Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2004 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

2004, Vol. 89, No. 1, 165–177 0021-9010/04/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.165

Reexamining the Job Satisfaction–Performance Relationship:

The Complexity of Attitudes

Deidra J. Schleicher John D. Watt

University of Tulsa University of Central Arkansas

Gary J. Greguras
Singapore Management University

The present article argues that organizational researchers tend to adopt an overly simplistic conceptu-
alization and operationalization of job satisfaction (and job attitudes in general). Specifically, past
research has failed to examine the affective– cognitive consistency (ACC) of job attitudes and the
implications this has for the strength of the attitude and its relationship with behavior (e.g., job
performance). Results from Study 1 suggest ACC is a significant moderator of the job satisfaction–job
performance relationship, with those employees higher in ACC showing a significantly larger correlation
between job satisfaction and performance than those lower in ACC. Study 2 replicated these findings.
Implications for the study of job attitudes, limitations of the current studies, and multiple avenues for
future research are discussed.

In a reexamination of the meta-analytic relationship between job
satisfaction and performance, Judge, Thoresen, Bono, and Patton
(2001) recently argued that “the time has come for researchers to
reconsider the satisfaction–performance relationship” (p. 393).
They especially encouraged examining moderators of this relation-
ship, noting that the large variability in correlations across studies
necessitates a better understanding of “the conditions under which
job satisfaction and performance are related” (p. 390). A great deal
of previous literature aimed at identifying these conditions has
focused on the nature of performance, resulting in some evidence
that job satisfaction may be more strongly related to some aspects
of performance than others (e.g., Bateman & Organ, 1983; Isen &
Baron, 1991; Moorman, 1993; Motowidlo, 1984; Organ & Ryan,
1995).
Interestingly, however, previous research has not examined to
the same extent how job satisfaction is conceptualized and mea-
Deidra J. Schleicher, Department of Psychology, University of Tulsa;
John D. Watt, Department of Management, University of Central Arkan-
sas; Gary J. Greguras, Department of Management, Singapore Manage-
ment University, Singapore.
Deidra J. Schleicher is now at the Krannert Graduate School of Man-
agement, Purdue University.
We express our sincere appreciation to the 20 SMEs who completed our
affective and cognitive classification survey. Portions of this research were
presented in August 2002 at the 110th Annual Convention of the American
Psychological Association, Chicago, and at the 18th Annual Conference of
the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, Florida,
April 2003.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Deidra J.
Schleicher, Krannert Graduate School of Management, Purdue University,
Rawls Hall Room 4034, 100 South Grant, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-
2076. E-mail: deidra@krannert.purdue.edu
sured. In fact, of the 17 specific moderators of the satisfaction–
performance relationship that have been proposed and examined
(see Judge et al., 2001), not one of them involves the nature of the
job satisfaction attitude. This is curious, especially when consid-
ered within the context of the debate over the extent to which job
satisfaction represents a “stable orientation” or disposition (e.g.,
Arvey, Bouchard, Segal, & Abraham, 1989; Davis-Blake & Pfef-
fer, 1989; Newton & Keenan, 1991; Staw, Bell, & Clausen, 1986;
Staw & Ross, 1985). Despite the complexities of this debate, one
thing seems clear: Not everyone is consistent (across time or
situations) in their job satisfaction attitudes (see Steel & Rentsch,
1997). This issue is clearly framable in terms of what is known
about the nature of attitudes in general, and the present study
explicitly examines the nature of the job satisfaction attitude as a
moderator of the satisfaction–performance relationship.
The Nature of (Job) Attitudes
In most organizational behavior research, an individual’s job
satisfaction is operationalized as his or her score across several
items comprising a job satisfaction scale or as scores for multiple
facets of satisfaction (Spector, 1997). The underlying assumption
in such an approach is that this single score (or set of facet scores)
is a complete representation of how individuals feel about their
jobs (in terms of satisfaction). As social psychologists realize very
well, however, “the underlying attitudes of two individuals with
identical scale scores may differ in many other respects that may
affect the relation of the attitude score to the behavior manifested
by those individuals” (Fazio & Zanna, 1978, p. 399). It seems,
then, that there is a tendency to adopt (or create) attitude measures
in organizational research without a full appreciation of the social
cognition literature that directly investigates the underlying struc-
ture of attitudes. In an attempt to rectify this, the following section
reviews this relevant research.

165
166 RESEARCH REPORTS
A widely accepted perspective in the social cognition literature
is that attitudes are more accurately conceptualized as lying along
an attitude–nonattitude continuum (Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell,
& Kardes, 1986; Fiske & Taylor, 1991). That is, not all partici-
pants in an investigation possess similarly strong (i.e., consistent,
crystallized, impactful; Krosnick & Petty, 1995) pre-existing atti-
tudes toward the target object (Fazio, 1987), and the strength of an
attitude directly affects where it lies on this attitude–nonattitude
continuum. Importantly, the strength of an individual’s attitude is
not indicated merely by the score obtained on an attitude measure.
Rather, there are a number of qualities of the attitude itself that,
independent of the favorability of the attitude, (a) reflect the
strength of an attitude and therefore its position on the attitude–
nonattitude continuum and, consequently, (b) determine the extent
to which the attitude influences later behavior (Fazio, 1986). One
such factor is the consistency between the affective and cognitive
components of an attitude (the focus of the present article), which
seems particularly relevant given currently used measures of job
satisfaction.
Attitude theorists have long made a distinction between the
affective and cognitive components of attitudes (e.g., Bem, 1970;
Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, 1995; Rosenberg, 1960; Rosenberg &
Hovland, 1960; Triandis, 1971), and similar distinctions have
recently been made in the job satisfaction realm (see e.g., Fisher,
2000; H. M. Weiss, 2002). Whereas the affective component of an
attitude refers to the individual’s general level of positive or
negative feeling concerning the target, the cognitive component
consists of the individual’s beliefs or thoughts concerning the
target. Although these two components are often interdependent
and reciprocally related (Eagly, Mladinic, & Otto, 1994; H. M.
Weiss, 2002; H. M. Weiss, Nicholas, & Daus, 1999), as discussed
by both Fisher (2000) and H. M. Weiss (2002), their distinctive-
ness has been established by three separate lines of evidence: (a)
factor analytic studies that have demonstrated their discriminant
validity (Crites, Fabrigar, & Petty, 1994; Trafimow & Sheeran,
1998); (b) findings that they independently predict overall evalu-
ations/global attitudes (Abelson, Kinder, Peters, & Fiske, 1982;
Breckler & Wiggins, 1989; Crites et al., 1994; Simon & Carrey,
1998; Trafimow & Sheeran, 1998; H. M. Weiss, et al., 1999); and
(c) studies that differentially link them to behavior (K. Edwards,
1990; Millar & Tesser, 1986, 1989; Trafimow & Sheeran, 1998).
As H. M. Weiss (2002) has persuasively argued, “these three types
of studies all point to the theoretical usefulness of distinguishing
among . . . affective reactions to the attitude object and beliefs
about the attitude object” (p. 8). Moreover, the position in the
present article is that the relationship between the affective and
cognitive components is important to examine, mainly because of
its implication for where the attitude falls on the attitude–
nonattitude continuum (Fazio et al., 1986; Fazio & Zanna, 1978)
and the corresponding implications for predicting behavior.
Rosenberg (1960, 1968) noted that “for any particular social
issue or object as confronted by a sample drawn from some fairly
uniform sector of the population one can reasonably expect that
those who show less intra-attitudinal consistency are, on the av-
erage, less invested in the issue and less likely to have a presently
stable orientation toward it” (1968, p. 88). His findings did in fact
demonstrate that affective– cognitive consistency (ACC) is asso-
ciated with attitudinal stability (Rosenberg, 1968).
Norman (1975) found that the predictive validity of attitude
scales was moderated by the ACC of the attitude. Students show-
ing high ACC were more likely to act in accord with their attitudes
than those low in ACC. More recently, Kraus (1995) conducted a
meta-analysis of attitude– behavior relations and examined ACC as
a potential moderator. He found ACC to have a significant mod-
erating effect on these relationships (with higher ACC being
associated with stronger attitude– behavior relations). These em-
pirical findings “indicate the importance of assessing both the
affective and the cognitive components of attitudes in identifying
those whose verbal attitude reports have consequences for their
behavior” (Norman, 1975, p. 83).
Fazio (1987) offers an explanation for why ACC may moderate
the predictive validity of attitude scales. He has found that those
factors (including ACC) that affect the position of the attitude
along the attitude–nonattitude continuum are related to the acces-
sibility of the attitude from memory. That is, those attitudes
characterized by greater ACC are more likely to be readily acces-
sible (i.e., automatically activated) from memory. This automatic
activation of an attitude from memory upon an individual’s en-
countering the attitude object (e.g., going to work each day) is a
critical step in the process by which attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction)
guide behavior (e.g., job performance; Fazio & Williams, 1986).
On the basis of the previously reviewed literature on the nature
of attitudes, it is hypothesized that ACC in job satisfaction atti-
tudes (defined as the similarity between scores on a more affec-
tively based job satisfaction measure and a more cognitively based
job satisfaction measure) will moderate the job satisfaction–per-
formance relationship. Specifically, it is expected that employees
higher in ACC will evidence a significantly stronger correlation
between job satisfaction and performance than those lower in
ACC.
Study 1
Method
Participants
Sixty-five employees from a wide range of industries in California
completed the job satisfaction measures. Their direct supervisors concur-
rently completed job performance ratings on these employees. Participants
were 54% men, 46% women; 50% White, 25% Asian, 13% Hispanic, 9%
Filipino, 2% Native American, and 2% Middle Eastern; on average, 29
years old (SD ⫽ 7.7); and their average organizational tenure was 32
months (SD ⫽ 26.3).
Measures
Job satisfaction measures. Care was taken in selecting two appropriate
job satisfaction measures for the study of ACC. Because “pure” measures
of affective and cognitive job satisfaction do not exist (Fisher, 2000; H. M.
Weiss, 2002), selection was directed toward maximizing two criteria. First,
one measure should be more affectively based and the other more cogni-
tively based. The second criterion was equivalency on several important
dimensions, including response format, reliability, and level of represen-
tation (the importance of this equivalency when using separate affective
and cognitive attitude measures has been stressed by Crites et al., 1994).
The two currently available job satisfaction measures that best met all these
criteria are the Overall Job Satisfaction Scale (OJS; Brayfield & Rothe,
1951) and the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ; D. J. Weiss,
 RESEARCH REPORTS
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations for Study 1 Variables
Variable M SD
1. OJS Satisfaction 63.0 13.5 —
2. MSQ Satisfaction 75.8 12.1 .63**
3. Combined satisfaction 3.7 0.5 .91** .89**
4. Affective–cognitive consistency 10.9 9.9 ⫺.04
5. Performance 5.7 0.9 .33*
6. Age 29.0 7.7 .07
7. Sexa ⫺.02
8. Tenureb 32.0 26.3 .14
Note. N ⫽ 65. OJS ⫽ Overall Job Satisfaction Scale; MSQ ⫽ Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire.
a
The variable is coded such that 1 ⫽ male; 2 ⫽ female. b Tenure is reported in months.
* p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.
Dawis, England, & Lofquist, 1967). The OJS consists of 18 items on a
5-point Likert scale (from 1 ⫽ strongly disagree to 5 ⫽ strongly agree).
These items were expressly designed to assess how participants feel about
their jobs (see Brayfield & Rothe, 1951). The short form of the MSQ
consists of 20 items on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 ⫽ very dissatisfied
to 5 ⫽ very satisfied) that ask participants what they believe about various
components of their jobs (see Appendix A for a listing of items in both
scales).
Like all attitude measures, both the OJS and the MSQ likely contain
some degree of affect and some degree of cognition (see e.g., Brief &
Roberson, 1989; K. Edwards, 1990; Fisher, 2000; Moorman, 1993; Trafi-
mow & Sheeran, 1998; H. M. Weiss, 2002). However, in the current study
it is important to demonstrate that the OJS is more affectively based than
the MSQ and the MSQ is more cognitively based than the OJS. These two
scales have been classified in this way in previous research (e.g., Moor-
man, 1993), but we also surveyed 37 industrial– organizational (I/O),
social, and cognitive psychologists to confirm these classifications. The
results from this survey (detailed in Appendix B) supported the classifica-
tion of the OJS as more affectively based than the MSQ and the MSQ as
more cognitively based than the OJS. Specifically, 100% of the respon-
dents classified the OJS scale in its entirety as more affective and the MSQ
scale in its entirety as more cognitive. As Moorman (1993) noted, the
partitioning of the MSQ as more cognitive and the OJS as more affective
is not surprising, given the nature of the scales: “The MSQ . . . consists of
a list of job conditions which the respondent is asked to appraise. . . . No
mention is made to the types of feelings associated with the work or the
degree the work evokes positive or negative emotions” (p. 762); and the
OJS “includes questions on the degree to which the respondent is bored,
interested, happy, enthusiastic, disappointed, and enjoying work. These
questions center not on specific appraisals about job conditions, but on the
emotional reactions to the work” (p. 763).
Responses were summed across the 20 items to obtain the overall MSQ
score; the mean was 75.8 (SD ⫽ 12.1). Coefficient alpha for this scale was
.88. Responses were summed across the 18 items to obtain the overall OJS
score; the mean was 63.0 (SD ⫽ 13.5). The reliability estimate for this
scale (coefficient alpha) was .92. Because both sets of items had the same
response format (i.e., a 5-point Likert scale) and both are intended to
measure one’s job satisfaction, these 38 items could be combined into one
overall job satisfaction index (␣ ⫽ .94) to be used as one predictor in
testing the hypothesis of interest. This was done because theory predicts
that job satisfaction (overall) will be related to job performance (see Judge
et al., 2001), and to achieve construct correspondence with overall perfor-
mance, a combined measure of overall satisfaction is most appropriate (a
similar approach has been taken by past researchers in the ACC area, e.g.,
Fazio & Zanna, 1978; Norman, 1975).
ACC. The procedure for measuring each participant’s level of ACC in
his or her job satisfaction attitude followed Rosenberg (1968), Norman
167
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
—
—
.04 ⫺.01 —
.36* .38** ⫺.04 —
.14 .11 .00 ⫺.11 —
⫺.06 ⫺.04 ⫺.09 .08 .29* —
.11 .14 .01 ⫺.05 .69** .05 —
(1975), Chaiken and Baldwin (1981), and Chaiken and Yates (1985).
Specifically, participants were rank-ordered separately in terms of scores
on the MSQ and scores on the OJS. ACC was defined as the absolute value
of the discrepancy between the individual’s positions in the two rankings.
The higher the absolute value of the discrepancy, the lower the ACC. The
mean ACC score was 10.9, SD ⫽ 9.9. As a check on the validity of this
operationalization, participants were separated into high- and low-
consistency groups by a median split (i.e., at 7.5), and the correlation
between the two satisfaction measures was examined for these two groups
(high consistency, r ⫽ .93; low consistency, r ⫽ .26). The reliability of this
variable was .74 (J. R. Edwards, 2001a).
Job performance. Five job performance ratings (on 7-point behavior-
ally anchored rating scales [BARS]) were gathered directly from the
participants’ supervisors: leadership, decision-making, communication,
overall performance, and overall potential.1 These five ratings were com-
bined to create an overall index of job performance (␣ ⫽ .89). The mean
performance rating was 5.7, SD ⫽ 0.95.
Results
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for study variables
are reported in Table 1. All three job satisfaction indexes (i.e., the
OJS, the MSQ, and the combined satisfaction index) were signif-
icantly ( ps ⬍ .05) correlated with job performance, but the ACC
measure was unrelated to any other variable.
The hypothesis that ACC would moderate the job satisfaction–
performance relationship, with employees higher in ACC showing
significantly stronger job satisfaction–performance relations than
those employees lower in ACC, was tested in two ways. First, we
compared the correlations between job satisfaction and perfor-
mance for those participants who were high and low in consistency
(this is the typical approach to testing attitude-behavior moderators
in the social psychological literature; Kraus, 1995). A median split
on ACC revealed a dramatic difference between these two groups.
For those employees whose attitudes were characterized as being
low in ACC, the relationship between the combined satisfaction
scale and job performance was nonexistent (r ⫽ ⫺.03, p ⬎ .05).
On the other hand, for those employees high in ACC, there was a
large positive relationship between job satisfaction and perfor-
mance (r ⫽ .57, p ⬍ .01). The difference between these two
1
The first three items of this performance measure were confirmed by a
cursory job analysis as important dimensions of performance in the jobs
under investigation.
168 RESEARCH REPORTS
correlations was statistically significant, z ⫽ 2.63, p ⬍ .01; thus
the hypothesis was supported.
The previous prediction was also tested with a multiple regres-
sion model that included the multiplicative interaction of ACC and
job satisfaction. As Table 2 shows, the regression results also
supported the hypothesis. Specifically, ACC significantly moder-
ated the effect of the combined job satisfaction scores on perfor-
mance ( p ⬍ .05). To understand its form, we graphed the inter-
action using the unstandardized regression weights, plotting job
satisfaction along the abscissa at ⫾ 1 SD from its mean and ACC
as two lines representing ⫾ 1 SD from its mean (see Figure 1).
This graph revealed that, as hypothesized, those workers possess-
ing higher ACC showed a stronger positive relationship between
job satisfaction and performance (i.e., a positively sloped line) than
those with lower ACC (i.e., a relatively flat line).
Discussion
The results from Study 1 showed that for individuals whose job
satisfaction attitudes were characterized by high ACC, a large
(Cohen & Cohen, 1983) positive relationship between job satis-
faction and performance was observed; for individuals whose job
satisfaction attitudes were low in ACC, this relationship was
nonexistent. In short, the findings of Study 1 support the hypoth-
esis regarding the moderating effect of ACC on the job
satisfaction–job performance relationship. Interestingly, the mag-
nitudes of the job satisfaction–performance correlations for low
ACC (r ⫽ ⫺.03) and high ACC employees (r ⫽ .57) obtained in
the present study are similar to Kraus’s (1995) meta-analytic
findings regarding the moderating effect of ACC on attitude–
behavior relations overall (.10 and .49, respectively).
Two possible alternative explanations for the differing relation-
ship between job satisfaction and performance as a function of
ACC involve potential differences in the reliability and variability
of the satisfaction scores between those participants high and low
in ACC. With regard to potential differences in reliability, it is
possible that those lower in ACC were simply those who re-
sponded more carelessly to the job satisfaction measures and
therefore produced less reliable scores. The lower reliability in this
group might then serve to attenuate any true relationship between
job satisfaction and performance. To examine this possibility, we
computed the reliabilities of all three job satisfaction indexes for
both the low and high ACC groups. For the high ACC group, the
reliabilities (alphas) for the MSQ, OJS, and combined satisfaction
scales were .91, .94, and .96, respectively; for the low ACC group,
they were .84, .90, and .90, respectively. Although these reliability
Table 2
Moderated Regression Analyses for Study 1
Step B SE B ␤ R2 ⌬R2
1 .14*
Satisfaction 0.03 0.01 .38**
ACC 0.00 0.02 ⫺.02
2 .20** .06*
Satisfaction ⫻ ACC 0.00 0.00 ⫺.26*
Note. ACC ⫽ affective– cognitive consistency.
* p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01 (one-tailed test).
Figure 1. Plot of significant Satisfaction ⫻ Affective–Cognitive Consis-
tency (ACC) interaction in Study 1.
estimates are slightly different between the two groups, only the
combined satisfaction scale demonstrated differential reliability,
␹2(1, N ⫽ 65) ⫽ 6.05, p ⬍ .05, and this would be expected given
that this index combines items from both the more affectively
based and the more cognitively based measures (i.e., those em-
ployees lower in ACC should show less internal consistency on
such a combined measure). Across all three job satisfaction in-
dexes, however, one would be hard-pressed to argue that those low
in ACC produced unreliable scores. Moreover, correcting the two
sets of job satisfaction–performance correlations for their respec-
tive reliabilities would not make up for the difference in the
magnitude of correlations observed between these two groups
(e.g., the corrected correlations between the combined job satis-
faction measure and performance would be ⫺.03 for employees
low in ACC and .58 for those high in ACC).
With regard to the second possible alternative explanation,
differences between two sets of correlations (as in the current
study) can be due to differences in variability in the scores rather
than differences in the magnitude of the relationships per se. Kraus
(1995) has noted that the problem of differential variability is
likely to be most serious when attitudinal moderators such as
certainty or strength (e.g., ACC in the present study) are examined,
because these can be correlated with attitude extremity (Fazio &
Williams, 1986), resulting in particularly high variability in the
high-certainty subgroup. It is notable that in the present study,
however, ACC was not correlated with job satisfaction scores
(rs ⫽ ⫺.04 to .04; and a scatterplot revealed no curvilinear
relationship). Moreover, one reason we used multiple regression as
an additional test of our hypothesis is because it is less influenced
by differential variability (see Baron & Kenny, 1986). Nonethe-
less, we directly tested for differences in variability of the overall
job satisfaction scores between those employees high and low in
ACC using Brown and Forsythe’s (1974) procedure, and the
results indicated no significant differences, F(1, 63) ⫽ 0.08, p ⬎
.05.
Despite ruling out the previous (and other) possible alternative
explanations for our findings, replication of interactions is impor-
tant. Therefore, Study 2 was designed with the goal of replicating
the results of the first study (regarding the moderating effect of
ACC), in a second, independent sample, with participants drawn
from a single organization.
 RESEARCH REPORTS 169

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations for Study 2 Variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. OJS Satisfaction 64.8 10.4 —

2. MSQ Satisfaction 74.4 13.0 .68** —
3. Combined satisfaction 3.6 0.5 .90** .92** —
4. Affective–cognitive consistency 15.4 12.2 .00 ⫺.01 ⫺.02 —
5. Performance 4.5 0.6 .26 .18 .23 ⫺.06 —
6. Age 39.7 6.4 ⫺.14 .01 ⫺.04 .03 ⫺.09 —
7. Sexa .34** .25* .33** ⫺.10 ⫺.07 ⫺.22 —
8. Tenureb 14.6 7.2 ⫺.13 .01 ⫺.03 ⫺.05 ⫺.03 .81** ⫺.26*

Note. Ns ⫽ 48 – 84. OJS ⫽ Overall Job Satisfaction Scale; MSQ ⫽ Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire.
a
The variable is coded such that 1 ⫽ male; 2 ⫽ female. b Tenure is reported in years.
* p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.

Study 2
Method
Participants
Participants included 84 urban firefighters (74 men, 9 women, 1 not
indicated) employed in a metropolitan area in the Southeast. The following
ethnic groups were represented: White (46.9%), Hispanic (39.5%), African
American (8.6%), and other (5.0%). The mean age of the firefighters was
39.7 (SD ⫽ 6.4), with a mean tenure of 14.6 years (SD ⫽ 7.2).
Measures
Job satisfaction. The same three measures of job satisfaction used in
the first study were used in Study 2: the MSQ, the OJS, and the combined
job satisfaction measure (the average of all 38 items across both instru-
ments). The reliabilities (coefficient alpha) for these three measures were
.94, .88, and .94, respectively.
ACC. ACC was computed with the same approach used in Study 1.
The ACC scores ranged from 0 to 55, with a mean of 15.4 (SD ⫽ 12.2). As
expected, the correlation between the two satisfaction measures for the
high ACC group (median split at 14) was very large (r ⫽ .91), whereas for
the low ACC group, the correlation was much smaller (r ⫽ .15). The
reliability of this variable was .75 (J. R. Edwards, 2001a).
Performance. Supervisors rated employees on “overall performance”
and “contribution to training class”2 using a scale from 1 to 5 (higher
numbers indicate higher performance). Ratings on these two items were
averaged (␣ ⫽ .60), with a range from 2.50 to 5.00 and a mean of 4.5
(SD ⫽ 0.6). Performance ratings were available for 48 of the employees.
Results
Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for Study 2 variables
are reported in Table 3. None of the zero-order correlations be-
tween any of the job satisfaction measures and job performance
were significant (rs from .18 to .26), although the magnitude of
these relationships was similar to that found in Study 1 and Judge
et al. (2001). Interestingly, as in Study 1, ACC was unrelated to
any other variables, including the job satisfaction scores
themselves.
It was expected that the results from Study 2 would replicate the
findings from Study 1, with employees higher in ACC showing
significantly stronger job satisfaction–performance relations than
those lower in ACC. A median split on ACC (i.e., at 14) again
revealed a dramatic difference in correlations: r ⫽ ⫺.11, p ⬎ .05
for those employees low in ACC, and r ⫽ .54, p ⬍ .01 for those
employees high in ACC. The magnitudes of these correlations are
similar to those in Study 1 (rs ⫽ ⫺.03 and .57, respectively).
Moreover, the difference between these two correlations was sta-
tistically significant, z ⫽ 2.99, p ⬍ .01; thus, the hypothesis was
supported.
As Table 4 shows, the moderated multiple regression results
also supported the hypothesis. Specifically, ACC significantly
moderated the effect of the combined job satisfaction scores on
performance ( p ⬍ .05). A graph of this interaction (created using
the same procedure followed in Study 1) revealed that, as hypoth-
esized, those workers possessing higher ACC showed a stronger
positive relationship between job satisfaction and performance
than those with lower ACC (see Figure 2). Thus, the findings in
Study 2, like those in Study 1, indicated that ACC is a significant
moderator of the job satisfaction–performance relationship, with
employees higher in ACC evidencing much stronger correlations
between job satisfaction and performance than those lower in
ACC.
General Discussion and Conclusions
Job satisfaction has been the most commonly studied variable in
organizational research (Spector, 1997), and there certainly has
been no shortage of research on the relationship between job
satisfaction and performance. The current research is unique, how-
ever, in its attempt to frame this relationship more squarely within
the social psychological literature that directly studies the nature of
attitudes in general and how their nature affects the relationship
between attitudes and behavior. As such, this research answers
recent calls from a number of scholars (e.g., Brief, 1998; Pratkanis
& Turner, 1994; Zalesny & Ford, 1990) for the application of
attitude theory to the study of job satisfaction.
Interestingly, Judge et al. (2001) noted that, “although most
social psychologists would argue that attitudes do predict corre-
sponding behaviors, industrial-organizational psychologists con-
tinue to hold the view that the most focal attitude about the job (job
satisfaction) is unrelated to the most focal behavior on the job (job
2
Continuous training is a significant component of the firefighters’ jobs
and therefore employees’ contributions in this area are assessed in their
formal performance reviews.
170 RESEARCH REPORTS

Table 4 Second, we sound a loud cautionary note about any unintended

Moderated Regression Analyses for Study 2 implications that (a) job satisfaction measures can be purely clas-
sified as affective or cognitive or (b) the OJS and MSQ are pure (or
Step B SE B ␤ R2 ⌬R2 even the best) measures of these two components. Although we
1 .05 previously reviewed several forms of evidence for both the dis-
Satisfaction 0.21 0.15 .21a tinctiveness of these two attitudinal components (see Fisher, 2000,
ACC 0.00 0.01 ⫺.07 and H. M. Weiss, 2002, for a summary) and the content validity of
2 .15 .10* the OJS and MSQ as “more affective” and “more cognitive”
Satisfaction ⫻ ACC ⫺0.04 0.02 ⫺.35*
measures, respectively, there are several important caveats that
Note. ACC ⫽ affective– cognitive consistency. must be acknowledged. Eagly et al. (1994) have discussed the
a
p ⫽ .08 (one-tailed test). synergistic relation between these two components of attitudes and
* p ⬍ .05. have pointed out that, even if it was possible to have pure affect,
completely uncontaminated by cognition, or pure cognition, com-
pletely uncontaminated by affect, matters would not remain so for
very long. In the realm of job satisfaction attitudes specifically,
performance)” (p. 388). We would argue that this (mistaken) belief
H. M. Weiss (2002) has similarly noted that, “it is probable that
has been propagated not only by misinterpreting the earlier re-
beliefs and affective experiences are not independent and the
views of the relationship between job satisfaction and performance
‘affect path’ and ‘belief path’ cross many times on their way to
(as Judge et al., 2001 convincingly argued) but also by the manner
evaluative judgments.” Nonetheless, he also noted that the evi-
in which we conceptualize and operationalize job satisfaction (and
dence supports the position that affect and beliefs “need to be
job attitudes in general). Indeed, Taber (1991) has noted that, “the
understood as distinct constructs” (p. 11). Another caution in-
variance explained by traditional, positivist, job attitude measures
volves the assumption that job satisfaction measures can be clas-
may have reached a ceiling unless researchers are able to assess
sified dichotomously as either cognitive or affective. As has been
additional, possibly unconscious, components of attitudes as well”
discussed previously, such measures are likely to fall along a
(p. 599). The present study undertook an examination of one such
continuum (K. Edwards, 1990; Fisher, 2000). Trafimow and Shee-
additional component of attitudes, namely their ACC. The results
ran (1998) noted that, “it seems clear that all beliefs must have
suggest the value of “assessing both the affective and the cognitive
some degree of affect and some degree of cognition.” Neverthe-
components of attitudes in identifying those whose verbal attitude
less, they concluded that it is “reasonable to assume that some
reports have consequences for their behavior” (Norman, 1975, p.
beliefs are ‘more affective’ and some are ‘more cognitive’” (p.
83).
379). Relevant to this last point, given the continuous nature of this
feelings– beliefs dimension, our goal in the current study was to
Limitations and Corresponding Directions for Future select two job satisfaction measures that (a) could be considered
Research “more affective” and “more cognitive” and yet (b) were still
similar on as many aspects as possible (e.g., approximate length,
It is hoped that this research will provide the impetus to more response format, level of representation [i.e., specific job aspects
critically examine how we currently conceptualize and operation- on the MSQ vs. discrete emotions on the OJS], reliability, rela-
alize attitudes in organizational behavior research. Nonetheless, tionship to performance) to allow for ruling out alternative expla-
there are several limitations (and corresponding directions for nations (see Crites et al., 1994). We are unaware of any two other
future research) that should be acknowledged, particularly with currently available job satisfaction measures that could have better
regard to three issues: sample size, the affective– cognitive distinc- met those goals, but the creation of new measures in this regard
tion in satisfaction measures, and the use of a difference score.
First, although it is impressive that significant results were ob-
tained in the moderated regression analyses despite the relatively
small sample sizes, the small samples for both studies also repre-
sent a limitation. On the other hand, these sample sizes are typical
of those found in organizational research (Schmidt, Hunter, &
Urry, 1976). Perhaps more important, however, we replicated our
findings across two separate studies and completely independent
samples. This is particularly noteworthy when one considers that
very few previously proposed moderators of the job satisfaction–
performance relationship have ever been examined in more than
one study (see Judge et al., 2001). Moreover, the moderating effect
of ACC was found across performance ratings collected for both
research (Study 1) and administrative (Study 2) purposes, which
also serves to strengthen the generalizability of our findings.
Nonetheless, future research should seek to replicate and clarify
these relationships with larger and more varied samples, especially
those sufficient to conduct alternative tests of the hypotheses, as Figure 2. Plot of significant Satisfaction ⫻ Affective–Cognitive Consis-
discussed in a later section. tency (ACC) interaction in Study 2.
 RESEARCH REPORTS
would certainly be a worthwhile pursuit for future research (see
similar conclusions reached by Fisher, 2000, and H. M. Weiss,
2002). Finally, given these caveats, our results regarding the in-
teractions suggest the value in examining the consistency between
the more affective and the more cognitive components of attitudes
in predicting relations between an attitude and behavior; they
should not, however, be interpreted as evidence that the MSQ is
the best measure of cognitive job satisfaction and/or the OJS the
best measure of affective job satisfaction.
A third possible limitation has to do with our operationalization
of ACC. Although we adopted the approach used in the founda-
tional literature from which this study borrows (Chaiken & Bald-
win, 1981; Chaiken & Yates, 1985; Norman, 1975; Rosenberg,
1968), this operationalization is based on a difference score. J. R.
Edwards (2001a, 2001b; J. R. Edwards & Parry, 1993) has
strongly argued for the use of polynomial regression as an alter-
native to difference scores, citing several concerns with the latter.
Because the form of the polynomial regression equation necessary
to test our particular hypotheses would contain 11 terms (J. R.
Edwards, 2003, personal communication), sample size precluded
its application with the current data. Thus, we had to address
concerns with difference scores by means of other methods. The
primary concern with the use of difference scores appears to be
their presumed unreliability (see J. R. Edwards & Parry, 1993;
Johns, 1981). Similar to what Rogosa has suggested (Rogosa,
Brandt, & Zimowski, 1982; Rogosa & Willett, 1983), however, we
would argue that the (un)reliability of difference scores should be
demonstrated in a particular context, rather than merely assumed.
We have done so with our ACC data in multiple ways, and the
interested reader is referred to Appendix C for detailed evidence of
the reliability of our operationalization of ACC. Although differ-
ence scores are usually less reliable than their component measures
(as is the case with ours), the evidence presented unequivocally
shows that our ACC variable is not unreliable, thus mitigating one
of the primary concerns over the use of difference scores.3 Nev-
ertheless, we feel it would be fruitful for future research to repli-
cate our findings without the use of difference scores, most likely
by using polynomial regression (J. R. Edwards & Parry, 1993).
There are several additional directions that future research in
this area could take. First, the reader will notice we took no
position on the causality of the job satisfaction–performance rela-
tionship (i.e., does satisfaction cause performance or does perfor-
mance cause satisfaction?). As Judge et al. (2001) recently sug-
gested, a truly integrative model would posit reciprocal
relationships between job satisfaction and performance. Although
it seems most plausible that the ACC moderator impacts the
satisfaction 3 performance link rather than the performance 3
satisfaction link, this possibility should be directly tested in future
research equipped to examine the causal and reciprocal nature of
the job satisfaction–performance relationship.
Second, future research should also tackle the question of what
causes ACC. That is, very little is known about the factors that
affect the strength of attitudes, at least those held about our world
of work. In the present research, ACC was related to neither age
nor organizational tenure (in either study; see Tables 1 and 3). It
most likely is the quality, and not the quantity, of our experiences
that affect the strength with which our attitudes are held, and future
researchers should endeavor to develop such a taxonomy. Third,
the existence and effects of ACC could be examined in job
171
attitudes other than job satisfaction (e.g., organizational commit-
ment) and for outcomes other than performance (e.g., absence,
turnover). Behavioral intentions should also be incorporated into
future models testing these relationships (see Judge et al., 2001,
Table 4).
Finally, research should be directed toward comparing the con-
cept of ACC with other conceptualizations of the strength of
attitudes. That is, there are other characteristics of attitudes, in
addition to ACC, that can be seen as placing attitudes along the
attitude–nonattitude continuum, and whether these variables mod-
erate the job satisfaction–performance relationship in the same
way as ACC should be examined in future investigations. As
Kraus (1995) has noted, “relatively little research (e.g., Abelson,
1988) has even addressed whether these constructs are distinct
from one another or whether they all tap a single underlying
strength dimension” (p. 70); no research has addressed this ques-
tion specifically for job satisfaction attitudes. Also, because acces-
sibility is the presumed mediator between the strength of an
attitude and its effect on subsequent behavior (Fazio, 1987), future
studies should attempt to directly examine accessibility (H. M.
Weiss, Suckow, & Ladd, 1998; see Judge et al., 2001, Table 4, for
a similar suggestion).
In conclusion, the qualities of attitudes discussed and investi-
gated in the present research are well established in many areas of
the psychological literature, but we have not yet made use of this
knowledge in organizational behavior research. It is hoped that this
investigation will provide an impetus for future organizational
behavior research and that such research will continue to examine
the complexity of the nature of attitudes, taking a more compre-
hensive approach to the attitude–nonattitude continuum, and ex-
amining how these characteristics interact and affect behavior in
organizations over time.
3
Other concerns associated with the use of difference scores involve
issues regarding ambiguous interpretation and untested constraints (J. R.
Edwards, 2001a). Related to the former issue is the possibility that differ-
ence scores may mask important theoretical information regarding the
nature and form of the interaction. For example, does one’s affect being
more positive than one’s cognitions have the same effect on the attitude–
behavior relationship as one’s cognitions being more positive than one’s
affect? (We thank an anonymous reviewer for asking this question.) Al-
though the theory on which the current predictions were based does not
include such “directional” ACC, we conducted an exploratory analysis of
such a possibility, by testing a three-way interaction between satisfaction,
ACC, and a new variable denoting whether the employee was higher on
OJS satisfaction or higher on MSQ satisfaction. The results across both
studies indicated a nonsignificant ( p ⬎ .05) interaction term, implying that,
at least with the current data, it is the attitudinal consistency itself that
affects the strength of the job satisfaction–performance relationship, not the
direction of the consistency.
References
Abelson, R. P. (1988). Conviction. American Psychologist, 43, 267–275.
Abelson, R. P., Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. D., & Fiske, S. T. (1982).
Effective and semantic components in political person perception. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 619 – 630.
Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Segal, N., & Abraham, L. M. (1989). Job
satisfaction: Environmental and genetic components. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74, 187–192.
172 RESEARCH REPORTS
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182.
Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good
soldier: The relationship between affect and employee “citizenship.”
Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587–595.
Bem, D. J. (1970). Beliefs, attitudes, and human affairs. Belmont, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307–311.
Breckler, S. J., & Wiggins, E. C. (1989). Affect versus evaluation in the
structure of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25,
253–271.
Brief, A. P. (1998). Attitudes in and around organizations. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Brief, A. P., & Roberson, L. (1989). Job attitude organization: An explor-
atory study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 717–727.
Brown, M. B., & Forsythe, A. B. (1974). The ANOVA and multiple
comparisons for data with heterogeneous variances. Biometrics, 30,
719 –724.
Chaiken, S., & Baldwin, M. W. (1981). Affective– cognitive consistency
and the effect of salient behavioral information on the self-perception of
attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 1–12.
Chaiken, S., & Yates, S. (1985). Affective– cognitive consistency and
thought-induced attitude polarization. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49, 1470 –1481.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Crites, S. L., Fabrigar, L. R., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Measuring the affective
and cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological
issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 619 – 634.
Davis-Blake, A., & Pfeffer, J. (1989). Just a mirage: The search for
dispositional effects in organizational research. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 14, 385– 400.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando,
FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1995). Attitude strength, attitude structure,
and resistance to change. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude
strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 413– 432). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Eagly, A. H., Mladinic, A., & Otto, S. (1994). Cognitive and affective
bases of attitudes toward social groups and social policies. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 113–137.
Edwards, J. R. (2001a). Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial
regression analysis and response surface methodology. In F. Drasgow &
N. Schmitt (Eds.), Advances in measurement and data analysis (pp.
350 – 401). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Edwards, J. R. (2001b). Ten difference score myths. Organizational Re-
search Methods, 4, 265–287.
Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression
equations as an alternative to differences scores in organizational re-
search. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1577–1613.
Edwards, K. (1990). The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude
formation and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
59, 202–216.
Fazio, R. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide behavior? In R. M. Sorrentino
& E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foun-
dations of social behavior (pp. 129 –150). New York: Guilford.
Fazio, R. H. (1987). Self-perception theory: A current perspective. In M. P.
Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The
Ontario symposium (Vol. 5). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C., & Kardes, F. R. (1986).
On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 50, 229 –238.
Fazio, R. H., & Williams, C. J. (1986). Attitude accessibility as a moder-
ator of the attitude–perception and attitude– behavior relations: An in-
vestigation of the 1984 presidential election. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 51, 505–514.
Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1978). Attitudinal qualities relating to the
strength of the attitude– behavior relationship. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 14, 398 – 408.
Fisher, C. D. (2000). Mood and emotions while working: Missing pieces of
job satisfaction? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 185–202.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Isen, A. M., & Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor in organi-
zational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 13, 1–53.
Johns, G. (1981). Difference score measures of organizational behavior
variables: A critique. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 27, 443– 463.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job
satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative
review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376 – 407.
Kraus, S. J. (1995). Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-
analysis of the empirical literature. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 21, 58 –75.
Krosnick, J. A., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In
R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and
consequences (pp. 1–24). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Millar, M. G., & Tesser, A. (1986). Effects of affective and cognitive focus
on the attitude– behavior relation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 270 –276.
Millar, M. G., & Tesser, A. (1989). The effects of affective– cognitive
consistency and thought on the attitude– behavior relation. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 189 –202.
Moorman, R. H. (1993). The influence of cognitive and affective based job
satisfaction measures on the relationship between satisfaction and orga-
nizational citizenship behavior. Human Relations, 46, 759 –776.
Motowidlo, S. J. (1984). Does job satisfaction lead to consideration and
personal sensitivity? Academy of Management Journal, 27, 910 –915.
Newton, T., & Keenan, T. (1991). Further analyses of the dispositional
argument in organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,
781–787.
Norman, R. (1975). Affective– cognitive consistency, attitudes, confor-
mity, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32,
83–91.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal
and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Per-
sonnel Psychology, 48, 775– 802.
Pratkanis, A. R., & Turner, M. E. (1994). Of what value is a job attitude?
A socio-cognitive analysis. Human Relations, 47, 1545–1576.
Rogosa, D. R., Brandt, D., & Zimowski, M. (1982). A growth curve
approach to the measurement of change. Psychological Bulletin, 90,
726 –748.
Rogosa, D. R., & Willett, J. B. (1983). Demonstrating the reliability of the
difference score in the measurement of change. Journal of Educational
Measurement, 20, 335–343.
Rosenberg, M. J. A. (1960). A structural theory of attitude dynamics.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 319 –341.
Rosenberg, M. J. A. (1968). Hedonism, inauthenticity, and other goals
toward expansion of a consistency theory. In R. P. Abelson et al. (Eds.),
Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook. Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Rosenberg, M. J. A., & Hovland, C. I. (1960). Cognitive, affective, and
 RESEARCH REPORTS
behavioral components of attitudes. In C. I. Hovland & M. J. Rosenberg
(Eds.), Attitude organization and change (pp. 1–14). New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., & Urry, V. W. (1976). Statistical power in
criterion-related validation studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61,
473– 485.
Simon, J., & Carey, K. B. (1998). A structural analysis of attitudes toward
alcohol and marijuana use. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
24, 727–736.
Spector, P. E. (1997). The role of frustration in anti-social behavior at
work. In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Anti-social behavior in
the workplace (pp. 1–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Staw, B. M., Bell, N. E., & Clausen, J. A. (1986). The dispositional
approach to job attitudes: A lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 31, 56 –77.
Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst of change: A
dispositional approach to job attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology,
70, 469 – 480.
Steel, R. P., & Rentsch, J. R. (1997). The dispositional model of job
attitudes revisited: Findings of a 10-year study. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82, 873– 879.
Taber, T. D. (1991). Triangulating job attitudes with interpretive and
positivist measurement methods. Personnel Psychology, 44, 577– 600.
(Appendixes follow)
173
Trafimow, D., & Sheeran, P. (1998). Some tests of the distinction between
cognitive and affective beliefs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol-
ogy, 34, 378 –397.
Triandis, H. C. (1971). Attitude and attitude change. New York: Wiley.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967).
Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minnesota studies
for vocational rehabilitation (No. XXII). Minneapolis: Industrial Rela-
tions Center, University of Minnesota.
Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evalua-
tions, beliefs, and affective experiences. Human Resource Management
Review, 12, 1–22.
Weiss, H. M., Nicholas, J. P., & Daus, C. (1999). An examination of the
joint effects of affective experiences and job beliefs on job satisfaction
and variations in affective experiences over time. Organizational Be-
havior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 1–24.
Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K., & Ladd, D. (1998, April). Contextual influences
on job satisfaction: Accessibility and mood. Paper presented at the 13th
annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Dallas, TX.
Zalesny, M. D., & Ford, J. K. (1990). Extending the social information
processing perspective: New links to attitudes, behaviors, and percep-
tions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47,
205–246.
174 RESEARCH REPORTS

Appendix A

Items From the Overall Job Satisfaction Scale (OJS) and

the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ)
OJS items

1. My job seems like a hobby to me.

2. My job is usually interesting enough to keep me from getting bored.
3. It seems that my friends are more interested in their jobs.
4. I consider my job rather unpleasant.
5. I enjoy my work more than my leisure time.
6. I am often bored with my job.
7. I feel fairly well satisfied with my present job.
8. Most of the time I have to force myself to go to work.
9. I am satisfied with my job for the time being.
10. I feel that my job is no more interesting than others could get.
11. I definitely dislike my work.
12. I feel that I am happier in my work than most other people.
13. Most days I am enthusiastic about my work.
14. Each day of work seems like it will never end.
15. I like my job better than the average worker does.
16. My job is pretty uninteresting.
17. I find real enjoyment in my work.
18. I am disappointed that I ever took this job.

MSQ items

1. Being able to keep busy all the time.

2. The chance to work alone on the job.
3. The chance to do different things from time to time.
4. The chance to be “somebody” in the community.
5. The way my boss handles his or her workers.
6. The competence of my supervisor in making decisions.
7. Being able to do things that don’t go against my conscience.
8. The way my job provides for steady employment.
9. The chance to do things for other people.
10. The chance to tell people what to do.
11. The chance to do something that makes use of my abilities.
12. The way company policies are put into practice.
13. My pay and the amount of work I do.
14. The chances for advancement on this job.
15. The freedom to use my own judgment.
16. The chance to try my own methods of doing the job.
17. The working conditions.
18. The way my coworkers get along with each other.
19. The praise I get for doing a good job.
20. The feeling of accomplishment I get from the job.

Note. From Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Min-

nesota studies for vocational rehabilitation. No. XXII, by D. J. Weiss, R. V.
Dawis, G. W. England, & L. H. Lofquist, 1967, Minneapolis-Industrial
Relations Center, University of Minnesota. Copyright 1967 by Vocational
Psychology Research. Reprinted with permission.
 RESEARCH REPORTS 175

Appendix B

Method and Results for the Affective/Cognitive Classification Survey

A survey was sent to 37 I/O, social, and cognitive psychologists (all
of whom were blind to the purpose of the request and the hypotheses of
the study). This survey comprised all 38 items of the MSQ and the OJS,
in randomized order, as well as the complete, intact OJS and MSQ
measures. Respondents were provided with the definitions of the affec-
tive and cognitive components of job satisfaction attitudes (i.e., “Af-
fective satisfaction is based on an emotional appraisal of the job; it asks
employees to report how they feel about their work”; “Cognitive
satisfaction is based on a more logical and rational evaluation of the job
conditions; it asks employees to report how they think about the job”).
The respondents were then asked, for each individual item, whether it
was primarily an affective or cognitive item. Only after respondents had
completed this categorization task for each individual item did they see
the intact job satisfaction scales, for which they also made the affective
or cognitive classification.
Twenty responses were returned (54% response rate), including 5 full
professors, 1 associate professor, 5 assistant professors, 2 practitioners, and
7 doctoral students. In addition to the item and scale classifications,
respondents had been asked to rate themselves on the amount of knowledge
they possessed about the topics of job satisfaction and attitudes (both on a
scale from 1, very little, to 5, a great deal). They were provided with an
example to anchor their ratings: “Someone who has never read an article on
job satisfaction would rate themselves a 1; someone for whom job satis-
faction is a primary area of research would rate themselves a 5.” Across the
20 respondents, the mean on the job satisfaction knowledge item was 3.45;
the mean for the attitude knowledge item was 3.36.
The results of this survey indicated that a full 100% of the respondents
classified the OJS as more affective than cognitive; a full 100% of the
respondents also classified the MSQ as more cognitive than affective. The
classification results for each individual item on these two scales are listed
below. The average percentage of respondents classifying an item from the
OJS as more affective was 76%; the average percentage of respondents
classifying an item from the MSQ as more cognitive was 82%. Nonethe-
less, there were some individual items that did not translate well (i.e., the
majority, 51%, of respondents did not classify it as more affective when it
came from the OJS or as more cognitive when it came from the MSQ). As
can be seen in Tables B1 and B2 that follow, there were only five such
items (three from the OJS and two from the MSQ; these are in bold font in
the tables below).
Because there was perfect (i.e., 100%) agreement regarding the more
cognitive and the more affective classifications at the scale level, we
retained the full scales in our analyses.

Table B1
Overall Job Satisfaction (OJS) Scale

Item classified as more

affective (%) Item

45 My job seems like a hobby to me.

45 My job is usually interesting enough to keep me from getting bored.
20 It seems that my friends are more interested in their jobs.
95 I consider my job rather unpleasant.
95 I enjoy my work more than my leisure time.
90 I am often bored with my job.
100 I feel fairly well satisfied with my present job.
95 Most of the time I have to force myself to go to work.
55 I am satisfied with my job for the time being.
55 I feel that my job is no more interesting than others could get.
90 I definitely dislike my work.
95 I feel that I am happier in my work than most other people.
95 Most days I am enthusiastic about my work.
95 Each day of work seems like it will never end.
55 I like my job better than the average worker does.
55 My job is pretty uninteresting.
100 I find real enjoyment in my work.
95 I am disappointed that I ever took this job.
76 Average % for OJS Affective items

Note. Bold font indicates items that did not translate well.

(Appendixes continue)
176 RESEARCH REPORTS

Table B2
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ)

Item classified as more

cognitive (%) Item

45 I am satisfied with being able to keep busy all the time.

80 I am satisfied with the chance to work alone on the job.
100 I am satisfied with the chance to do different things from time to time.
60 I am satisfied with the chance to be “somebody” in the community.
100 I am satisfied with the way my boss handles his or her workers.
100 I am satisfied with the competence of my supervisor in making decisions.
70 I am satisfied with being able to do things that don’t go against my conscience.
100 I am satisfied with the way my job provides for steady employment.
60 I am satisfied with the chance to do things for other people.
90 I am satisfied with the chance to tell people what to do.
95 I am satisfied with the chance to do something that makes use of my abilities.
95 I am satisfied with the way company policies are put into practice.
100 I am satisfied with my pay and the amount of work I do.
100 I am satisfied with the chances for advancement on this job.
90 I am satisfied with the freedom to use my own judgment.
95 I am satisfied with the chance to try my own methods of doing the job.
90 I am satisfied with the working conditions.
75 I am satisfied with the way my coworkers get along with each other.
55 I am satisfied with the praise I get for doing a good job.
35 I am satisfied with the feeling of accomplishment I get from the job.
82 Average % for MSQ Cognitive items

Note. Bold font indicates items that did not translate well.

Appendix C

Evidence for the Reliability of ACC

Below we present several independent pieces of evidence that help Table C1

establish the reliability of our ACC variable. First, we checked our opera- Intercorrelations of ACC Variables in Study 1
tionalization of ACC in the same way that other researchers in this specific
area have (see e.g., Chaiken & Baldwin, 1981; Chaiken & Yates, 1985; Variable 1 2 3 4 5
Norman, 1975; Rosenberg, 1968): by separating participants into high- and
low-consistency groups by a median split and then examining the corre- 1. Odd MSQ–Odd OJS —
2. Even MSQ–Even OJS .45** —
lations between the two satisfaction measures for these two groups. In
3. Even MSQ–Odd OJS .69** .73** —
Study 1, the correlation between the two satisfaction measures for the 4. Odd MSQ–Even OJS .53** .57** .32* —
high-consistency group was very large (r ⫽ .93), whereas for the low- 5. Overall ACC .74** .82** .83** .61** —
consistency group, the correlation was much smaller (r ⫽ .26). In Study 2,
the corresponding correlations between the two job satisfaction measures Note. ACC ⫽ affective– cognitive consistency; MSQ ⫽ Minnesota Sat-
were .91 and .15, respectively. In both studies, the differences between isfaction Questionnaire; OJS ⫽ Overall Job Satisfaction Scale.
these two correlations were significant, ps ⬍ .001. These patterns of * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.
correlations indicate that our operationalization of ACC worked as we
intended. Second, we computed the reliability of our ACC variable directly As these tables indicate, the various ACC components are all highly
from the formula for the reliability of an algebraic difference score in intercorrelated (average intercorrelations of .63 for Study 1 and .67 for
J. R. Edwards (2001a), Johns (1981), and Nunnally (1978). On the basis Study 2), suggesting that our operationalization of ACC is quite reliable.
of this formula, the reliability of ACC was .74 in Study 1 and .75 in
Study 2. Table C2
Third, we tested the internal consistency (split-half) reliability of our
Intercorrelations of ACC Variables in Study 2
ACC variable by breaking down our two job satisfaction measures into
multiple scales (i.e., the odd items on the MSQ; the even items on the Variable 1 2 3 4 5
MSQ; the odd items on the OJS; the even items on the OJS). This
allowed us to compute four different ACC variables (in addition to 1. Odd MSQ–Odd OJS —
the overall ACC reported in the studies): (a) absolute value (ABSV; 2. Even MSQ–Even OJS .52** —
rank on odd MSQ – rank on odd OJS); (b) ABSV; rank on odd MSQ – 3. Even MSQ–Odd OJS .73** .54** —
rank on even OJS); (c) ABSV(rank on even MSQ – rank on even OJS); 4. Odd MSQ–Even OJS .62** .78** .36** —
5. Overall ACC .83** .80** .72** .80** —
and (d) ABSV(rank on even MSQ – rank on odd OJS). The intercor-
relations for these four ACC measures and the overall ACC measure Note. ACC ⫽ affective– cognitive consistency; MSQ ⫽ Minnesota Sat-
included in the studies are listed for both Study 1 (Table C1) and Study isfaction Questionnaire; OJS ⫽ Overall Job Satisfaction Scale.
2 (Table C2). ** p ⬍ .01.
 RESEARCH REPORTS 177

Fourth, an additional (and arguably ideal) way to test the reliability of data indicate a fairly strong correlation (r ⫽ .60) between ACC at Time 1
the ACC variable would be to have available test–retest data (i.e., having and ACC at Time 2 (3 months after Time 1).
collected data on the OJS and the MSQ measures at two different time
periods, so ACC at T1 and T2 could be computed and correlated). Al-
though that does not exist for the participants from either Study 1 or Study Received May 9, 2002
2 in the current research, we do have data from an additional small sample Revision received May 29, 2003
(n ⫽ 23) that allow us to assess the reliability of ACC over time. Those Accepted June 6, 2003 䡲