A Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents and Consequences of Pay Level Satisfaction

Abstract

This study reports results from a meta-analysis of 28 correlates of pay level satisfaction involving 240 samples from 203 studies conducted over the past 35 years. Results are presented in 4 categories: primary determinants, antecedents, correlates, and outcomes of pay satisfaction. The authors controlled for pay in examining relations between correlates and pay level satisfaction, as suggested by theory and when primary studies were available to do so. The authors found support for many of the relations suggested by a theoretical model and also note some limitations in the research that has tested this model. The authors recommend changes and additions to the model and suggest additional primary research in specific areas.

Full text

A Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents and Consequences
of Pay Level Satisfaction
Margaret L. Williams, Michael A. McDaniel, and Nhung T. Nguyen
Virginia Commonwealth University
This study reports results from a meta-analysis of 28 correlates of pay level satisfaction involving 240
samples from 203 studies conducted over the past 35 years. Results are presented in 4 categories: primary
determinants, antecedents, correlates, and outcomes of pay satisfaction. The authors controlled for pay in
examining relations between correlates and pay level satisfaction, as suggested by theory and when
primary studies were available to do so. The authors found support for many of the relations suggested
by a theoretical model and also note some limitations in the research that has tested this model. The
authors recommend changes and additions to the model and suggest additional primary research in
specific areas.
Keywords: compensation, pay level, satisfaction, meta-analysis
Although there is no doubt that employees’ satisfaction with
their pay has always been of primary concern to employees as well
as employers, it was in the 1960s that researchers first systemati-
cally studied factors affecting employee pay satisfaction. The
motivations for wanting to understand pay satisfaction are varied.
First, employee compensation is one of the largest costs of doing
business, representing 57% of the total value of goods and services
produced in the United States in 2002 (U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis, 2003). Second, as noted by Dreher, Ash, and Bretz
(1988), the expectation is that the relation between compensation
and work outcomes is mediated by attitudinal reactions to pay.
Thus, pay satisfaction may be viewed as a necessary but not a
sufficient condition for organizations to achieve the goals of their
compensation systems, such as employee retention and motivation.
Third, if employers understand the antecedents of pay satisfaction,
they can influence employees’ levels of pay satisfaction. This is of
particular interest because employers can likely control more an-
tecedents of pay satisfaction (in terms of strategic decisions about
their compensation systems) than they can other sources of job
satisfaction, such as satisfaction with coworkers or supervisors.
The purpose of this study is to summarize the empirical literature
on pay satisfaction, review progress in testing the dominant theo-
retical models, and highlight avenues for future research.
Pay satisfaction can be defined as the “amount of overall pos-
itive or negative affect (or feelings) that individuals have toward
their pay” (Miceli & Lane, 1991, p. 246). Conventionally, the word
pay refers to all forms of compensation, such as direct, cash
payments (e.g., salary); indirect, noncash payments (e.g., benefits);
and the amount of pay raises and the process by which the
compensation system is administered. Several authors, the most
notable H. G. Heneman and Schwab (1985), have suggested that
this broad definition of pay satisfaction should be replaced by a
multidimensional conceptualization of pay satisfaction (e.g., H. G.
Heneman, 1985; Judge, 1993; Scarpello, Huber, & Vandenberg,
1988). This suggests that the research related to various dimen-
sions of pay satisfaction should be examined and reviewed sepa-
rately. In this study, we focus on the largest group of studies—
those that address pay level satisfaction, defined as “an
individual’s satisfaction with his or her base pay” (Miceli & Lane,
1991, p. 245).
The Current Study
Despite the fact that researchers have studied pay level satisfac-
tion and its correlates for more than 40 years, no study has
provided a comprehensive summary of this body of research.
Several narrative reviews of the pay satisfaction literature exist
(e.g., H. G. Heneman, 1985; H. G. Heneman & Judge, 2000; H. G.
Heneman & Schwab, 1979); however, each represents a snapshot
of the research conducted during a specific time frame rather than
a comprehensive review. In addition, limited quantitative summary
data are available. Kinicki, McKee-Ryan, Schriesheim, and Carson
(2002) conducted a meta-analysis of the Job Descriptive Index
(JDI; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969), including the pay level
satisfaction facet. Although Kinicki et al. (2002) provided a thor-
ough review of the JDI, their results are of limited use in summa-
rizing the pay level satisfaction literature for three reasons: (a)
They limited their review to studies using only one measure of pay
satisfaction (the JDI), (b) they included studies from only five
journals, and (c) because their study was not based on a theoretical
model of pay level satisfaction, they excluded many correlates of
pay level satisfaction (they examined only 8 of the 28 correlates
included in this study). Our review allows us to use the vast
Margaret L. Williams, Michael A. McDaniel, and Nhung T. Nguyen,
School of Business, Virginia Commonwealth University.
Nhung T. Nguyen is now at the College of Business and Economics,
Towson University.
We acknowledge Jianmin Li, Julie McManus, and the staff of the
Interlibrary Loan Office at Virginia Commonwealth University for their
assistance in conducting this study.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Margaret
L. Williams, School of Business, Virginia Commonwealth University, P.O.
Box 844000, Richmond, VA 23284-4000. E-mail: mlwillia@vcu.edu
Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association
2006, Vol. 91, No. 2, 392– 413 0021-9010/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.392
392

amount of accumulated research to update theoretical models of
the antecedents and consequences of pay level satisfaction.
In addition to this general objective, we advance the study of
pay level satisfaction in three ways. First, although researchers
have noted the importance of controlling for actual pay when
examining relations among antecedents of pay level satisfaction,
not all primary studies have done so. When possible, we examine
relations controlling for pay level. Second, we identify underre-
searched areas in which additional primary research would be
useful. Finally, as noted by H. G. Heneman (1985), the distinction
among the dimensions of pay satisfaction was not recognized in
empirical research until the late 1970s or early 1980s. Thus, a
proportion of the empirical studies of pay satisfaction used mea-
sures that subsequently have been judged to assess an overall pay
satisfaction construct (i.e., general pay satisfaction). Because we
wish to understand the impact of this practice on the existing body
of research, we include these studies in the meta-analysis and
examine the impact of the type of pay measure (i.e., pay level vs.
general pay satisfaction) on relations between pay level satisfac-
tion and its correlates.
In addition to the general contributions described above, our
analysis allows us to address five specific research questions. First,
do pay discrepancies (the judgments that employees make about
how their actual pay compares with the pay they should receive)
mediate the relations between pay level satisfaction and other
antecedents? Second, are pay discrepancies related to pay level
satisfaction in the manner suggested by equity theory or discrep-
ancy theory? Third, do accumulated research results support the
paradox of the contented female worker (Crosby, 1982), the find-
ing that although women tend to make less income than men, they
are not less satisfied with their pay? Fourth, does such a paradox
exist for another demographic group, that is, historically underpaid
racial minorities? Fifth, do constructs described by job character-
istics theories (e.g., autonomy and task feedback) affect pay level
satisfaction? We now turn to a discussion of the theoretical rela-
tions underlying the study of pay satisfaction.
Theoretical Background
Two theories of the causes of pay level satisfaction have guided
research over the past 35 years: equity theory (Adams, 1965) and
discrepancy theory (Lawler, 1971, 1981). Figure 1 shows a model
(based on the work of H. G. Heneman, 1985; Lawler, 1971; and
Miceli & Lane, 1991) that combines both theories of the causes of
pay level satisfaction. In this model, we include primary determi-
nants (i.e., the difference between deserved and actual pay), ante-
cedents (i.e., perceived inputs and outcomes of others), correlates
(i.e., justice constructs), and consequences (i.e., absenteeism and
turnover) of pay level satisfaction. We use this model to guide our
meta-analysis and to frame and organize our findings.
Figure 1. Current model of the antecedents and consequences of pay level satisfaction (based on H. G.
Heneman, 1985; Lawler, 1971; and Miceli & Lane, 1991).
393
PAY LEVEL SATISFACTION META-ANALYSIS

Primary Determinants
Discrepancy between perceived amount of pay that should be
received and perceived amount of pay received (Box 1). The
model indicates that the primary determinant of pay level satisfac-
tion is the discrepancy between the pay that should be received
(Box 2) and the amount of pay actually received (Box 3). This
depiction is based on both discrepancy and equity theories. There
are several areas of agreement between the two theories. First, both
theories suggest that the perceived amount of pay that should be
received and the perceived amount of pay received are the primary
determinants of pay satisfaction. Second, both theories are in
agreement that when these two determinants are equal, employees
will be satisfied with their pay. Third, both theories postulate that
when the perceived amount of pay deserved is greater than the
amount received (Box 2 ⬎ Box 3 in Figure 1), employees will be
dissatisfied with their pay. Although, in its original form (Lawler,
1971), discrepancy theory was consistent with equity theory in its
prediction that feelings of guilt and thus dissatisfaction would
result from overpayment (Box 2 ⬍ Box 3 in Figure 1), more recent
theorizing has called this relation into question. Miceli and Lane
(1991) claimed that overpayment may lead to satisfaction instead
of dissatisfaction, and Scarpello (1988) advanced the theory that
overreward may cause people to be satisfied but to view the
outcome as unfair. We examine whether overreward is associated
with lower or higher levels of pay satisfaction.
Perceptions of pay policies and administration (Box 4). Box 4
shows that perceptions of pay policies and administration (i.e.,
perceptions of how the pay system operates) are expected to relate
to pay level satisfaction (Dyer & Theriault, 1976). Despite the fact
that these antecedents have been incorporated into models of pay
level satisfaction for nearly 30 years, only employees’ perception
of the performance-reward contingency operating in the organiza-
tion had enough primary research studies to be included in our
meta-analysis. We expect a positive relation between performance-
reward contingency and pay level satisfaction. Employees who
perceive that performance is instrumental to the attainment of a
valued outcome, such as a pay raise, should be more satisfied with
their pay outcomes than those who do not perceive this connection
(R. L. Heneman, Greenberger, & Strasser, 1988). An additional
argument supporting a positive relation between performance-
reward contingency and pay level satisfaction is that those who are
satisfied with their pay are likely to believe that their pay is based
on their level of performance or merit.
Antecedents
The remaining categories in the pay level satisfaction antecedent
model (Boxes 5–8) are viewed as antecedents of the primary
determinants (amount of pay that should be received and amount
of pay received). These categories (shown in Figure 1) are per-
ceived inputs, perceived job characteristics, perceived inputs and
outcomes of referent others, and actual pay and pay raises
received.
Perceived inputs (Box 5). There are two categories of per-
ceived inputs shown in Box 5: non-job-related and job related
(Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999). Miceli and Lane (1991) argued
that non-job-related inputs, such as age, marital status, gender, and
ethnicity, may serve as determinants of the perceived amount of
pay that should be received. Thus, for example, older or married
employees may believe that they deserve more pay than younger
or unmarried employees. According to Lawler (1971), this sug-
gests a negative relation between these factors and pay level
satisfaction. Two of these characteristics have received a great deal
of theoretical and empirical attention. First, the gender wage gap
continues to persist within North America, and the presence of this
gap suggests that women should be less satisfied than men with
their pay. However, this expected difference in pay satisfaction
does not exist, leading researchers to try to explain the paradox of
the contented female worker (Crosby, 1982; Major & Konar,
1984). This meta-analysis provides the best estimate to date of this
paradox as observed for the past 3 decades. Second, few studies
have examined the relation between ethnicity and pay level satis-
faction. There is a wage gap between majority group (White)
earnings and the earnings of minority groups, yet there is no
evidence to support a paradox similar to that found for female
employees. On the basis of equity theory, it is likely that differ-
ences in pay satisfaction between Whites and non-Whites are due
to factors in addition to actual pay level (e.g., comparisons with
relevant others in terms of inputs as well as outcomes and whether
referent others belong to the same ethnic group or either higher or
lower paid groups); however, we expect that satisfaction levels are
likely to be associated with existing, persistent pay differences as
well. Thus, we expect White employees to be more satisfied with
their pay level than ethnic minorities.
Job-related inputs in Box 5 include education, experience, job
level, job tenure, and organizational tenure. According to early
theorists, the higher the level of these job inputs is, the higher is the
perceived amount of pay that should be received. Lawler (1971)
and others (e.g., Schwab & Wallace, 1974) noted that factors that
raise employees’ pay expectations are likely to decrease pay level
satisfaction, “other things being equal” (Lawler, 1971, p. 217). To
examine this, it is important that one control for actual pay level.
Thus, we expect weak, although possibly positive, relations be-
tween these job-related inputs and pay level satisfaction when we
do not control for pay and weak negative relations when we
control for pay.
Perceived job characteristics (Box 6). Box 6 indicates that
perceived job characteristics predict the perceived amount of pay
that should be received. The job characteristics that have appeared
most frequently in the pay level satisfaction literature are those
from the job characteristics model (Hackman & Oldham, 1974):
autonomy, skill variety, task feedback, task identity, task signifi-
cance, and their aggregate—job scope. Several arguments support
a positive relation between job characteristics and pay level satis-
faction. Lawler (1971) suggested that nonmonetary outcomes (e.g.,
autonomy) are likely to be positively related to pay level satisfac-
tion because they may help satisfy some of the same individual
needs that pay does. More recently, Campion and Berger (1990)
supported Lawler’s point by arguing that both job design and
compensation can be viewed as rewards. Further, the logic behind
the job characteristics model is that actions that enhance the core
psychological states should increase satisfaction; thus, we might
expect positive relations between the core job dimensions and pay
level satisfaction. Finally, individuals who work in enriched jobs
(i.e., those that require higher levels of skill and responsibility for
their completion) may, in fact, be paid more than those who work
in jobs with lower levels of enrichment. Empirical results support
394
WILLIAMS, MCDANIEL, AND NGUYEN

arguments for a positive relation between perceived job character-
istics and pay level satisfaction. Kinicki et al. (2002) found pop-
ulation correlations (corrected for unreliability) between core job
characteristics and the pay satisfaction facet of the JDI ranging
from .14 to .23.
An alternative argument seems worth noting, however. Just as
job inputs are thought to be negatively related to pay level satis-
faction because of their role in raising pay expectations, employees
who must invest more mental energy into their enriched jobs may
expect higher levels of pay to compensate for their greater levels
of responsibility (Locke, Sirota, & Wolfson, 1976; O’Reilly &
Caldwell, 1979). This is the perspective represented in Figure 1,
because job characteristics are shown as predictors of pay that
should be received. This representation suggests negative relations
between job characteristics and pay level satisfaction if the greater
requirements of enriched jobs are not associated with higher pay in
return. On the basis of these arguments, we examine the relations
between job characteristics and pay level satisfaction controlling
for pay.
Perceived inputs and outcomes of referent others (Box 7). Per-
ceived inputs and outcomes of referent others are viewed as
antecedents of the perceived amount of pay that should be re-
ceived. In general, factors that increase the perceived amount of
pay that should be received are negatively related to pay level
satisfaction (Rice, Phillips, & McFarlin, 1990). In empirical re-
search, however, these constructs have usually been examined as
direct antecedents of pay level satisfaction, and the measurement
approach typically used yields positive relations with pay level
satisfaction. In most cases, researchers assess perceived inputs and
outcomes of referent others by asking a question such as, “Com-
pared with those working in similar jobs in other organizations [or
another basis of comparison], your pay is much worse, somewhat
worse,” and so forth, with a high score representing a positive
comparison (i.e., much better). Studies have typically shown these
measures to be positively related to pay level satisfaction. In
addition, pay level satisfaction research has suggested that em-
ployees use a variety of comparisons (Goodman, 1974; Lawler,
1971; Summers & DeNisi, 1990) to determine their degree of pay
level satisfaction. Two relevant groupings of referents are those
within the same organization (i.e., internal comparisons—related
to internal equity; Milkovich & Newman, 2005) and those doing
similar work for other organizations (i.e., external comparisons—
related to external equity or competitiveness; Milkovich & New-
man, 2005). In addition, employees may use other inputs, both job
related and non-job-related (as described earlier), for comparisons.
Because fewer studies have examined this type of comparison, we
group these referents into a third category, called general compar-
isons. Both internal and external comparisons refer to individuals
who are most salient to employees when they evaluate their pay
equity; therefore, we expect both internal and external compari-
sons to be more strongly related to pay level satisfaction than are
general comparisons.
Actual pay and pay raises received (Box 8). As noted by H. G.
Heneman (1985), the relation between actual pay (Box 8) and pay
level satisfaction is one of the most robust (yet hardly surprising)
findings of past research. What has been surprising to many
researchers is how low this relation appears to be; typically, r ⫽
.15 (H. G. Heneman & Judge, 2000). We expect to find a positive
relation between pay amounts and pay level satisfaction, and,
because we correct for unreliability in our meta-analysis, we
expect the population correlation between pay and pay level sat-
isfaction to exceed .15. The actual level of pay raises (also in-
cluded in Box 8) is not found in Lawler’s (1971) discrepancy
model of pay level satisfaction. Because pay raises affect the
perceived amount of pay received, we expect that pay raise per-
centage will be positively related to pay level satisfaction.
Not included in our pay level satisfaction antecedent model.
Both Lawler (1971) and H. G. Heneman (1985) included an
additional antecedent of perceived amount of pay received in their
model: perceived pay of referent others. Lawler (1971) argued that
present wage rate is the key influence on a person’s perception of
what his pay is, but his perception is also shown to be influenced by
. . . his perception of what his referent others receive. . . . The higher
the pay of his referent others, the lower his pay will appear. (p. 215)
H. G. Heneman (1985) included this component in his modified
model of the antecedents of pay satisfaction without comment.
Later, Miceli and Lane (1991) eliminated this component from
their model of the antecedents of pay satisfaction, again without
comment. Thus, any decision about whether to include this com-
ponent in the theoretical model must be based on the theoretical
arguments of Lawler (1971) and be informed by subsequent em-
pirical research. We interpret Lawler’s (1971) work to suggest that
people use their perceptions of the pay of referent others to
evaluate their level of pay rather than as a determinant of the
perceived amount of pay they receive. Lawler continued his dis-
cussion of this component of the model by suggesting, “The more
salary a person perceives his referent other as receiving, the more
dissatisfied he will be with his own present pay” (p. 217). Thus, we
include perceived pay of referent others in the general category of
perceived inputs and outcomes of referent others as a determinant
of the perceived amount of pay that should be received (Box 7)
rather than as a determinant of the perceived amount of pay
received.
Correlates (Box 9)
Recently, researchers have argued for the incorporation of or-
ganizational justice into the study of pay satisfaction (H. G. Hene-
man & Judge, 2000; Miceli & Lane, 1991). Although several
authors have speculated about the relations between justice per-
ceptions and pay satisfaction (H. G. Heneman & Judge, 2000;
Miceli & Lane, 1991; Scarpello, 1988), the role of justice con-
structs as antecedents or consequences of pay satisfaction has not
been clearly described. Distributive justice concerns the fairness of
outcome distributions or allocations. Although outcome fairness is
not synonymous with pay level satisfaction (Miceli & Lane, 1991;
Scarpello & Jones, 1996), the two constructs are conceptually
related. Thus, we expect a strong positive relation between dis-
tributive justice and pay level satisfaction. Several authors (e.g.,
Dyer & Theriault, 1976; H. G. Heneman, 1985; Miceli & Lane,
1991) have noted the important relations between pay administra-
tion processes and pay level satisfaction. To the extent that em-
ployees perceive the pay processes operating within their organi-
zations as fair (i.e., procedural justice), we expect them to be more
satisfied with their pay level.
395
PAY LEVEL SATISFACTION META-ANALYSIS

Consequences (Box 10)
H. G. Heneman and Judge (2000) noted that “research has
unequivocally shown that pay dissatisfaction can have important
and undesirable impacts on numerous employee outcomes. We
need to make further exploration and identification of these pay
dissatisfaction-outcome linkages a high priority for future re-
search” (p. 85). H. G. Heneman and Judge (2000) used equity
theory to suggest relations between pay dissatisfaction and both
cognitive and behavioral consequences, so we expanded the pay
level model shown in Figure 1 to include modifiable individual
outcomes that have been linked to pay level satisfaction: (a)
employee withdrawal cognitions and behaviors in terms of turn-
over intentions, absenteeism, and voluntary turnover and (b) job
performance.
Although the literature on pay level satisfaction consequences is
meager compared with the literature on antecedents, researchers
have studied the relations between these consequences and the
more general construct of job satisfaction. Of these consequences,
turnover intentions are most strongly related to job satisfaction
(e.g., Tett & Meyer, 1993). Therefore, we expect a strong negative
relation between turnover intentions and pay level satisfaction. We
expect the relation between absenteeism and pay level satisfaction
to be weak and negative (Eby, Freeman, Rush, & Lance, 1999;
Kinicki et al., 2002; Scott & Taylor, 1985). Voluntary turnover is
strongly (and negatively) related to job satisfaction (Spector,
1997), but because pay satisfaction represents satisfaction with
only one aspect of the job, we expect a weaker, negative relation
between turnover and pay level satisfaction (Eby et al., 1999;
Kinicki et al., 2002). Two estimates of the population correlation
between pay level satisfaction and job performance are available.
Iaffaldano and Muchinsky (1985) found an overall relation of .06,
whereas Kinicki et al. (2002) found a relation of .15 between
supervisor ratings of performance and the JDI pay level satisfac-
tion measure. Although results indicate that moderators of the pay
level satisfaction–performance relation exist, neither study exam-
ined potential moderators. We examine potential moderators of
this relation.
Method
Search for Primary Data
We began with an automated search of PsycINFO (Psychological Ab-
stracts) and ABI/Inform using the key words compensation satisfaction,
pay satisfaction, compensation equity, pay equity, compensation fairness,
and pay fairness. We also searched manually 12 journals for the years 1960
through 2003: Academy of Management Journal, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Human Relations, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, In-
dustrial Relations, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Manage-
ment, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, and Personnel Psychol-
ogy. We chose the year 1960 to begin this search because the first formal
attempts to measure pay satisfaction (e.g., the JDI; Smith et al., 1969) and
the first theories of pay satisfaction (e.g., Lawler, 1971) were developed in
the 1960s and early 1970s, and we were unaware of any empirical work on
pay level satisfaction before that time. We also examined the empirical
studies that included pay level satisfaction for references to other publica-
tions or articles that might have included pay level satisfaction. These
processes identified over 1,800 conceptual and empirical publications,
conference papers, technical reports, dissertations, books, and book chap-
ters. We examined all published sources for the presence of usable data;
however, we included only sources that were published in English. In
addition, we requested copies of conference papers from authors.
Decision Rules
We included studies in the meta-analysis on the basis of several criteria.
First, a study needed to present either a correlation coefficient between pay
satisfaction and a correlate or quantitative data that we could use to
calculate a correlation coefficient. (If correlation coefficients or data nec-
essary to compute them were not presented in the article, we contacted the
authors for additional data.) Second, participants needed to be adults
employed full or part time or adult experimental participants who were
paid for their work. Third, when we identified multiple studies that pre-
sented data for the same correlates from the same sample or samples, we
included each correlate only once. Fourth, we excluded lagged correlations
(i.e., correlations that were calculated on the basis of data collected at two
different points in time). The only exception to this criterion was for
absenteeism and turnover data, which are necessarily collected over a
period of time. Lagged correlations are likely to differ from correlations
based on data obtained at the same point in time because of unknown
factors that may influence the constructs over the time interval. Because
there were an insufficient number of lagged correlations to enable us to
examine this factor as a potential moderator, we decided to exclude the
samples that reported lagged correlations. Fifth, given our concern with
construct validity, we excluded all studies for which we were unable to
determine the actual items used to measure either pay satisfaction or one of
its correlates. Sixth, we excluded samples that presented data at the group
level of analysis (Ostroff & Harrison, 1999). Seventh, in some studies
researchers did not present a correlation matrix but chose to report selected
correlations within the text. In these cases, we excluded studies in which
the authors reported only significant correlations (Rothstein & McDaniel,
1989).
Pay Satisfaction Measures
Table 1 shows the classification of published scales according to
whether they measured pay level or general pay satisfaction. We made this
determination on the basis of whether the items referred specifically to pay
level or salary level (the amount of pay) or whether more than one item
referred to an aspect of pay other than pay level. For example, the four
items included in the pay level dimension of the Pay Satisfaction Ques-
tionnaire (PSQ; H. G. Heneman & Schwab, 1985) refer to “salary” and
“take-home pay”; thus, we classified the PSQ as a measure of pay level
satisfaction. In addition, all Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ;
Weiss, Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967) items refer to “pay,” so we also
classified the MSQ as a pay level measure. Eight of the nine items in the
JDI refer to income or pay, although one item refers to “satisfactory profit
sharing.” We classified the JDI as a pay level satisfaction measure because
the profit sharing item represented only 11% of the scale content. Our
classification is consistent with H. G. Heneman (1985), who concluded that
both the MSQ and the JDI are primarily measures of pay level satisfaction.
We assigned the other pay level satisfaction scales included in Table 1 on
the basis of the decision rule described above.
We classified the Index of Organizational Reactions: Financial (Dun-
ham, Smith, & Blackburn, 1977) and the combined 18-item PSQ as
measures of general pay satisfaction because each scale includes more than
1 item that assesses a component of compensation other than pay level. The
Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS; Hackman & Oldham, 1974) represents a
special case. We excluded from these analyses measures whose items all
explicitly addressed pay fairness; however, we included the pay measure
396
WILLIAMS, MCDANIEL, AND NGUYEN

from the JDS as a measure of general pay satisfaction because 1 item refers
to pay fairness (i.e., “the degree to which I am fairly paid for what I
contribute to this organization”) and the other item assesses general pay
satisfaction (i.e., “the amount of pay and fringe benefits I receive”). We
placed the ad hoc scales with content that extended beyond pay level in the
general pay satisfaction category.
Coding
For consistency, Margaret L. Williams coded all the sources containing
empirical data. We chose a random sample of approximately 16% of the
included studies to check the accuracy of coding (324 relations from 43
samples from 32 studies). Nhung T. Nguyen independently coded these
studies. The results of this check indicated that both raters agreed on
sample size 99.7% of the time (on 322 of 324 occurrences) and agreed on
the correlate to code and the value of the correlation coefficient 97.2% of
the time (on 315 of 324 occurrences). We corrected any discrepancies
found prior to conducting the meta-analysis. These high levels of agree-
ment for sample sizes and correlation coefficients are consistent with past
reliability studies of these variables (Whetzel & McDaniel, 1988). An
additional coder examined approximately 12% of the studies (24 of 203) to
classify coded variables into the appropriate construct categories. We
identified 1 study in which the primary coder misclassified a variable.
Again, we corrected this situation prior to conducting the analyses.
In some cases, correlations were not provided but we were able to
calculate a correlation coefficient from other statistics provided in the
study. We used transformations provided by Hunter and Schmidt (1990,
pp. 271–273) to calculate (a) a between-groups standardized mean differ-
ence (d) when we knew means and standard deviations of two groups and
(b) a correlation when we knew either the between-groups standardized
mean difference or the between-groups t. We used procedures described by
Dunlap, Cortina, Vaslow, and Burke (1996) for correlated designs. We
corrected the correlations obtained from these transformations for dichot-
omization using formulas provided by Hunter and Schmidt (1990, pp.
46 – 47) when the correlates were not naturally occurring dichotomies (e.g.,
gender). We calculated phi coefficients from data provided in four studies
(Bergmann, 1981; Penzer, 1969; Swan, Futrell, & Todd, 1978; A. Wil-
liams, Livy, Silverstone, & Adams, 1979). On the basis of the recommen-
dation of an anonymous reviewer, we did not correct these phi coefficients.
Some studies presented data from more than one measure of pay satis-
faction. If correlations among the multiple measures of pay satisfaction
were provided, we calculated the correlation between a composite (i.e., the
multiple measures of pay satisfaction) and an outside variable (i.e., the
correlate) using the standard-score form of the equation provided by
Ghiselli, Campbell, and Zedeck (1981, p. 163). If correlations among the
multiple measures of pay satisfaction (which are necessary to calculate the
correlation between the composite and the outside variable) were not
provided, we randomly selected a single correlation for use in the meta-
analysis (Martinussen & Bjornstad, 1999). If data were available for the
same correlates from more than one time period, we coded the first time
period.
We only analyzed correlates for which data were available from six or
more samples. (Note, however, that subgroup analyses for some correlates
are based on fewer than seven samples.) This yielded a total of 28
antecedents, correlates, and consequences of pay satisfaction (see Tables 2,
3, 4, 5, and 6) found in 240 samples from 203 studies. A large majority of
these studies (199 of 203 studies, or 98% of the total) were published in
refereed outlets. We believe that in this situation, however, the file-drawer
problem is less of a concern than it is for many meta-analyses. The majority
of these studies did not focus on pay satisfaction; instead, pay satisfaction
was included simply because the researchers administered and reported
results for the entire JDI or JDS (e.g., Stone, 1976). Thus, whether the
correlations for pay satisfaction were significant was unrelated to the
decision to publish the research.
Table 1
Reliability Distributions for Pay Satisfaction Measures
Name and source of scale
No. alpha
reliabilities
available N
Sample-size-weighted
mean
␣
Minimum
␣
Maximum
␣
Median
␣
All multi-item pay level satisfaction scales 126 53,823 .82 .64 .97 .82
Job Descriptive Index: Pay (Smith et al., 1969) 56 18,594 .78 .64 .91 .79
Pay Satisfaction Questionnaire: Pay level (H.G.
Heneman & Schwab, 1985) 19 11,659 .92 .75 .97 .96
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire:
Compensation (Weiss et al., 1967) 14 4,328 .83 .76 .94 .85
INDSALES: Pay (Churchill et al., 1974) 3 461 .88 .85 .89 .88
Opinion Scale for Manager’s Job Satisfaction:
Pay (Warr & Routledge, 1969) 4 6,619 .74 .74 .75 .74
Worker Opinion Survey: Pay (Cross, 1973) 4 749 .83 .79 .86 .83
Pay Attitude Summary Index (Cammann et al.,
1983) 4 1,863 .92 .90 .93 .92
Multi-item pay level scales not otherwise
classified 22 9,550 .79 .65 .94 .83
All multi-item general pay satisfaction scales 38 33,756 .84 .68 .95 .85
Job Diagnostic Survey: Pay (Hackman &
Oldham, 1974) 16 19,308 .86 .75 .88 .86
Index of Organizational Reactions: Financial
(Dunham et al., 1977) 3 2,059 .75 .74 .77 .74
Pay Satisfaction Questionnaire: Total (H.G.
Heneman & Schwab, 1985) 4 1,798 .93 .87 .95 .93
Multi-item general pay satisfaction scales not
otherwise classified 15 10,591 .82 .68 .95 .82
Note. The reliability of a single-item measure of pay level satisfaction was estimated to be .41. The reliability of a single-item measure of general pay
satisfaction was estimated to be .70. INDSALES ⫽ a measure of job satisfaction for the industrial sales force.
397
PAY LEVEL SATISFACTION META-ANALYSIS

Analysis
We used psychometric meta-analysis (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990) in
which we individually corrected each coefficient for unreliability of the
pay satisfaction measure and the correlate. (We did not correct for range
variance.) When the reliability of the pay satisfaction measure was reported
in the study, we used that reliability. When the reliability of the pay
satisfaction measure was not reported, we used the sample-size-weighted
mean of the reliability from those studies that reported reliabilities for the
same pay satisfaction measure (see Table 1). We grouped the multi-item
ad hoc measures into pay level satisfaction and general pay satisfaction
groups. If a study did not report a reliability for a multi-item ad hoc pay
satisfaction measure, we used the sample-size-weighted mean of multi-
item ad hoc scales that reported a reliability (shown in Table 1). In
several cases, we used a composite of two or more pay satisfaction
scales. We calculated the reliability of the composite using equations
for the reliability of linear combinations provided by Nunnally (1978,
p. 249).
Table 2
Meta-Analyses of Pay Discrepancy, Performance Reward Contingency, and Non-Job-Related Inputs With Pay Satisfaction
Distribution kN
Observed
distribution Population distribution
Mean
rSD
r
␳␴
␳
80% credibility
interval
Pay discrepancy correlates of pay satisfaction
All pay discrepancy coefficients (all are pay level) 11 1,931 ⫺.42 .12 ⫺.54* .16 ⫺.74–⫺.33
Performance-reward contingency correlates of pay satisfaction
All performance reward contingency coefficients 17 12,500 .31 .20 .57* .41 .05–1.00
a
Age correlates of pay satisfaction
All age coefficients 74 82,249 .03 .09 .04* .11 ⫺.10–.19
All coefficients except Steffy & Jones (1990) and
Ting (1996) 72 37,892 .04 .11 .05* .12 ⫺.10–.21
Pay level satisfaction 61 74,761 .03 .09 .04* .11 ⫺.10–.18
Pay level coefficients without Steffy & Jones
(1990) and Ting (1996) 59 30,404 .04 .10 .05* .11 ⫺.09–.19
General pay satisfaction 13 7,488 .07 .14 .08* .15 ⫺.12–.26
Marital status correlates of pay satisfaction
All marital status coefficients 8 5,750 .01 .08 .01* .08 ⫺.09–.12
Gender correlates of pay satisfaction
All gender coefficients 58 88,008 .01 .08 .01* .10 ⫺.12–.13
All coefficients except Steffy & Jones (1990) and
Ting (1997) 56 48,530 .03 .08 .04* .09 ⫺.07–.15
Pay level 48 74,947 .01 .08 .01* .10 ⫺.12–.13
Pay level coefficients without Steffy & Jones
(1990) and Ting (1997) 46 35,469 .04 .09 .05* .09 ⫺.07–.23
General pay satisfaction 10 13,061 .02 .07 .02* .07 ⫺.07–.11
Ethnicity correlates of pay satisfaction
All ethnicity coefficients 11 43,174 .17 .22 .25* .33 ⫺.17–.68
All coefficients except Ting (1997) 10 12,336 .45 .25 .67* .39 .17–1.00
a
All coefficients except Steffy & Jones (1990) 10 34,534 .06 .02 .09* .02 .06–.11
Note. The reliabilities of age, marital status, gender, and ethnicity are assumed to be 1.00. No estimates of the reliability of pay discrepancy were available,
so the reliability of pay discrepancy was set at .80. The reliability of pay satisfaction was interpolated for 9 of 11 pay discrepancy samples: Five were
single-item pay level satisfaction measures, and 2 were pay level satisfaction composites (
␣
s ⫽ .93 and .85). The reliability of performance reward
contingency was interpolated for 7 of 17 samples: All were single-item measures (
␣
⫽ .44). (The weighted average
␣
was .77 for the multi-item measures.)
The reliability of pay satisfaction was interpolated for 6 of 17 performance reward contingency samples: Five were single-item pay level satisfaction
measures. For age, the reliability of pay satisfaction was interpolated for 32 of 74 samples: Fourteen were single-item pay level measures, 1 was a pay level
composite (
␣
⫽ .93), and 1 was a single-item general pay satisfaction measure. For marital status, the reliability of pay satisfaction was interpolated for
1 of 8 samples: a single-item measure of pay level satisfaction. For gender (male ⫽ 0, female ⫽ 1), the reliability of pay satisfaction was interpolated for
26 of 58 samples: Thirteen were single-item pay level satisfaction measures, and 1 was a single-item general pay satisfaction measure. For ethnicity
(non-White ⫽ 0, White ⫽ 1), the reliability of pay satisfaction was interpolated for 5 of 11 samples: Two were single-item pay level satisfaction measures.
a
The upper range of the credibility interval was rounded down to 1.00.
* p ⬍ .05 for the chi-square test for homogeneity of corrected correlations.
398
WILLIAMS, MCDANIEL, AND NGUYEN

We used the information in Table 1 to calculate reliability estimates for
single-item measures of pay level and general pay satisfaction. For each
published scale listed in Table 1, we used the Spearman–Brown formula to
estimate the reliability of a single-item measure. We then weighted these
estimates by the total sample size for each scale (shown in Column 3 of
Table 1) and calculated two sample-size-weighted average reliability esti-
mates for single-item measures— one for pay level satisfaction (
␣
⫽ .44),
and one for general pay satisfaction (
␣
⫽ .70).
We fixed the reliabilities of 13 correlates at 1.00, assuming they were
measured without error (age, marital status, gender, ethnicity, education,
experience, job level, job tenure, organizational tenure, salary, pay raise
percentage, absenteeism, and voluntary turnover). No estimates of reliabil-
ity were available for pay discrepancy; however, it is unlikely that this
variable is measured without error. Thus, we fixed the reliability of pay
discrepancy at .80. For the remaining correlates, we used the reliabilities
reported in the studies or imputed reliabilities the same way we did for the
pay satisfaction measures. The number of estimated reliabilities for each of
the correlates as well as the value of the sample-size-weighted mean
reliability coefficient and the reliability estimates for single-item measures
are given in the notes to Tables 2– 6 where appropriate. The number of
composites included in each analysis is shown in the notes for Tables 2– 6.
We set the reliability of job performance to .52 on the basis of Viswesva-
ran, Ones, and Schmidt’s (1996) meta-analysis of job performance ratings.
Whereas we imputed missing reliabilities with means or otherwise set
them to constants, the variance of the reliabilities is likely to be smaller
than the variance of the reliabilities in the population. This will cause the
estimates of the standard deviation of the population correlations to be
upwardly biased and will cause the credibility interval to be wider than it
would be if the variance of the reliabilities across studies were more
accurately estimated. The effect of this bias is that more of the population
variance may be attributed to moderators than is actually the case. The
imputed reliabilities, when correct on average, will not bias the estimated
means of the population correlations.
To examine the impact on the meta-analytic results of studies with large
sample sizes, we ran each analysis with and without studies whose samples
sizes exceeded either 6,000 or 33% of the total sample size for each
correlate. These results are reported in Tables 2– 6.
Although pay level satisfaction measures predominated over general pay
satisfaction measures, we examined type of pay satisfaction measure as a
moderator. We compared the results obtained from the studies using pay
level satisfaction measures with the results from studies that used general
pay satisfaction measures only when k ⬎ 6 for both subgroups. These
Table 3
Meta-Analyses of Job-Related Inputs With Pay Satisfaction
Distribution kN
Observed
distribution Population distribution
Mean
rSD
r
␳␴
␳
80% credibility
interval
Education correlates of pay satisfaction
All education coefficients 47 62,000 .01 .07 .01* .08 ⫺.08–.11
All coefficients except Ting (1996) 46 26,283 .00 .10 .00* .12 ⫺.15–.15
Pay level satisfaction 39 59,519 .00 .07 .01* .08 ⫺.09–.11
Pay level satisfaction without Ting (1996) 38 23,802 .01 .10 .00 .12 ⫺.15–.16
General pay satisfaction 8 2,481 ⫺.02 .04 ⫺.02 .00 ⫺.02–⫺.02
Experience correlates of pay satisfaction
All experience coefficients 9 3,028 .07 .12 .08* .11 ⫺.07–.22
Job level correlates of pay satisfaction
All job level coefficients 23 48,775 .16 .07 .23* .09 .11–.35
All coefficients except Ting (1996) 22 13,058 .12 .12 .13* .13 ⫺.04–.29
Job tenure correlates of pay satisfaction
All job tenure coefficients 21 11,796 ⫺.03 .10 ⫺.03* .11 ⫺.17–.11
Organizational tenure correlates of pay satisfaction
All organizational tenure coefficients 44 36,692 .10 .16 .15* .23 ⫺.14–.44
All coefficients except Steffy & Jones (1990) 43 28,052 .03 .09 .03* .11 ⫺.11–.18
Pay level satisfaction 37 29,516 .12 .16 .18* .24 ⫺.13–.49
Pay level satisfaction without Steffy & Jones (1990) 36 20,876 .03 .10 .04* .13 ⫺.12–.20
General pay satisfaction 7 7,176 .01 .07 .01* .06 ⫺.07–.09
Note. The reliabilities of education, experience, job level, job tenure, and organizational tenure were assumed to be 1.00. For education, the reliability
of pay satisfaction was interpolated for 16 of 47 samples: Nine were single-item pay level satisfaction measures, and 1 was a pay level composite (
␣
⫽
.93). For experience, the reliability of pay satisfaction was interpolated for two of 9 samples. For job level, the reliability of pay satisfaction was interpolated
for 11 of 23 samples: Two were single-item pay level satisfaction measures, and 1 was a pay level satisfaction composite (
␣
⫽ .93). For job tenure, the
reliability of pay satisfaction was interpolated for 3 of 21 samples: One was a single-item pay level satisfaction measure, and 1 was a pay level composite
(
␣
⫽ .93). For organizational tenure, the reliability of pay satisfaction was interpolated for 19 of 44 samples: Eight were single-item pay level satisfaction
measures, and 1 was a single-item general pay satisfaction measure.
* p ⬍ .05 for the chi-square test for homogeneity of corrected correlations.
399
PAY LEVEL SATISFACTION META-ANALYSIS

results are reported in Tables 2, 3, 5, and 6. For comparison purposes, we
present results for the subgroup of samples that used the JDI for the eight
correlates that our study has in common with Kinicki et al. (2002; see
Tables 4 and 6). We calculated Hunter and Schmidt’s (1990, p. 151)
chi-square test for homogeneity of corrected correlations for each corrected
correlation (
␳
) shown in Tables 2– 6.
Results
Two comments regarding our overall results are warranted.
First, we examined the type of pay satisfaction measure (i.e., level
vs. general) as a moderator for seven correlates. Out of seven
correlates, five did not show any differences across type of pay
satisfaction measure. We found differences for two correlates
(distributive justice and performance), which indicates that, in
some situations, the focus of the pay satisfaction measure may
influence the results. Second, the results of the significance tests
indicated heterogeneity of correlations within almost all of the
distributions. Thus, potential moderators exist for the majority of
correlates included in the meta-analysis, even those that are not
strongly related to pay level satisfaction (e.g., job-related inputs).
We examined moderators for some of these relations.
Table 4
Meta-Analyses of Perceived Job Characteristics With Pay Satisfaction
Distribution kN
Observed
distribution Population distribution
Mean
rSD
r
␳␴
␳
80% credibility
interval
Job autonomy correlates of pay satisfaction
All autonomy coefficients 15 11,443 .18 .06 .24* .06 .16–.32
All autonomy correlates except Tiegs et al. (1992) 14 5,038 .14 .07 .19* .06 .11–.27
JDI pay level satisfaction
a
8 2,260 .11 .08 .16* .07 .07–.25
Skill variety correlates of pay satisfaction
All skill variety coefficients 13 11,595 .12 .06 .18* .12 .02–.33
All skill variety correlates except Tiegs et al. (1992) 12 5,190 .16 .07 .25* .15 .06–.45
JDI pay level satisfaction
a
6 2,039 .14 .07 .19 .06 .11–.27
Task feedback correlates of pay satisfaction
All task feedback coefficients 11 9,629 .19 .05 .24* .04 .20–.29
All feedback correlates except Tiegs et al. (1992) 10 3,224 .18 .08 .23* .06 .15–.32
JDI pay level satisfaction
a
5 1,172 .10 .05 .13 .00 .13–.13
Task identity correlates of pay satisfaction
All task identity coefficients 11 9,625 .08 .04 .11 .03 .07–.15
All task identity correlates except Tiegs et al. (1992) 10 3,220 .12 .06 .16 .00 .16–.16
JDI pay level satisfaction
a
5 1,172 .14 .02 .20 .00 .20–.20
Task significance correlates of pay satisfaction
All task significance coefficients 7 8,101 .10 .04 .14 .03 .10–.17
All task significance correlates except Tiegs et al. (1992) 6 1,696 .14 .07 .19 .04 .13–.24
JDI pay level satisfaction
a
3 302 .01 .02 .02 .00 .02–.02
Job scope correlates of pay satisfaction
All job scope coefficients 10 9,051 .21 .05 .26* .04 .21–.31
All job scope correlates except Oldham et al. (1979) 9 2,121 .16 .09 .23 .08 .14–.32
Note. The reliability of autonomy was interpolated for 7 of 15 samples: All were multi-item measures (
␣
⫽ .67). The reliability of pay satisfaction was
interpolated for 9 of 15 autonomy samples: One was a single-item general pay satisfaction measure. The reliability of skill variety was interpolated for6of13
samples: One was a single-item measure (
␣
⫽ .45); 5 were for multi-item measures (
␣
⫽ .72). The reliability of pay satisfaction was interpolated for 7 of 13 skill
variety samples: One was a single-item pay level satisfaction measure. The reliability of task feedback was interpolated for 5 of 11 samples: All were multi-item
measures (
␣
⫽ .70). The reliability of pay satisfaction was interpolated for 6 of the 11 task feedback samples. The reliability of task identity was interpolated for
5 of 11 samples: All were multi-item measures (
␣
⫽ .65). The reliability of pay satisfaction was interpolated for 6 of the 11 task identity samples. The reliability
of task significance was interpolated for 3 of 7 samples: All were multi-item measures (
␣
⫽ .61). The reliability of pay satisfaction was interpolated for 3 of the
7 task significance samples. The reliability of job scope was interpolated for 6 of 10 samples: All were multi-item scales (
␣
⫽ .77). The reliability of pay satisfaction
was interpolated for 6 of the 10 job scope samples: Two were single-item pay level satisfaction measures. JDI ⫽ Job Descriptive Index.
a
Included for comparison with Kinicki et al. (2002).
* p ⬍ .05 for the chi-square test for homogeneity of corrected correlations.
400
WILLIAMS, MCDANIEL, AND NGUYEN

Primary Determinant: Discrepancy Between Perceived
Amount of Pay That Should Be Received and Perceived
Amount of Pay Received (Box 1)
As shown in Table 2, strong support for discrepancy theory is
provided by the relations between pay discrepancy and pay satis-
faction. For all 11 samples,
␳
⫽⫺.54. We had planned to examine
whether the measure of discrepancy used in the primary study was
consistent with equity or discrepancy theory, but confounds ex-
isted that eliminated this possibility.
Antecedents
Perceptions of pay policies and administration (Box 4). As shown
in Table 2, employee perceptions of performance reward contingency
were very strongly related to pay level satisfaction (
␳
⫽ .57).
Perceived inputs: Non-job-related (Box 5). The results for
non-job-related inputs are also shown in Table 2. Age and marital
status were weakly related to pay level satisfaction (
␳
s ⫽ .04 and
.01, respectively). The population correlation between gender (0 ⫽
male, 1 ⫽ female) and pay level satisfaction was .01. Whereas we
know that gender is related to actual pay level, we conducted an
additional analysis that examined the partial correlation between
gender and pay satisfaction, controlling for actual pay. We ob-
tained a rho of ⫺.17 between gender and actual pay required for
this analysis from 24 samples included in the meta-analysis, with
a total sample size of 17,306. The partial correlation was .05,
indicating that once pay level was controlled, women were slightly
more satisfied with their pay than are men, although mean differ-
ences are likely to be small. We found that ethnicity (0 ⫽ non-
White, 1 ⫽ White) was moderately related to pay satisfaction,
although the value for rho dropped from .25 to .09 with the
removal of one study correlation that was an outlier (Steffy &
Jones, 1990; r ⫽ .61). Therefore, we believe that .09 is a better
estimate of the population value than .25. We calculated a partial
correlation between ethnicity and pay level satisfaction, control-
ling for pay level, to see whether pay differences between groups
accounted for differences in pay level satisfaction. We used the
population correlation of .09 between ethnicity and pay level
satisfaction and a population correlation estimate of .06 between
ethnicity and pay based on four samples with a total sample size of
2,901 (the four correlations were .05, .05, .07, and .08). The partial
correlation was .07. The variance reduction rate (Chen & Spector,
1991) indicated that approximately 40% of the shared variance
Table 5
Meta-Analyses of Standards of Comparison, Actual Pay and Pay Raises, and Remaining Antecedents With Pay Satisfaction
Distribution kN
Observed
distribution Population distribution
Mean
rSD
r
␳␴
␳
80% credibility
interval
Internal comparisons (employees within the same organization) correlates of pay satisfaction
All internal comparison coefficients 12 11,563 .56 .05 .94* .14 .76–1.00
a
External comparisons (employees from other organizations) correlates of pay satisfaction
All external comparison coefficients 14 12,986 .57 .09 1.00
b
*
.30 .93–1.00
a
General comparisons (referents of the same age, education, etc.) correlates of pay satisfaction
All general comparison coefficients 6 3,009 .40 .14 .75* .13 .59–.91
Pay level correlates of pay satisfaction
All pay level coefficients 64 29,754 .26 .14 .29* .16 .09–.49
Pay level satisfaction 54 21,829 .25 .15 .29* .17 .08–.51
General pay satisfaction 10 7,925 .27 .11 .29* .11 .15–.44
Pay raise percentage correlates of pay satisfaction
All pay raise percentage coefficients 6 2,182 .07 .04 .08 .00 .08–.08
Note. The reliabilities of salary and percentage pay raise were assumed to be 1.00. The reliability of internal comparisons was interpolated for 10 of 12
samples: All were single-item measures (
␣
⫽ .67). (
␣
⫽ .86 for the one sample that used a multi-item measure.) The reliability of pay satisfaction was
interpolated for 11 of 12 internal comparison samples: Six were single-item pay level satisfaction measures, and 1 was a single-item general pay satisfaction
measure. The reliability of external comparisons was interpolated for 13 of 14 samples: All were single-item measures (
␣
⫽ .38). (
␣
⫽ .55 for the one
sample that used a multi-item measure.) The reliability of pay satisfaction was interpolated for 10 of 14 external comparison samples: Seven were
single-item pay level satisfaction measures. The reliability of general comparisons was interpolated for 3 of 6 samples: Two were single-item measures (
␣
⫽
.34), and 1 was a composite (
␣
⫽ .60). (The weighted average
␣
⫽ .61 for the multi-item measures.) The reliability of pay satisfaction was imputed for
4 of 6 general comparison samples: All were single-item pay level satisfaction measures. For salary, the reliability of pay satisfaction was imputed for 26
of 64 samples: Two were pay level satisfaction composites (
␣
s ⫽ .85 and .94), 11 were single-item pay level satisfaction measures, and 1 was a single-item
general pay satisfaction measure. For pay raise percentage, the reliability of pay satisfaction was imputed for 1 of 6 samples.
a
The upper range of the credibility interval was rounded down to 1.00.
b
The population correlation coefficient was rounded down to 1.00.
* p ⬍ .05 for the chi-square test for homogeneity of corrected correlations.
401
PAY LEVEL SATISFACTION META-ANALYSIS

between pay level satisfaction and ethnicity was attributable to
differences in actual pay.
Perceived inputs: Job related (Box 5). Table 3 shows the
results for job-related inputs. Most of these results show weak
relations between inputs and pay level satisfaction. Education was
barely related to pay satisfaction (
␳
⫽ .01). Work experience was
only weakly related (
␳
⫽ .08). Job level was moderately related to
pay satisfaction (
␳
⫽ .23), although the value for rho dropped to
.13 when we excluded Ting (1996; on the basis of the sample size
of 35,717). Job tenure was also barely related to pay satisfaction
(
␳
⫽⫺.03). Organizational tenure was moderately related to pay
satisfaction (
␳
⫽ .15); however, this relation dropped to .03 with
the removal of one large sample (Steffy & Jones, 1990) whose
correlation between organizational tenure and pay level satisfac-
tion was an outlier (r ⫽ .35). We calculated partial correlations
between job-related inputs and pay level satisfaction, controlling
Table 6
Meta-Analyses of Correlates and Consequences With Pay Satisfaction
Distribution kN
Observed
distribution Population distribution
Mean
rSD
r
␳␴
␳
80% credibility
interval
Distributive justice correlates of pay satisfaction
All distributive justice coefficients 10 6,595 .61 .10 .79* .12 .63–.94
All distributive justice coefficients except M. Brown (2001) 9 3,728 .61 .13 .84* .14 .66–1.00
a
Pay level satisfaction 7 5,627 .58 .05 .75* .07 .66–.84
Pay level satisfaction without Brown (2001) 6 2,760 .54 .05 .78* .10 .66–.90
General pay satisfaction 3 968 .80 .07 1.00
b
*
.10 .88–1.00
a
Procedural justice correlates of pay satisfaction
All procedural justice coefficients 8 2,291 .36 .17 .42* .18 .19–.66
Pay-focused procedural justice 4 1,529 .48 .04 .55 .04 .50–.60
General procedural justice 4 762 .13 .07 .17 .00 .17–.17
Turnover intentions correlates of pay satisfaction
All turnover intentions coefficients 37 15,983 ⫺.21 .14 ⫺.31* .20 ⫺.57–⫺.05
JDI pay level satisfaction
b
16 7,043 ⫺.14 .13 ⫺.20* .18 ⫺.43–.03
Absenteeism correlates of pay satisfaction
All absenteeism coefficients 22 2,257 ⫺.05 .12 ⫺.05* .08 ⫺.16–.05
JDI pay level satisfaction
b
15 1,349 ⫺.07 .11 ⫺.08 .06 ⫺.15–.00
Voluntary turnover correlates of pay satisfaction
All voluntary turnover coefficients 9 1,362 ⫺.15 .12 ⫺.17* .10 ⫺.30–⫺.04
Performance correlates of pay satisfaction
All performance coefficients 43 14,848 .03 .11 .05* .13 ⫺.12–.22
Self-rated performance 12 5,730 .02 .07 .03* .08 ⫺.08–.14
Supervisor-rated performance 26 8,232 .02 .12 .04* .15 ⫺.16–.24
Objective performance measure 4 711 .22 .08 .25 .04 .20–.30
Pay level satisfaction 33 12,884 .04 .11 .06* .14 ⫺.12–.23
JDI supervisor-rated performance
b
16 3,837 .11 .10 .17* .13 .01–.34
General pay satisfaction 10 1,964 .00 .11 ⫺.01* .10 ⫺.14–.12
Note. The reliabilities of absenteeism and turnover are assumed to be 1.00. The reliability of distributive justice was interpolated for 1 of 10 samples, a
single-item measure (
␣
⫽ .62). (The weighted average
␣
⫽ .90 for the multi-item measures.) The reliability of pay satisfaction was interpolated for 3 of
10 distributive justice samples: Two were single-item pay level satisfaction measures, and 1 was a single-item general pay satisfaction measure. The
reliability of procedural justice was interpolated for 3 of 8 samples: One was a single-item measure (
␣
⫽ .56), and 2 were procedural justice composites
(
␣
s ⫽ .83 and .95). (The weighted average
␣
⫽ .82 for the multi-item measures.) The reliability of turnover intentions was interpolated for 23 of 37 samples:
Eighteen were single-item measures (
␣
⫽ .56), and 5 were multi-item measures (
␣
⫽ .80). The reliability of pay satisfaction was interpolated for 20 of
37 turnover intentions samples: Five were single-item pay level satisfaction measures. For absenteeism, the reliability of pay satisfaction was interpolated
for 14 of 22 samples. For voluntary turnover, the reliability of pay satisfaction was interpolated for 6 of 9 samples. The reliability of performance ratings
was set at .52 (Viswesvaran, Ones, & Schmidt, 1996). The reliability of objective performance measures was set at .95. The reliability of pay satisfaction
was interpolated for 27 of 43 performance samples: Four were single-item pay level satisfaction measures, and 1 was a pay level composite (
␣
⫽ .93). JDI ⫽
Job Descriptive Index.
a
The upper bound of the credibility interval was rounded down to 1.00.
b
Included for comparison with Kinicki et al. (2002).
* p ⬍ .05 for the chi-square test for homogeneity of corrected correlations.
402
WILLIAMS, MCDANIEL, AND NGUYEN

for pay. In every case, the partial correlation was lower than the
population correlation, and we found partial support for the theo-
retical prediction that job inputs would be weakly and negatively
related to pay level satisfaction with pay held constant. For edu-
cation, the partial correlation was ⫺.06; for work experience, the
partial correlation was .00. For job level, the partial correlation was
.12 for the full sample and .00 without Ting (1996). The partial
correlation for job tenure was ⫺.08, and it was ⫺.06 for organi-
zational tenure (with the exclusion of the outlier provided by
Steffy & Jones, 1990).
Perceived job characteristics (Box 6). As shown in Table 4,
perceived job characteristics were moderately and positively re-
lated to pay satisfaction (rhos ranged from .11 to .24); autonomy
and task feedback were the most strongly related to pay satisfac-
tion. The population correlation for job scope (i.e., a combined
rating of all job characteristics) was .26. The subsets of our
distributions that used the JDI to measure pay level satisfaction can
be compared with the results of Kinicki et al. (2002). For four job
characteristics, the results were somewhat comparable (
␳
s ⫽ .16
vs. .22 for autonomy, .19 vs. .21 for skill variety, .13 vs. .14 for
task feedback, and .20 vs. .23 for task identity). For task signifi-
cance, Kinicki et al.’s (2002) analysis yielded a population corre-
lation of .17, which contrasts with our result of .02. This difference
may be a result of our decision to exclude studies in which
participants were not actually paid. In Vance and Biddle (1985),
participants were compensated with course credit only. When we
added Vance and Biddle (1985) to our analysis, the population
correlation increased to .16, a value very close to the .17 obtained
by Kinicki et al. (2002).
We examined the possibility that the relations between job
characteristics and pay level satisfaction could be explained by pay
differences for skill variety and job scope. A review of the job
design literature provided one correlation of .29 between skill
variety and pay (Seybolt, 1976; N ⫽ 883) and one correlation of
.26 between job scope and wages (Youngblood, DeNisi,
Molleston, & Mobley, 1984; N ⫽ 400). The resulting partial
correlation between skill variety and pay level satisfaction, with
pay controlled, was .10; for job scope it was .19. According to the
variance reduction rate (Chen & Spector, 1991), these values
represent a reduction of the job characteristic–pay level satisfac-
tion relation of 44% and 27%, respectively.
Perceived inputs and outcomes of referent others (Box 7). Pay
comparisons were among the strongest predictors of pay satisfac-
tion. The values in Table 5 refer to employees’ ratings of how well
their current pay compared with either internal comparisons (i.e.,
employees within the same organization), external comparisons
(i.e., employees doing similar work for other organizations), or
general comparisons. This final category combined comparisons
with others of the same age and with the same level of education;
general social comparisons (e.g., the average worker in the United
States); and a scale that included nine referents, such as internal
and external comparisons as well as comparisons with previous
jobs and generalized others (Summers & DeNisi, 1990). The rhos
for internal, external, and general comparisons were .94, 1.00, and
.75, respectively.
Actual pay and pay raises received (Box 8). Table 5 shows
that actual pay was moderately related to both pay level satisfac-
tion and general pay satisfaction (
␳
s ⫽ .29 for both). The rho for
percentage pay raise was .08, which shows that percentage pay
raise was weakly related to pay level satisfaction.
Correlates (Box 9)
As shown in Table 6, distributive justice was more strongly
related (
␳
⫽ .79) to pay satisfaction than was procedural justice
(
␳
⫽ .42). The type of pay satisfaction measure moderated the
relation between distributive justice and pay level satisfaction such
that the relation was stronger for general pay satisfaction measures
(
␳
⫽ 1.00) than for pay level satisfaction measures (
␳
⫽ .75). In
addition, the type of procedural justice measure moderated the
relation between procedural justice and pay level satisfaction. The
relation was stronger for pay-focused measures of procedural
justice (
␳
⫽ .55) than for more general measures of procedural
justice (
␳
⫽ .17).
Consequences (Box 10)
Table 6 shows that turnover intentions were moderately related
to pay level satisfaction (
␳
⫽⫺.31). Absenteeism was weakly
related to pay satisfaction (
␳
⫽⫺.05). Voluntary turnover was
moderately related to pay level satisfaction (
␳
⫽⫺.17). Perfor-
mance was weakly related to pay satisfaction (
␳
⫽ .05), although
this relation was partially moderated by the type of performance
measure used. For objective performance measures, the population
correlation was much stronger (
␳
⫽ .25) than for self- or
supervisor-rated performance (
␳
s ⫽ .03 and .04, respectively).
Kinicki et al. (2002) examined three of these correlates, and Table
6 shows our results for the JDI for these three correlates. Even
though our results are based on more than twice as many JDI
samples as Kinicki et al.’s findings were, in all three cases our
results are strikingly similar (⫺.20 vs. ⫺.29 for turnover inten-
tions, ⫺.08 vs. ⫺.11 for absenteeism, and .17 vs. .15 for
supervisor-rated performance).
Discussion
Our discussion provides (a) an evaluation of theoretical and
methodological issues related to the study of pay level satisfaction
and (b) suggestions for future research directions. We again use
Figure 1 as an organizing framework for our comments.
Primary Determinant: Discrepancy Between Perceived
Amount of Pay That Should Be Received and Perceived
Amount of Pay Received (Box 1)
We based our summary of the antecedents of pay level satis-
faction on a model that combines equity theory and discrepancy
theory (see Figure 1); however, we found that we could not
evaluate a key component of this model. Although the discrepancy
between perceived amount of pay that should be received and
perceived amount of pay received was strongly and negatively
related to pay level satisfaction, the role depicted in Figure 1 for
this discrepancy as a mediator between other antecedents and pay
level satisfaction has been ignored in empirical research. Most
studies have examined direct relations between pay level satisfac-
tion and the antecedents of both perceived amount of pay that
should be received and perceived amount of pay received. (An
403
PAY LEVEL SATISFACTION META-ANALYSIS

example is inputs and outcomes of referent others, as we discuss
below.) In light of the support for the predictive capacity of
discrepancy provided by this meta-analysis and other research
(e.g., Rice, McFarlin, & Bennett, 1989), future research should
examine this basic premise of mediation within discrepancy mod-
els, as M. L. Williams (1995) has for benefit level satisfaction.
We had planned to examine the competing views from equity
theory and Miceli and Lane’s (1991) interpretation of discrepancy
theory regarding the relation between overreward and pay level
satisfaction; however, despite the prominence of pay discrepancy
in the theoretical model, only 11 samples were available for
analysis. We examined each sample to determine whether the
discrepancy was coded such that overreward was expected to be
negatively or positively related to satisfaction.
1
We found two
conditions that made untenable the examination of operationaliza-
tion of pay discrepancy as a moderator of the relation between pay
discrepancy and pay level satisfaction. First, whether discrepancy
was viewed as positively or negatively related to pay satisfaction
was confounded with whether the studies used a rating scale or a
difference score (e.g., the pay the employee should receive minus
his or her actual pay) to assess discrepancy. Second, in two of the
four samples that coded discrepancy so that overreward was pos-
itively related to pay level satisfaction, the authors reported that no
respondent reported making more than he or she should. Thus,
these samples did not provide an adequate test of the impact of
overreward on pay level satisfaction. This issue needs to be re-
solved with a larger set of studies, perhaps those that include job
satisfaction in general.
Antecedents
Perceptions of pay policies and administration (Box 4). Al-
though various equity norms exist, the concept of basing pay on
performance is ingrained within American organizations (Gomez-
Mejia & Welbourne, 1991; R. L. Heneman, 1992). Cross-cultural
research also suggests that the belief that rewards should be based
on contribution (or performance) may be universally held (Hagan
& Peterson, 1999). These statements provide a straightforward
explanation for the relation between performance-reward contin-
gency and pay level satisfaction. An alternative interpretation is
that pay satisfaction may influence perceptions of the perfor-
mance-reward contingency. Those who are satisfied with their pay
may believe that their rewards are based on performance; other-
wise, they may have to admit that their pay is unfair (i.e., a result
of a circumstance other than the individuals’ contribution to the
organization). Those who are dissatisfied with their pay may blame
the system (i.e., perceive that pay is not performance based) rather
than admit that their performance does not warrant higher pay.
Nevertheless, this result suggests that further examination of con-
structs within the pay administration category is warranted. H. G.
Heneman and Judge’s (2000) review of studies that investigated
the relations among a variety of pay administration components
and various dimensions of pay satisfaction can provide guidance
for future research.
Perceived inputs: Non-job-related (Box 5). We see a limited
role for age and marital status in future research. The small yet
persistent paradox of the contented female worker and the relation
between ethnicity and pay level satisfaction deserve mention.
Gender was nearly unrelated to pay level satisfaction, but we found
in supplemental analyses that when we controlled actual pay,
women were slightly more satisfied with their pay than were men.
Recent research (Davison, 2002) suggests that the most enduring
explanation for this paradox is that women, for a variety of reasons
(C. Lee & Farh, 1999; Loscocco & Spitze, 1991; J. K. Martin &
Hansen, 1985), have lower pay expectations than men. We calcu-
lated the correlation between year of study publication and the
correlation between gender and pay satisfaction. This correlation
was ⫺.17 ( p ⫽ .10; n ⫽ 58), which provides evidence consistent
with a view that the paradox of the contented female worker may
be weakening over time (from 1974 to 2002). This is to be
expected, because the gender wage gap has continued to shrink,
women have become less segregated from men in the workforce,
and women’s income has become more important to their eco-
nomic well-being. All these factors have been mentioned as either
direct or indirect causes of women’s pay expectations (Davison,
2002).
The differences in pay satisfaction between Whites and non-
Whites was larger than the discrepancy found between men and
women, yet this relation has received much less attention than that
between gender and pay satisfaction. The difference between
Whites and non-Whites was in the direction that we expected on
the basis of pay differences between the two groups and was
consistent with the literature that has examined ethnic differences
in overall job satisfaction (e.g., Lankau & Scandura, 1996;
Weaver, 1998). This literature has typically found that Blacks are
less satisfied than Whites with their jobs but that these differences
can be explained by factors such as position (Lankau & Scandura,
1996), pay, occupational prestige, and autonomy (Weaver, 1977).
We found that pay differences between Whites and non-Whites
accounted for part of the difference in pay level satisfaction. It is
likely that controlling for additional factors, such as position,
prestige, and autonomy, would reduce ethnic differences even
further. Existing primary studies do not provide sufficient data for
this analysis, so additional primary research should examine this
possibility. In addition, future research should use diverse samples
in which differences among specific ethnic categories are
examined.
Perceived inputs: Job related (Box 5). H. G. Heneman (1985)
concluded that job input variables related weakly yet negatively to
pay level satisfaction. His reasoning was that job inputs would
increase the level of expected pay; thus, they would indirectly
lower pay satisfaction. Our results provide some support for this
role for job inputs, although the highest partial correlation between
job inputs and pay satisfaction when we controlled for pay was
only ⫺.08.
1
For example, Rice et al. (1989) used a 5-point scale for respondents to
rate whether they wanted much more (⫺2) or much less (2) compared with
their current situation. They then conducted an absolute value transforma-
tion so that wanting much more and much less were both expected to be
negatively related to pay satisfaction. This is contrasted with other authors
(e.g., Blau, 1994; Shapiro, 1976) who operationalized pay discrepancy as
a difference score by subtracting the actual amount of pay received from
the reported amount of pay that should be received. In these cases, only
discrepancies in which someone makes less than he or she should were
negatively related to pay satisfaction; making more than one should was
associated with greater pay level satisfaction.
404
WILLIAMS, MCDANIEL, AND NGUYEN

Perceived job characteristics (Box 6). Among the core job
characteristics, autonomy and task feedback were most strongly
related to pay satisfaction. The relation between autonomy and pay
level satisfaction is an example of a relation that is likely to be due
to variation between job characteristics and actual pay. Earlier, we
reported that job level was positively related to pay level satisfac-
tion (
␳
⫽ .23); thus, there may be a pattern of positive relations
among job level, autonomy, pay, and pay level satisfaction (al-
though, because of the absence of primary research studies, we
could not directly examine this possibility). We posit a different
explanation for the relation between task feedback and pay level
satisfaction. Employees may be more accepting of their pay level
if their job provides them with performance feedback, or, simi-
larly, task-provided feedback may set realistic expectations for pay
levels. Under both discrepancy and equity theories, pay levels that
are close to expectations lead to high pay level satisfaction.
The partial correlations we calculated show that the relations
between job characteristics and pay level satisfaction could be
partially accounted for by actual pay level, at least for skill variety
and job scope. These findings suggest that individuals working in
enriched jobs may be paid more for their enhanced responsibility.
Our results are consistent with the job redesign literature, which
states that the presence of the core job dimensions contributes to
satisfaction, including pay satisfaction. Campion and Berger
(1990) noted that little attention has been directed to understanding
how job design and compensation systems interrelate, and our
analysis is based on only two studies that included measures of
both job characteristics and pay. We encourage researchers work-
ing in both fields to consider these important interrelations in
future research.
Perceived inputs and outcomes of referent others (Box 7). Pay
comparisons are some of the strongest predictors of pay satisfac-
tion. Our expectation that both internal and external comparisons
would be more strongly related to pay level satisfaction than the
more general category of comparisons was supported. In addition,
our results support the basic premises of equity theory regarding
the role of perceived pay of others in determining pay level
satisfaction; however, the strength of these population correlations
warrants further consideration. One explanation for these high
population correlations is common method variance. In almost all
cases, respondents were asked to compare the pay they received
with the perceived inputs and outcomes of referent others and to
rate their pay satisfaction using questionnaire measures collected
at the same point in time. Designs that use procedural remedies
such as temporal, psychological, or methodological separation of
measurement (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003) to
minimize common method variance should be used in future
research.
Another measurement explanation for these high correlations
involves the comparison questions asked of respondents. Typi-
cally, employees are asked to evaluate the pay they receive com-
pared with the pay received by a specific group of referent others
(e.g., those with the same level of experience). This approach is
not consistent with Figure 1. Instead, Figure 1 depicts perceived
inputs and outcomes of referent others as determinants of the
perceived amount of pay that should be received rather than a
direct antecedent of pay level satisfaction. As long as pay com-
parisons are measured via this popular method, they will dominate
other predictors in empirical tests of antecedent models of pay
level satisfaction. A measurement method more consistent with
Figure 1 is to assess perceived inputs and outcomes of referent
others without a direct comparison with the respondent’s actual
pay level. For example, a typical pay comparison measure asks
respondents to rate their pay compared with that of a list of
referents (those the same age as the respondent, other employees
within the respondent’s organization, etc.) using a scale of 1 ⫽
much worse to 5 ⫽ much better. Instead, respondents could be
asked to rate their perceptions of the adequacy of outcomes refer-
ent others receive from their jobs compared with their inputs (e.g.,
from 1 ⫽ highly inadequate to 5 ⫽ highly adequate). This format
allows researchers to assess inputs and outcomes of referent others
independent of employees’ ratings of their own pay. This separa-
tion is more consistent with the theoretical model shown in Fig-
ure 1 and is likely to reduce the inflated correlations obtained
between comparisons with referent others and pay level satisfac-
tion. Depending on the nature of the specific research questions,
researchers could determine what outcomes other than pay (if any)
they should assess and for which referents.
Actual pay and pay raises received (Box 8). We did not have
a precise estimate of the relation between actual pay and pay level
satisfaction before we conducted this meta-analysis. The mean
population correlation (
␳
⫽ .29) confirms that pay level is an
important but not necessarily dominant determinant of pay level
satisfaction. Few studies have investigated the pay raise
percentage–pay level satisfaction relation. Our summary of these
studies shows that pay raise percentage is only slightly related to
pay level satisfaction.
Correlates (Box 9)
Our results for justice are consistent with the two-factor theory
of organizational justice, which posits that distributive justice is
more strongly related to personal-level evaluations than is proce-
dural justice (Miceli & Mulvey, 2000). Distributive justice may be
more strongly related to pay satisfaction than is procedural justice,
because, as a direct assessment of pay outcomes, distributive
justice is a construct similar to pay level satisfaction.
General pay satisfaction was more strongly related to distribu-
tive justice than was pay level satisfaction. We expected this
because most distributive justice measures address outcomes other
than those concerned directly with pay level. The construct corre-
spondence of this type of measure is closer to that of general pay
satisfaction than to that of pay level satisfaction. The type of
procedural justice measure moderated the relation between proce-
dural justice and pay level satisfaction. Procedural justice and pay
level satisfaction were much more strongly related when a pay-
focused measure of procedural justice was used than when a more
general measure of procedural justice was used. As examples,
Jones, Scarpello, and Bergmann (1999) used a pay-focused mea-
sure of procedural justice, the Procedural Fairness Scale (Scarpello
& Jones, 1996), which assessed the fairness of compensation
procedures, such as job evaluation and pay raise determination.
Alternatively, Howard (1999) used Moorman’s (1991) measure,
which assesses more broadly “the degree to which fair procedures
are used in the organizations” and the “interpersonal behavior of
the supervisor” (Moorman, 1991, p. 847). Again, the explanation
here is one of construct correspondence.
405
PAY LEVEL SATISFACTION META-ANALYSIS

Although interest in procedural and distributive justice concepts
has increased in recent decades, the justice literature has rarely
been integrated with the pay satisfaction literature. Hundreds of
studies have been conducted on pay level satisfaction and on
distributive and procedural justice, yet only 11 studies yielded
quantitative results for this analysis. Thus, basic questions con-
cerning the causal relations among these constructs remain (e.g.,
H. G. Heneman & Judge, 2000). In addition, primary studies
examining the complexities of the developing justice literature
(e.g., the roles of interactional and informational justice) as they
relate to pay satisfaction are not represented in this meta-analysis.
These are fruitful areas for additional primary research.
Consequences (Box 10)
The results for the consequences or outcomes of pay satisfaction
indicate that pay satisfaction was more strongly related to attitu-
dinal than to behavioral outcomes: The relation with turnover
intentions was moderate, and the relations with behavioral out-
comes were relatively weaker.
We examined two potential moderators of the weak, positive
relation between pay satisfaction and performance: type of perfor-
mance rating, and type of pay satisfaction measure. Objective
performance measures yielded a stronger population correlation
and a smaller credibility interval than the entire distribution. This
stronger relation exists because, in three of the four studies, em-
ployees’ pay was based on objective performance measures. In two
studies, sales employees were paid on commission (Hollenbeck &
Williams, 1986; Motowidlo, 1982). In the third study, restaurant
managers’ pay was based on restaurant profitability (Summers &
Hendrix, 1991b). These results are consistent with the view es-
poused by Cherrington, Reitz, and Scott (1971) that rewards cause
satisfaction and that contingent rewards cause performance. Thus,
the stronger relation between pay level satisfaction and objective
performance was due to the relation between pay and performance
established by the reward system. The relation between pay satis-
faction and performance was stronger for general pay satisfaction
measures than for pay level satisfaction measures. The relation
between performance and JDI-measured pay level satisfaction was
stronger than the relation between performance and other pay level
satisfaction measures. We examined several possible explanations
for these findings (e.g., whether the performance measure was
obtained from company performance appraisal ratings or con-
ducted just for the study) but could not find compelling reasons for
these differences.
The typically weak relations between pay satisfaction and its
consequences might lead us to a conclusion opposite that of H. G.
Heneman and Judge (2000), who stated, “Research has unequiv-
ocally shown that pay dissatisfaction can have important and
undesirable impacts on numerous employee outcomes” (p. 85). We
can reconcile these different viewpoints by examining the level of
specificity of the research summaries presented here and by H. G.
Heneman and Judge (2000). Constructs that have not been exam-
ined in multiple studies are excluded from meta-analyses. H. G.
Heneman and Judge listed 11 studies that examined relations
between compensation attitudes and outcomes. The majority of
these studies included specific outcomes not represented in this
meta-analysis—for example, lateness, prounion vote, and signing
up for a job interview. Thus, we agree that future examinations of
pay level satisfaction outcomes should be “behaviorally specific in
terms of likely employee reactions to pay dissatisfaction” (H. G.
Heneman & Judge, 2000, p. 85) and that there is little future in
examining general relations, such as that between pay level satis-
faction and global job performance.
Limitations and Future Research
The limitations of meta-analysis in general apply to this study.
The analysis was limited to available primary studies. For several
correlates, we examined only linear, bivariate relations with pay
satisfaction. We examined relations between pay level satisfaction
and its correlates at the individual level. Although some pay level
satisfaction research at the group or organizational level exists,
Ostroff and Harrison (1999) noted that it is inappropriate to pool
studies from multiple levels of analysis in a meta-analysis. As
increased interest in group- and organizational-level compensation
research yields more studies of pay satisfaction at higher levels of
analysis, meta-analyses of those literatures should be conducted.
For the perceptual correlates in our review (e.g., procedural justice,
turnover intentions), the strength of the relations with pay satis-
faction may be influenced by common method variance. A number
of the correlates of pay level satisfaction that we examined are
likely to be related. For example, it seems likely that pay policies
and administration (e.g., performance reward contingency) influ-
ence the amount of actual pay and also procedural justice percep-
tions, and so forth. Thus, our results do not provide a comprehen-
sive test of the model shown in Figure 1. On the basis of the results
of the significance tests that indicate that moderators are likely to
exist for most of the relations we examined, we urge researchers to
examine the relations between these correlates and pay level
satisfaction, taking other factors into account. We also recommend
that researchers tailor their use of pay satisfaction measures to the
specific compensation satisfaction construct in which they are
interested. Our results indicate that, in some cases, use of a general
pay satisfaction measure instead of a pay level satisfaction mea-
sure could influence conclusions regarding the strength of the
relation between pay satisfaction and its correlates. Developments
in the measurement of specific compensation satisfaction dimen-
sions (e.g., Scarpello et al., 1988; Sturman & Short, 2000) will
allow researchers to match their measures more closely to their
theoretical constructs.
Although research on the impact of personality at work has
made considerable progress in recent years (Mount, Barrick, &
Ryan, 2003), only a few primary studies of personality and pay
satisfaction exist (e.g., Shaw, Duffy, Jenkins, & Gupta, 1999). We
encourage researchers to include personality in their models of pay
level satisfaction and to test these relations in primary research.
For example, personality factors might play a role as job-related
personal inputs (Box 5) in the theoretical model shown in Fig-
ure 1.
2
Employees might view traits such as conscientiousness,
emotional stability, and perhaps Type A behavior as personal
inputs that determine employees’ perceptions of the level of pay
they deserve. Such research would address Mount et al.’s (2003)
call to study mediational links between personality and criteria of
interest using existing constructs such as well-accepted personality
traits and motivational constructs.
2
We thank an anonymous reviewer for this idea.
406
WILLIAMS, MCDANIEL, AND NGUYEN

Conclusions
Pay level satisfaction has received a great deal of research
attention over the past 40 years, and this meta-analysis summarizes
the accumulated literature. Our results represent the best available
estimates of the relations between pay level satisfaction and its
primary determinants, antecedents, correlates, and consequences.
In addition, we have examined these results within existing theo-
retical frameworks, so that our findings provide insight into how
future research can make methodological and theoretical contribu-
tions to this important literature.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the
meta-analysis.
*Abdel-Halim, A. A. (1980). Effects of higher order need strength on the
job performance-job satisfaction relationship. Personnel Psychology, 33,
335–347.
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New
York: Academic Press.
*Adler, S., & Golan, J. (1981). Lateness as a withdrawal behavior. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 66, 544 –554.
*Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1983). Organizational commitment: Indi-
vidual and organizational influences. Work and Occupations, 10, 123–
146.
*Baird, L. S. (1976). Relationship of performance to satisfaction in stim-
ulating and nonstimulating jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61,
721–727.
*Barling, J., Wade, B., & Fullagar, C. (1990). Predicting employee com-
mitment to company and union: Divergent models. Journal of Occupa-
tional Psychology, 63, 49 – 61.
*Bartol, K. M. (1979). Individual versus organizational predictors of job
satisfaction and turnover among professionals. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 15, 55– 67.
*Bartol, K. M., & Wortman, M. D. (1976). Sex effects in leader behavior
self-descriptions and job satisfaction. Journal of Psychology, 94, 177–
183.
*Bechtold, S. E., Sims, H. P., Jr., & Szilagyi, A. D., Jr. (1981). Job scope
relationships: A three-wave longitudinal analysis. Journal of Occupa-
tional Behavior, 2, 189 –202.
*Bedeian, A. G., Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Age, tenure, and
job satisfaction: A tale of two perspectives. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 40, 33– 48.
*Bergmann, T. J. (1981). Managers and their organizations: An interactive
approach to multidimensional job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 54, 275–288.
*Bigoness, W. J. (1978). Correlates of faculty attitudes toward collective
bargaining. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 228 –233.
*Blau, G. J. (1985). Relationship of extrinsic, intrinsic, and demographic
predictors to various types of withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 70, 442– 450.
*Blau, G. J. (1994). Testing the effect of level and importance of pay
referents on pay level satisfaction. Human Relations, 47, 1251–1268.
*Blau, G. J., & Blank, W. (1989, November). An investigation of the
determinants of pay satisfaction. Paper presented at the meeting of the
Southern Academy of Management, New Orleans, LA.
*Brief, A. P., & Aldag, R. J. (1975). Employee reactions to job character-
istics: A constructive replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60,
182–186.
*Brown, K. A., & Huber, V. L. (1992). Lowering floors and raising
ceilings: A longitudinal assessment of the effects of an earnings-at-risk
plan on pay satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 45, 279 –311.
*Brown, M. (2001). Unequal pay, unequal responses? Pay referents and
their implications for pay level satisfaction. Journal of Management
Studies, 38, 879 – 896.
*Buchko, A. A. (1993). The effects of employee ownership on employee
attitudes: An integrated causal model and path analysis. Journal of
Management Studies, 30, 633– 657.
*Caldwell, D. F., & O’Reilly, C. A., III. (1982). Task perceptions and job
satisfaction: A question of causality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67,
361–369.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D., & Klesh, J. R. (1983).
Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In
S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler III, P. H. Mirvis, & C. Cammann (Eds.),
Assessing organizational change (pp. 71–138). New York: Wiley.
Campion, M. A., & Berger, C. J. (1990). Conceptual integration and
empirical test of job design and compensation relationships. Personnel
Psychology, 43, 525–553.
*Carraher, S. M., & Buckley, M. R. (1996). Cognitive complexity and the
perceived dimensionality of pay satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 81, 102–109.
*Champoux, J. E. (1992). A multivariate analysis of curvilinear relation-
ships among job scope, work context satisfaction, and affective out-
comes. Human Relations, 45, 87–111.
*Cheloha, R. S., & Farr, J. L. (1980). Absenteeism, job involvement, and
job satisfaction in an organizational setting. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 65, 467– 473.
Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1991). Negative affectivity as the underlying
cause of correlations between stressors and strains. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 76, 398 – 407.
Cherrington, D. J., Reitz, H. J., & Scott, W. E. (1971). Effects of contingent
and noncontingent rewards on the relationship between satisfaction and
task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 531–536.
*Christiansen, N., Villanova, P., & Mikulay, S. N. (1997). Political influ-
ence compatibility: Fitting the person to the climate. Journal of Orga-
nizational Behavior, 18, 709 –730.
Churchill, G. A., Jr., Ford, N. M., & Walker, O. C., Jr. (1974). Measuring
the job satisfaction of industrial salesmen. Journal of Marketing Re-
search, 11, 254 –260.
*Churchill, G. A., Jr., & Pecotich, A. (1982). A structural equation inves-
tigation of the pay satisfaction valence relationship among salespeople.
Journal of Marketing, 46, 114 –124.
*Chusmir, L. H., & Koberg, C. S. (1990). Ethnic differences in the
relationship between job satisfaction and sex-role conflict among His-
panic and non-Hispanic White individuals. Psychological Reports, 66,
567–579.
*Clark, A. E. (1993). Job satisfaction and gender: Why are women so
happy at work? (Discussion Paper 415). Colchester, Essex, England:
University of Essex.
*Cohen, A. (1992). Attitudinal militancy and propensity to strike among
unionized engineers and x-ray technicians. Human Relations, 45, 1333–
1366.
*Colarelli, S. M., Dean, R. A., & Konstans, C. N. (1987). Comparative
effects of personal and situational influences on job outcomes of new
professionals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 558 –566.
Crosby, F. (1982). Relative deprivation and working women. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Cross, D. (1973). The Worker Opinion Survey: A measure of shop-floor
satisfaction. Occupational Psychology, 47, 193–208.
*Das, P., & Bhadury, B. (1997). Pay satisfaction of R&D personnel in
manufacturing organizations: The role of career comparison process.
Journal of High Technology Management Research, 8, 171–186.
*Davison, H. K. (2002, August). The paradox of the contented female
worker: Why are women satisfied with less pay? Paper presented at the
meeting of the Academy of Management, Denver, CO.
*Drasgow, F., & Miller, H. E. (1982). Psychometric and substantive issues
407
PAY LEVEL SATISFACTION META-ANALYSIS

in scale construction and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67,
268 –279.
*Dreher, G. F. (1981). Predicting the salary satisfaction of exempt em-
ployees. Personnel Psychology, 34, 579 –589.
*Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. A. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring
among men and women in managerial, professional, and technical
positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 539 –546.
* Dreher, G. F., Ash, R. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1988). Benefit coverage and
employee cost: Critical factors in explaining compensation satisfaction.
Personnel Psychology, 41, 237–254.
*Dreher, G. F., & Cox, T. H., Jr. (2000). Labor market mobility and cash
compensation: The moderating effects of race and gender. Academy of
Management Journal, 43, 890 –900.
*Dulebohn, J. H., & Martocchio, J. J. (1998). Employee perceptions of the
fairness of work group incentive pay plans. Journal of Management, 24,
469 – 488.
*Dunham, R. B. (1977). Reactions to job characteristics: Moderating
effects of the organization. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 42–
65.
Dunham, R. B., Smith, F. J., & Blackburn, R. S. (1977). Validation of the
Index of Organizational Reactions with the JDI, the MSQ, and Faces
scales. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 420 – 432.
Dunlap, W. P., Cortina, J. M., Vaslow, J. B., & Burke, M. J. (1996).
Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures
designs. Psychological Methods, 1, 170 –177.
*Dyer, L., & Theriault, R. N. (1976). The determinants of pay satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 596 – 604.
*Eberhardt, B. J., & Moser, S. B. (1995). The nature and consequences of
part-time work: A test of hypotheses. Journal of Applied Business
Research, 11, 101–108.
Eby, L. T., Freeman, D. M., Rush, M. C., & Lance, C. E. (1999).
Motivational bases of affective organizational commitment: A partial
test of an integrative theoretical model. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 72, 463– 483.
*Ellingson, J. E., Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (1998). Factors related to
the satisfaction and performance of temporary employees. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 913–921.
*Elloy, D. F., Everett, J. E., & Flynn, W. R. (1991). An examination of the
correlates of job involvement. Group and Organization Studies, 16,
160 –177.
*Farh, J. L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S. C. (1997). Impetus for action: A
cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in
Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 421– 444.
*Feldman, D. C., & Tompson, H. B. (1993). Expatriation, repatriation, and
domestic geographical relocation: An empirical investigation of adjust-
ment to new job assignments. Journal of International Business Studies,
24, 507–529.
*Ferris, G. R. (1985). Role of leadership in the employee withdrawal
process: A constructive replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70,
777–781.
*Futrell, C., Parasuraman, A., & Sagar, J. (1983). Sales force evaluation
with expectancy theory. International Marketing Management, 12, 125–
129.
*Futrell, C. M., & Varadarajan, P. R. (1985). Marketing executives’
perceptions of equitable salary increases. Industrial Marketing Manage-
ment, 14, 59 – 67.
*Garrison, K. R., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1977). Attitudinal and biographical
predictors of incidental absenteeism. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
10, 221–230.
*George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1990). The economic instrumentality of
work: An examination of the moderating effects of financial require-
ments and sex on the pay-life satisfaction relationship. Journal of Vo-
cational Behavior, 37, 357–368.
Ghiselli, E., Campbell, J. P., & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement theory for
the behavioral sciences. San Francisco: Freeman.
*Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Balkin, D. B. (1984). Faculty satisfaction with
pay and other job dimensions under union and nonunion conditions.
Academy of Management Journal, 27, 591– 602.
Gomez-Mejia, L. R., & Welbourne, T. (1991). Compensation strategies in
a global context. Human Resource Planning, 14, 29 – 41.
*Goodman, P. S. (1974). An examination of referents used in the evalua-
tion of pay. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12,
170 –195.
*Gordon, G. G. (1989). Relationships of personal needs to managers’
perceptions of compensation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 4,
15–26.
*Gordon, G. G., & Rothberg, H. (1991). Some added complexities of pay
satisfaction in a management population. Journal of Managerial Issues,
3, 303–318.
*Graham, M. E., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Gainsharing and women’s
and men’s relative pay satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
20, 1027–1042.
*Griffin, M. A. (1997). Multilevel influences on work attitudes: Organi-
sational and individual predictors of pay satisfaction. Australian Psy-
chologist, 32, 190 –195.
*Gupta, N. (1980). Performance-contingent rewards and satisfaction: An
initial analysis. Human Relations, 33, 813– 829.
*Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E., III. (1971). Employee reactions to job
characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 259 –286.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1974). The Job Diagnostic Survey: An
instrument for the diagnosis of jobs and the evaluation of job redesign
projects (AD-779 828). Washington, DC: National Technical Informa-
tion Service, U.S. Department of Commerce.
*Hagan, C. M., & Peterson, M. F. N. (1999, August). Cultural specifics
and universals in employee responses to pay contingencies. Paper pre-
sented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago.
*Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1990). Job attitudes and organizational
withdrawal: An examination of retirement and other voluntary with-
drawal behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 60 –78.
*Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1991). General attitudes and organiza-
tional withdrawal: An evaluation of a causal model. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 39, 110 –128.
*Hemmasi, M., Graf, L. A., & Lust, J. A. (1992). Correlates of pay and
benefit satisfaction: The unique case of public university faculty. Public
Personnel Management, 21, 429 – 443.
Heneman, H. G., III. (1985). Pay satisfaction. In M. Rowland & J. Ferris
(Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol.
3, pp. 115–140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Heneman, H. G., III, & Judge, T. A. (2000). Compensation attitudes: A
review and recommendations for future research. In S. L. Rynes & B.
Gerhart (Eds.), Compensation in organizations: Progress and prospects
(pp. 61–103). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Heneman, H. G., III, & Schwab, D. P. (1979). Work and rewards theory.
In D. Yoder & H. G. Heneman Jr. (Eds.), ASPA handbook of personnel
and industrial relations (Vol. 2, pp. 6.1–6.22). Washington, DC: Bureau
of National Affairs.
Heneman, H. G., III, & Schwab, D. P. (1985). Pay satisfaction: Its multi-
dimensional nature and measurement. International Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 20, 129 –141.
Heneman, R. L. (1992). Merit pay: Linking pay increases to performance
ratings. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
*Heneman, R. L., Greenberger, D. B., & Strasser, S. (1988). The relation-
ship between pay-for-performance perceptions and pay satisfaction.
Personnel Psychology, 41, 745–759.
*Heneman, R. L., Porter, G., Greenberger, D. B., & Strasser, S. (1997).
Modeling the relationship between pay level and pay satisfaction. Jour-
nal of Business and Psychology, 12, 147–158.
408
WILLIAMS, MCDANIEL, AND NGUYEN

*Holdnak, B. J., Harsh, J., & Bushardt, S. C. (1993). An examination of
leadership style and its relevance to shift work in an organizational
setting. Health Care Management Review, 18, 21–30.
*Hollenbeck, J. R., & Williams, C. R. (1986). Turnover functionality
versus turnover frequency: A note on work attitudes and organizational
effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 606 – 611.
*Hom, P. W., & Hulin, C. L. (1981). A competitive test of the prediction
of reenlistment by several models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66,
23–39.
*Honeycutt, E. D., Siguaw, J. A., & Hunt, T. G. (1995). Business ethics
and job-related constructs: A cross-cultural comparison of automotive
salespeople. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 235–248.
*Howard, L. W. (1999). Validity evidence for measures of procedural/
distributive justice and pay/benefit satisfaction. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 14, 135–147.
*Huber, V. L., Seybolt, P. M., & Venemon, K. (1992). The relationship
between individual inputs, perceptions, and multidimensional pay satis-
faction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1356 –1373.
*Hunt, J. W., & Saul, P. N. (1975). The relationship of age, tenure, and job
satisfaction in males and females. Academy of Management Journal, 18,
690 –702.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Cor-
recting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Iaffaldano, M. T., & Muchinsky, P. M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 251–273.
*Igbaria, M., & Guimaraes, T. (1993). Antecedents and consequences
among information center employees. Journal of Management Informa-
tion Systems, 9, 145–174.
*Inkson, J. H. K. (1978). Self-esteem as a moderator of the relationship
between job performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 63, 243–247.
*Ivancevich, J. M., & Donnelly, J. H., Jr. (1975). Relation of organiza-
tional structure to job satisfaction, anxiety-stress, and performance.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 272–280.
*Jacobs, R., & Soloman, T. N. (1977). Strategies for enhancing the
prediction of job performance from job satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 62, 417– 421.
*Jenkins, G. D., Jr., & Lawler, E. E., III. (1981). Impact of employee
participation in pay plan development. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 28, 111–128.
*Jermier, J. M., Gaines, J., & McIntosh, N. J. (1989). Reactions to
physically dangerous work: A conceptual and empirical analysis. Jour-
nal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 15–33.
*Jones, F. F., Scarpello, V., & Bergmann, T. (1999). Pay procedures—
what makes them fair? Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 72, 129 –145.
*Judge, T. A. (1993). Validity of the dimensions of the Pay Satisfaction
Questionnaire: Evidence of differential prediction. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 46, 331–355.
*Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1989). Theoretical and methodological
considerations in the age-job satisfaction relationship. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 74, 201–207.
*Katerberg, R., Jr., Hom, P. W., & Hulin, C. L. (1979). Effects of job
complexity on the reactions of part-time employees. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 24, 317–332.
*Keaveny, T. J., & Inderrieden, E. J. (2000). Gender differences in pay
satisfaction and pay expectations. Journal of Managerial Issues, 12,
363–379.
*Kesselman, G. A., Wood, M. T., & Hagen, E. L. (1974). Relationships
between performance and satisfaction under contingent and noncontin-
gent reward systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 374 –376.
*Khan, L. J., & Morrow, P. C. (1991). Objective and subjective underem-
ployment relationships to job satisfaction. Journal of Business Research,
22, 211–218.
Kinicki, A. J., McKee-Ryan, F. M., Schriesheim, C. A., & Carson, K. P.
(2002). Assessing the construct validity of the Job Descriptive Index: A
review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 14 –32.
*Klein, S. M., & Maher, J. R. (1966). Education level and satisfaction with
pay. Personnel Psychology, 19, 195–208.
*Koch, J. L., & Rhodes, S. R. (1981). Predictors of turnover of female
factory workers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 145–161.
*Koch, J. L., & Steers, R. M. (1978). Job attachment, satisfaction, and
turnover among public sector employees. Journal of Vocational Behav-
ior, 12, 119 –128.
*Konovsky, M. A., Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1987). Relative effects
of procedural and distributive justice on employee attitudes. Represen-
tative Research in Social Psychology, 17, 15–24.
*Kraut, A. I. (1975). Predicting turnover of employees from measured job
attitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 233–
243.
*Krefting, L. A. (1980). Differences in orientations toward pay increases.
Industrial Relations, 19, 81– 87.
*LaFollette, W. R., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1975). Is satisfaction redundant with
organizational climate? Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
mance, 13, 257–278.
*Landy, F. J. (1971). Motivational type and the satisfaction–performance
relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 406 – 413.
Lankau, M. J., & Scandura, T. A. (1996). An examination of job attitudes
of White, Black, and Hispanic nurses in a public hospital. International
Journal of Public Administration, 19, 377–398.
Lawler, E. E., III. (1971). Pay and organizational effectiveness. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Lawler, E. E., III. (1981). Pay and organizational development. Reading,
MA: Addison Wesley.
Lee, C., & Farh, J. L. (1999). The effects of gender in organizational justice
perception. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 133–143.
*Lee, R. T., & Martin, J. E. (1991). Internal and external referents as
predictors of pay satisfaction among employees in a two-tier wage
setting. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64, 57– 66.
*Levanoni, E., & Sales, C. A. (1989). Differences in job attitudes between
full-time and part-time Canadian employees. Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy, 130, 231–237.
*Levinson, E. M. N. (1997). Differences in desired role functioning and job
satisfaction between doctoral and nondoctoral school psychologists.
Psychological Reports, 81, 513–514.
Locke, E. A., Sirota, D., & Wolfson, A. D. (1976). An experimental case
study of the successes and failures of job enrichment in the government
agency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 701–711.
*Lopez, E. M. (1982). A test of the self-consistency theory of the job
performance-job satisfaction relationship. Academy of Management
Journal, 25, 335–348.
*Loscocco, K. A., & Spitze, G. (1991). The organizational context of
women’s and men’s pay satisfaction. Social Science Quarterly, 72,
3–19.
*Lum, L., Kervin, J., Clark, K., Reid, F., & Sirola, W. (1998). Explaining
nursing turnover intent: Job satisfaction, pay satisfaction, or organiza-
tional commitment? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 305–320.
*Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. N. (1997). Above the glass ceiling? A
comparison of matched samples of female and male executives. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 82, 359 –375.
*MacEachron, A. E. (1977). Two interactive perspectives on the relation-
ship between job level and job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 19, 226 –246.
*Maimon, Z., & Ronen, S. (1978). Measures of job facet satisfaction as
predictors of the tendency to leave or the tendency to stay with an
organization. Human Relations, 31, 1019 –1030.
Major, B., & Konar, E. (1984). An investigation of sex differences in pay
409
PAY LEVEL SATISFACTION META-ANALYSIS

expectations and their possible causes. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 27, 777–792.
*Major, B., & Testa, M. (1989). Social comparison processes and judg-
ments of entitlement and satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 25, 101–120.
*Malka, S. (1989). Managerial behavior, participation, and effectiveness in
social welfare organizations. Administration in Social Work, 13, 47– 65.
*Martin, J. E., & Lee, R. T. (1992). Pay knowledge and referents in a
tiered-employment setting. Relations Industrielles, 47, 654 – 670.
Martin, J. K., & Hansen, S. L. (1985). Sex, family wage earnings status and
satisfaction with work. Work and Occupations, 12, 91–109.
Martinussen, M., & Bjornstad, J. F. (1999). Meta-analysis calculations
based on independent and nonindependent cases. Educational and Psy-
chological Measurement, 59, 928 –950.
*Mathieu, J. E., Hofmann, D. A., & Farr, J. L. (1993). Job perception-job
satisfaction relations: An empirical comparison of three competing the-
ories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56,
370 –387.
*McClendon, J. A., & Klaas, B. (1993). Determinants of strike-related
militancy: An analysis of a university faculty strike. Industrial and
Labor Relations Review, 46, 560 –573.
*McElroy, J. C., Morrow, P. C., Crum, M. R., & Dooley, F. J. (1995).
Railroad employee commitment and work-related attitudes and percep-
tions. Transportation Journal, 34(3), 13–24.
*McElroy, J. C., Morrow, P. C., Power, M. L., & Iqbal, Z. (1993).
Commitment and insurance agents’ job perceptions, attitudes and per-
formance. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 60, 363–384.
*McFarlin, D. B., & Frone, M. R. (1990). A two-tier wage structure in a
non-union firm. Industrial Relations, 29, 145–154.
*McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural
justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational
outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 626 – 637.
*McGinnis, S. K., & Morrow, P. S. (1990). Job attitudes among full and
part-time employees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 86 –96.
*McNeilly, K. M., & Russ, F. A. N. (1992). The moderating effect of sales
force performance on relationships involving antecedents of turnover.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 12, 9 –20.
*Miceli, M. P., Jung, I., Near, J. P., & Greenberger, D. B. (1991).
Predictors and outcomes of reactions to pay-for-performance plans.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 508 –521.
Miceli, M. P., & Lane, M. C. (1991). Antecedents of pay satisfaction: A
review and extension. In K. Rowland & J. Ferris (Eds.), Research in
personnel and human resources management (Vol. 9, pp. 235–309).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
*Miceli, M. P., & Mulvey, P. W. (2000). Consequences of satisfaction with
pay systems: Two field studies. Industrial Relations, 39, 62– 87.
*Miceli, M. P., Near, J. P., & Schwenk, C. R. (1991). Who blows the
whistle and why? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45, 113–130.
Milkovich, G. T., & Newman, J. M. (2005). Compensation (8th ed.).
Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
*Milutinovich, J. S. (1977). Black and White differences in job satisfac-
tion, group cohesiveness, and leadership style. Human Relations, 30,
1079 –1087.
*Mobley, W. H., Horner, S. O., & Hollingsworth, A. T. (1978). An
evaluation of the precursors of hospital employee turnover. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 63, 408 – 414.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationships between organizational justice and
organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence
employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845– 855.
*Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., & Maertz, C. P. (2001). Understanding
pay satisfaction: The limits of a compensation system implementation.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 133–149.
*Morrow, P. C., & Crum, M. R. (1998). The effects of perceived and
objective safety risk on employee outcomes. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 53, 300 –313.
*Morrow, P. C., & McElroy, J. C. (1987). Work commitment and job
satisfaction over three career stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30,
330 –346.
*Motowidlo, S. J. (1982). Relationship between self-rated performance and
pay satisfaction among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 67, 209 –213.
*Motowidlo, S. J. (1983). Predicting sales turnover from pay satisfaction
and expectation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 484 – 489.
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Ryan, A. M. (2003). Research themes for
the future. In M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work:
Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp. 326 –344).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
*Mueller, C. W., Iverson, R. D., & Jo, D. G. (1999). Distributive justice
evaluations in two cultural contexts: A comparison of U. S. and South
Korean teachers. Human Relations, 52, 869 – 893.
*Mueller, C. W., & Wallace, J. E. (1996). Justice and the paradox of the
contented female worker. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 338 –349.
*Murray, M. A., & Atkinson, T. N. (1981). Gender differences in corre-
lates of job satisfaction. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 13,
44 –52.
*Nelson, M. F., Chown, D. W., & Stone, T. H. (1999, November). Pay me
more: An examination of faculty pay satisfaction. Paper presented at the
meeting of the Southern Management Association, Atlanta, GA.
*Neumann, Y. N. (1980). A contingency approach for understanding
equity theory and its predictions. Social Behavior and Personality, 8,
153–159.
*Newman, J. E. (1974). Predicting absenteeism and turnover: A field
comparison of Fishbein’s model and traditional job attitude measures.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 610 – 615.
*Newman, J. E. (1975). Understanding the organizational structure–job
attitude relationship through perceptions of the work environment. Or-
ganizational Behavior and Human Performance, 14, 371–397.
*Nicholson, N., Wall, T., & Lischeron, J. (1977). The predictability of
absence and propensity to leave from employees’ job satisfaction and
attitudes toward influence in decision-making. Human Relations, 30,
499 –514.
*Norris, D. R., & Niebuhr, R. E. (1983). Professionalism, organizational
commitment and job satisfaction in an accounting organization. Ac-
counting, Organizations and Society, 9, 49 –59.
*Norris, D. R., & Niebuhr, R. E. (1984). Attributional influences on the job
performance-job satisfaction relationship. Academy of Management
Journal, 27, 424 – 431.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
*Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. (1981). Relationships between orga-
nizational structure and employee reactions: Comparing alternative
frameworks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 66 – 83.
*Oldham, G. R., Hackman, J. R., & Pearce, J. L. (1976). Conditions under
which employees respond positively to enriched work. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 61, 395– 403.
*Oldham, G. R., Hackman, J. R., & Stepina, L. P. (1979). Norms for the
Job Diagnostic Survey. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psy-
chology, 9(14), Ms. No. 1819.
*Oldham, G. R., Kulik, C. T., Ambrose, M. L., Stepina, L. P., & Brand,
J. F. (1986). Relations between job facet comparisons and employee
reactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38,
28 – 47.
*Oliver, R. L. (1977). Antecedents of salesmen’s compensation percep-
tions: A path analysis interpretation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62,
20 –28.
O’Reilly, C. A., III, & Caldwell, D. F. (1979). Informational influence as
410
WILLIAMS, MCDANIEL, AND NGUYEN

a determinant of perceived task characteristics and job satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 157–165.
*O’Reilly, C. A., III., & Caldwell, D. F. (1985). The impact of normative
social influence and cohesiveness on task perceptions and attitudes: A
social information processing approach. Journal of Occupational Psy-
chology, 58, 193–206.
*O’Reilly, C. A., III, & Roberts, K. H. (1973). Job satisfaction among
whites and nonwhites: A cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 57, 295–299.
*Orpen, C., & Bonnici, J. (1990). The causes and consequences of pay
satisfaction: A test of Lawler’s model. Psychology: A Journal of Human
Behavior, 27, 27–29.
Ostroff, C., & Harrison, D. A. (1999). Meta-analysis, level of analysis, and
best estimates of population correlations: Cautions for interpreting meta-
analytic results in organizational behavior, Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 84, 260 –270.
*Parasuraman, A., & Futrell, C. M. (1983). Demographics, job satisfaction,
and propensity to leave of industrial salesmen. Journal of Business
Research, 11, 33– 48.
*Parasuraman, S. (1982). Predicting turnover intentions and turnover be-
havior: A multivariate analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21,
111–121.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black
box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28.
*Penley, L. E., & Hawkins, B. L. (1980). Organizational communication,
performance, and job satisfaction as a function of ethnicity and sex.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16, 368 –384.
*Penzer, W. N. (1969). Education level and satisfaction with pay: An
attempted replication. Personnel Psychology, 22, 185–199.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 879 –903.
*Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., & Skov, R. (1982). Effects of leader
contingent and noncontingent reward and punishment behaviors on
subordinate performance and satisfaction. Academy of Management
Journal, 25, 810 – 821.
*Pond, S. B., III, & Geyer, P. D. (1991). Differences in the relation
between job satisfaction and perceived work alternatives among older
and younger blue collar workers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39,
251–262.
*Rice, R. W., McFarlin, D. B., & Bennett, D. E. (1989). Standards of
comparison and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,
591–598.
*Rice, R. W., Phillips, S. M., & McFarlin, D. B. (1990). Multiple discrep-
ancies and pay satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 386 –
393.
*Riggio, R. E., & Cole, E. J. (1992). Agreement between subordinate and
superior ratings of supervisory performance and effects on self and
subordinate job satisfaction. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 65, 151–158.
*Roberts, J. A., & Chonko, L. B. (1996). Pay satisfaction and sales force
turnover: The impact of different facets of pay on pay satisfaction and its
implications for sales force management. Journal of Managerial Issues,
8, 154 –169.
*Roedel, R. R., & Nystrom, P. C. (1988). Nursing jobs and satisfaction.
Nursing Management, 19(2), 34 –38.
*Rogelberg, S. G., Luong, A., Sederburg, M. E., & Cristol, D. S. (2000).
Employee attitude surveys: Examining the attitudes of noncompliant
employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 284 –293.
*Ronen, S. (1986). Equity perception in multiple comparisons: A field
study. Human Relations, 39, 333–346.
*Rosse, J. G., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). Adaptation to work: An analysis of
employee health, withdrawal, and change. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 36, 324 –347.
Rothstein, H. R., & McDaniel, M. A. (1989). Guidelines for conducting
and reporting meta-analyses. Psychological Reports, 65, 759 –770.
*Roznowski, M., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). Influences of functional specialty
and job technology on employees’ perceptual and affective responses to
their jobs. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36,
186 –208.
*Sauser, W. I., & York, M. (1978). Sex differences in job satisfaction: A
reexamination. Personnel Psychology, 31, 537–547.
Scarpello, V. (1988, April). Pay satisfaction and pay fairness: Are they the
same? Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.
Scarpello, V., Huber, V., & Vandenberg, R. J. (1988). Compensation
satisfaction: Its measurement and dimensionality. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73, 163–171.
*Scarpello, V., & Jones, F. F. (1996). Why justice matters in compensation
decision making. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 285–299.
*Scholl, R. W., Cooper, E. A., & McKenna, J. F. (1987). Referent selection
in determining equity perceptions: Differential effects on behavioral and
attitudinal outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 40, 113–124.
*Schwab, D. P., & Wallace, M. J., Jr. (1974). Correlates of employee
satisfaction with pay. Industrial Relations, 13, 78 – 89.
Scott, K. D., & Taylor, G. S. (1985). An examination of conflicting
findings on the relationship between job satisfaction and absenteeism: A
meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 599 – 612.
*Seers, A., & Graen, G. B. (1984). The dual attachment concept: A
longitudinal investigation of the combination of task characteristics and
leader-member exchange. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
mance, 33, 283–306.
Seybolt, J. W. (1976). Work satisfaction as a function of the person–
environment interaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
mance, 17, 66 –75.
*Shapiro, H. J. (1976). Models of pay satisfaction: A comparative study.
Psychological Reports, 39, 223–230.
*Shapiro, H. J., & Wahba, M. A. (1978). Pay satisfaction: An empirical test
of a discrepancy model. Management Science, 24, 612– 622.
*Shaw, J. D., Duffy, M. K., Jenkins, G. D., & Gupta, N. N. (1999). Positive
and negative affect, signal sensitivity, and pay satisfaction. Journal of
Management, 25, 189 –206.
*Sims, H. P., Jr., & Szilagyi, A. D. (1976). Job characteristic relationships:
Individual and structural moderators. Organizational Behavior and Hu-
man Performance, 17, 211–230.
*Sloane, P. J., & Williams, H. (2000). Job satisfaction, comparison earn-
ings, and gender. Labour, 14, 473–502.
*Smart, R., & Peterson, C. N. (1994). Stability versus transition in wom-
en’s career development: A test of Levinson’s theory. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 45, 241–260.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of
satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.
*Snyder, R. A., Verderber, K. S., & Morris, J. H. (1986). Voluntary union
membership of women and men: Differences in personal characteristics,
perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59,
205–216.
Spector, P. (1997). Job satisfaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
*Steel, B. S., & Lovrich, N. P., Jr. (1987). Comparable worth: The
problematic politicization of a public personnel issue. Public Personnel
Management, 16, 23–36.
*Steffy, B. D., & Jones, J. W. (1990). Differences between full-time and
part-time employees in perceived role strain and work satisfaction.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 321–329.
*Stepina, L. (1985). Position characteristics, organizational setting charac-
teristics, and employee reactions: Test of conceptual framework. Inter-
national Journal of Psychology, 20, 255–275.
411
PAY LEVEL SATISFACTION META-ANALYSIS

*Stepina, L. P., Hassell, B. L., Harris, J. R., & Mayfield, C. R. (1991). A
comparative test of the independent effects of interpersonal, task, and
reward domains on personal and organizational outcomes. Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 93–104.
*Stone, E. F. (1975). Job scope, job satisfaction, and the Protestant ethic:
A study of enlisted men in the U. S. Navy. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 7, 215–224.
*Stone, E. F. (1976). The moderating effect of work-related values on the
job scope-job satisfaction relationship. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 15, 147–167.
*Stroh, L. K., Brett, J. M., & Reilly, A. H. (1996). Family structure, glass
ceiling, and traditional explanations for the differential rate of turnover
of female and male managers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49,
99 –118.
*Stumpf, S. A., & Rabinowitz, S. (1981). Career stage as a moderator of
performance relationships with facets of job satisfaction and role per-
ceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 18, 202–218.
*Sturman, M. C., & Short, J. C. (2000). Lump-sum bonus satisfaction:
Testing the construct validity of a new pay satisfaction dimension.
Personnel Psychology, 53, 673–700.
*Summers, T. P., & DeNisi, A. S. (1990). In search of Adam’s other:
Reexamination of referents used in the evaluation of pay. Human Rela-
tions, 43, 497–511.
*Summers, T. P., & Hendrix, W. H. (1991a). Development of a turnover
model that incorporates a matrix measure of valence-instrumentality-
expectancy perceptions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 6, 227–
245.
*Summers, T. P., & Hendrix, W. H. (1991b). Modelling the role of pay
equity perceptions: A field study. Journal of Occupational Psychology,
64, 145–157.
*Swan, J. R., Futrell, C. M., & Todd, J. T. N. (1978). Same job— different
views: Women and men in industrial sales. Journal of Marketing, 42,
92–98.
*Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1993). Workers’ evaluations of the
“ends” and the “means”: An examination of four models of distributive
and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 55, 23– 40.
*Sweeney, P. D., McFarlin, D. B., & Inderrieden, E. J. (1990). Using
relative deprivation theory to explain satisfaction with income and pay
level: A multistudy examination. Academy of Management Journal, 33,
423– 436.
*Szilagyi, A. D., Jr., Sims, H. P., Jr., & Keller, R. T. (1976). Role
dynamics, locus of control, and employee attitudes and behavior. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 19, 259 –276.
*Tang, T. L.-P., & Sarsfield-Baldwin, L. J. (1996). Distributive and pro-
cedural justice as related to satisfaction and commitment. S. A. M.
Advanced Management Journal, 61(3), 25–31.
*Tang, T. L., & Talpade, M. (1999). Sex differences in satisfaction with
pay and co-workers: Faculty and staff at a public institution of higher
education. Public Personnel Management, 28, 345–349.
*Terborg, J. R., Lee, T. W., Smith, F. J., Davis, G. A., & Turbin, M. S.
(1982). Extension of the Schmidt and Hunter validity generalization
procedure to the prediction of absenteeism behavior from knowledge of
job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 67, 440 – 449.
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational com-
mitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analysis based on meta-
analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46, 259 –293.
*Tiegs, R. B., Tetrick, L. E., & Fried, Y. (1992). Growth need strength and
context satisfactions as moderators of the relations of the Job Charac-
teristics Model. Journal of Management, 18, 575–593.
*Ting, Y. (1996). Analysis of job satisfaction of the federal white-collar
work force: Findings from the Survey of Federal Employees. American
Review of Public Administration, 26, 439 – 456.
*Ting, Y. (1997). Determinants of job satisfaction of federal government
employees. Public Personnel Management, 26, 313–334.
*Tremblay, M., Roger, A., & Toulouse, J. M. (1995). Career plateau and
work attitudes: An empirical study of managers. Human Relations, 48,
221–237.
*Tremblay, M., Sire, B., & Balkin, D. (1999). The role of organizational
justice in pay and employee benefit satisfaction, and its effects on work
attitudes. Group and Organization Management, 25, 269 –290.
*Tremblay, M., St-Onge, S., & Toulouse, J. (1997). Determinants of salary
relevance: A field study of managers. Journal of Business and Psychol-
ogy, 11, 465– 484.
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2003). National income and product
account tables. Retrieved September 10, 2003, from www.bea.gov/bea/
dn/nipaweb
Vance, R. J., & Biddle, T. F. (1985). Task experience and social cues:
Interactive effects on attitudinal reactions. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 35, 252–265.
*Vecchio, R. F. (1984). Models of psychological inequity. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 266 –282.
*Vest, M. J., Scott, K. D., & Markham, S. E. (1994). Self-rated perfor-
mance and pay satisfaction, merit increase satisfaction, and instrumen-
tality beliefs in a merit pay environment. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 9, 171–181.
Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative
analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 557–574.
*Wanberg, C. R., Carmichael, H. D., & Downey, R. G. (1999). Satisfaction
at last job and unemployment: A new look. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 20, 121–131.
*Warr, P. B., & Routledge, T. (1969). An opinion scale for the study of
managers’ job satisfaction. Occupational Psychology, 43, 95–109.
*Waters, L. K., & Roach, D. (1971). Relationship between job attitudes
and two forms of withdrawal from the work situation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 55, 92–94.
*Waters, L. K., Roach, D., & Waters, C. W. (1976). Estimates of future
tenure, satisfaction, and biographical variables as predictors of termina-
tion. Personnel Psychology, 29, 57– 60.
*Watson, C. J. (1981). An evaluation of some aspects of the Steers and
Rhodes model of employee attendance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
66, 385–389.
Weaver, C. N. (1977). Relationships among pay, race, sex, occupational
prestige, supervision, work autonomy, and job satisfaction in a national
sample. Personnel Psychology, 30, 437– 445.
Weaver, C. N. (1998). Black–White differences in job satisfaction: Evi-
dence from 21 nationwide surveys. Psychological Reports, 83, 1083–
1088.
*Weiner, N. (1980). Determinants and behavioral consequences of pay
satisfaction: A comparison of two models. Personnel Psychology, 33,
741–757.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967).
Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapolis:
Work Adjustment Project, University of Minnesota Industrial Relations
Center.
Whetzel, D. A., & McDaniel, M. A. (1988). The reliability of validity
generalization data bases. Psychological Reports, 63, 131–134.
*Wiener, Y., & Klein, K. L. (1978). The relationship between vocational
interests and job satisfaction: Reconciliation of divergent results. Jour-
nal of Vocational Behavior, 13, 298 –304.
*Williams, A., Livy, B., Silverstone, R., & Adams, P. (1979). Factors
associated with labour turnover among ancillary staff in two London
hospitals. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 1–16.
412
WILLIAMS, MCDANIEL, AND NGUYEN

Williams, M. L. (1995). Antecedents of employee benefit level satisfac-
tion: A test of a model. Journal of Management, 21, 1097–1128.
*Wright, B. M., & Cordery, J. L. (1999). Production uncertainty as a
contextual moderator of employee reactions to job design. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84, 456 – 463.
*Young, B. S., Worchel, S., & Woehr, D. J. (1998). Organizational
commitment among public service employees. Public Personnel Man-
agement, 27, 339 –348.
Youngblood, S. A., DeNisi, A. S., Molleston, J. L., & Mobley, W. H.
(1984). The impact of work environment, instrumentality beliefs, per-
ceived labor union image, and subjective norms on union voting inten-
tions. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 576 –590.
*Zey-Ferrell, M. (1982). Predictors of faculty intent to exit the organiza-
tion: Potential turnover in a large university. Human Relations, 35,
349 –372.
Received September 12, 2002
Revision received April 13, 2005
Accepted April 27, 2005 䡲
413
PAY LEVEL SATISFACTION META-ANALYSIS