. D., & Anderson, N. (2005). Organizational socializa-
tion: A field study into socialization success and rate. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13, 116 –128.
Cudeck, R., & Harring, J. R. (2007). Analysis of nonlinear patterns of
change with random coefficient models. Annual Review of Psychology,
58, 615– 637.
DeShon, R. P., Ployhart, R. E., & Sacco, J. M. (1998). The estimation of
reliability in longitudinal models. International Journal of Behavior and
Development, 22, 493–515.
DeVos, A., Buyens, D., & Schalk, R. (2003). Psychological contract
development during organizational socialization: Adaptation to reality
and the role of reciprocity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24,
537–559.
Diener, E., & Diener, C. (1996). Most people are happy. Psychological
Science, 7, 181–185.
Feldman, D. C. (1977). The role of initiation activities in socialization.
Human Relations, 30, 977–990.
Feldman, D. C. (1981). The multiple socialization of organizational mem-
bers. Academy of Management Review, 6, 309 –318.
Fisher, C. D. (1986). Organizational socialization: An integrative review.
In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and
human resources management (Vol. 4, pp. 101–145). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2000). The role of time in theory and theory
building. Journal of Management, 26, 657– 684.
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.
Goodman, J. S., & Blum, T. C. (1996). Assessing the non-random sam-
pling effects of subject attrition in longitudinal research. Journal of
Management, 22, 627– 652.
Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. A. (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.
Gutek, B. A., & Winter, S. J. (1992). Consistency of job satisfaction across
situations: Fact or framing artifact. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 41,
61–78.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diag-
nostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159 –170.
Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are
job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral out-
comes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 305–
325.
Haueter, J. A., Macan, T. H., & Winter, J. (2003). Measurement of
newcomer socialization: Construct validation of a multidimensional
scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 20 –39.
Heady, B., & Wearing, A. (1992). Understanding happiness: A theory of
subjective well-being. Melbourne, Australia: Longman Chesire.
Heller, D., & Ilies, R. (2006). Memories of satisfaction: Prospective vs.
retrospective job satisfaction ratings. In D. A. Newman (chair), Time and
job satisfaction. Symposium presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.
Holton, E. F., III. (2001). New employee development tactics: Perceived
availability, helpfulness, and relationship with job attitudes. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 16, 73– 86.
Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1991). Structural equations modeling test
of a turnover theory: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 76, 350 –366.
Howard, G. S., Ralph, K. M., Gulanick, N. A., Maxwell, S. E., Nance,
D. W., & Gerber, S. K. (1979). Internal invalidity in pretest posttest
self-report evaluations and a re-evaluation of retrospective pretests.
Applied Psychology Measurement, 3(1), 1–23.
Jablin, F. M. (1987). Organizational entry, assimilation, and exit. In F. M.
Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook
of organizational communication (pp. 679 –740). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of
personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 8, 530 –541.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Wanberg, C. R. (2003). Unwrapping the
organizational entry process: Disentangling multiple antecedents and
their pathways to adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 779 –
794.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Wanberg, C. R., Glomb, T. M., & Ahlburg, D.
(2005). The role of temporal shifts in turnover processes: It’s about time.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 644 – 658.
Karney, B. R., & Frye, N. E. (2002). But we’ve been getting better lately:
Comparing prospective and retrospective views of the relationship de-
velopment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 222–238.
Klein, H. J., & Weaver, N. A. (2000). The effectiveness of an
organizational-level orientation training program in the socialization of
new hires. Personnel Psychology, 53, 47– 66.
Lawler, E. E., Kuleck, W. J., Rhode, J. G., & Sorensen, J. E. (1975). Job
choice and post decision dissonance. Organizational Behavior & Human
Performance, 13, 133–145.
Levin, I., & Stokes, J. P. (1989). Dispositional approaches to job satisfac-
tion: Role of negative affectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,
752–758.
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). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers expe-
rience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Sci-
ence Quarterly, 25, 226 –251.
Louis, M. R., Posner, B. Z., & Powell, G. N. (1983). The availability and
helpfulness of socialization practices. Personnel Psychology, 36, 857–
881.
Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D. (1995).
A longitudinal investigation of newcomer expectations, early socializa-
856 BOSWELL, SHIPP, PAYNE, AND CULBERTSON
tion outcomes, and the moderating effects of role development factors.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 418 – 431.
McGrath, J. E. (1988). The social psychology of time. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
McGuire, W. J. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion. In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 191–
229). New York: Academic Press.
Meglino, B. M., & DeNisi, A. S. (1987). Realistic job previews: Some
thoughts on their more effective use in managing the flow of human
resources. Human Resource Planning, 10, 157–167.
Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. (2001). Building better theory: Time and
the specification of when things happen. Academy of Management
Review, 26, 530 –547.
Morrison, E. W. (1993a). Longitudinal study of the effects of information
seeking on newcomer socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
173–183.
Morrison, E. W. (1993b). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types,
modes, sources, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36,
557–589.
Morrison, E. W., & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel be-
trayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops.
Academy of Management Review, 22, 226 –256.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee–
organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and
turnover. New York: Academic Press.
Nelson, D. L., & Sutton, C. (1990). Chronic work stress and coping: A
longitudinal study and suggested new directions. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 33, 859 – 869.
Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1992). Organizational socialization as
a learning process: The role of information acquisition. Personnel Psy-
chology, 45, 849 – 874.
Phillips, J. M. (1998). Effects of realistic job previews on multiple orga-
nizational outcomes: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 41, 673– 691.
Porter, L. W. (1962). Job attitudes in management: I. Perceived deficien-
cies in need fulfillment as a function of job level. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 46, 375–384.
Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Comparing personal trajectories and drawing
causal inferences from longitudinal data. Annual Review of Psychology,
52, 501–525.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organiza-
tions. Employee Rights and Responsibilities Journal, 2, 11–139.
Rousseau, D. M. (1998). The “problem” of the psychological contract
considered. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 665– 671.
Rousseau, D. M., Ho, V. T., & Greenberg, J. (2006). I-deals: Idiosyncratic
terms in employment relationships. Academy of Management Review,
31, 977–994.
Rusbult, C. E., & Farrell, D. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment
model: The impact on job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover of
variations in rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 68, 429 – 438.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Organizational socialization:
Making sense of the past and present as a prologue for the future.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 234 –279.
Schein, E. H. (1968). Organizational socialization and the profession of
management. Industrial Management Review, 9, 1–16.
Schein, E. H. (1971). The individual, and the organization, and the career:
A conceptual scheme. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7, 401–
426.
Schwarz, N. (2007). Retrospective and concurrent self-reports: The ratio-
nale for real-time data capture. In A. A. Stone, S. S. Shiffman, A.
Atienza, & L. Nebeling (Eds.), The science of real-time data capture:
Self-reports in health research (pp. 11–26). New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Shipp, A. J. (2006). The moving window of fit: Extending person-
environment research with time. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-
versity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis:
Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of
satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E., & Clausen, J. A. (1986). The dispositional
approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 61, 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. (2002). Turnover theory at the empirical interface: Problems of
fit and function. Academy of Management Review, 27, 346 –360.
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, 83– 879.
Taormina, R. J. (2004). Convergent validation of two measures of orga-
nizational socialization. International Journal of Human Resource Man-
agement, 15, 76 –93.
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational com-
mitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-
analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46, 259 –293.
Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & De
Chermont, K. (2003). The affective underpinnings of job perceptions
and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and integration. Psychological
Bulletin, 129, 914 –945.
Tversky, A., & Griffin, D. (1991). Endowment and contrast in judgments
of well-being. In F. Strack & M. Argyle (Eds.), Subjective well-being:
An interdisciplinary perspective. International series in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 101–118). New York: Pergamon Press.
Van Maanen, J. (1975). Police organization: A longitudinal examination of
job attitudes in an urban police department. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 20, 207–228.
Van Maanen, J. (1976). Breaking in: Socialization to work. In R. Dubin
(Ed.), Handbook of work, organization, and society (pp. 67–130). Chi-
cago: Rand McNally.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational
socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior
(Vol. 1, pp. 209 –264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Vroom, V. H. (1966). Organizational choice: A study of pre- and postdecision
processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1, 212–225.
Vroom, V. H., & Deci, E. L. (1971). The stability of post-decision disso-
nance: A follow-up study of the job attitudes of business school grad-
uates. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 6, 36 – 49.
Wanous, J. P. (1973). Effects of a realistic job preview on job acceptance,
job attitudes, and job survival. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58,
327–332.
Wanous, J. P. (1977). Organizational entry: Newcomers moving from
outside to inside. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 601– 618.
Wanous, J. P. (1980). Organizational entry. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wanous, J. P. (1992). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, orien-
tation, and socialization of newcomers (2nd ed.). Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Wanous, J. P., & Lawler, E. E. (1972). Measurement and meaning of job
satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 95–105.
Ward, L. B., & Athos, A. G. (1972). Student expectations of corporate life:
Implications for management recruiting. Oxford, England: Harvard Uni-
versity Business School.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and vali-
dation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS
scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
857
CHANGES IN NEWCOMER JOB SATISFACTION
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Wirtz, D., Kruger, J., Scollon, C. N., & Diener, E. (2003). What to do on
spring break? The role of predicted, on-line, and remembered experience
in future choice. Psychological Science, 14(5), 520–524.
Wolf, M. G. (1970). Need gratification theory: A theoretical reformulation
of job satisfaction/dissatisfaction and job motivation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 54, 87–94.
Youngblood, S. A., Mobley, W. H., & Meglino, B. M. (1983). A longitu-
dinal analysis of the turnover process. Journal of Applied Psychology,
68, 507–516.
Received June 3, 2008
Revision received November 25, 2008
Accepted December 4, 2008 䡲
858 BOSWELL, SHIPP, PAYNE, AND CULBERTSON
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Journal of Applied Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
