Applied Ergonomics 1982, 13.

4, 293-299

Impact of personality and

intelligence on job satisfaction
of assembly line and bench
work an industrial study
G. Salvendy ~ , G.P. McCabe 2 , S.G. Sanders 3 , J.L. K n i g h P , and E.J. McCormick s

Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907

A study of the impact of machine-paced (M/P) and self-paced (S/P) w o r k on job

satisfaction of 28 female industrial assembly workers was evaluated in which M/P w o r k
was confounded w i t h simplified w o r k and the S/P job was confounded w i t h enriched
tasks. Results indicated the following:
1. Over three-quarters of workers were more satisfied in S/P jobs, while o n l y less than
one-quarter were more satisfied in M/P jobs.
2. The 16PF personality test effectively predicts (0.88 m u l t i p l e correlation) the
satisfaction ratios of M/P to S/P jobs.

Keywords: Production processes, lob satisfaction, assembly line

Introduction
Much of the job satisfaction literature pertaining to
machine-paced (M/P) and self-paced (S/P) work has been
summarised by Davis (1982), Salvendy and Smith (1981);
Dunnette (1976); Locke (1976); Kornhauser (1965);
Vroom (1964); Herzberg, Mausner and Snyderman (1959);
Walker and Guest (1952). Unfortunately, even with this
extensive literature no firm conclusions can be drawn
regarding the ratios of job satisfaction on M/P and S/P
i School of Industrial Engineering
2 Department of Statistics
3 At the time of this study was at the School of Industrial
Engineering; now at AT & T Long Lines, Cincinnati, Ohio
4 At the time of this study was at the School of Industrial
Engineering; now at Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ
s Professor Emeritus, Department of Psychological Sciences
The study was supported by the National Science Foundation
research grant No APR7718695.
The authors are grateful to the Naval Avionics Center,
Indianapolis, Indiana, for their kind co-operation in allowing
us to perform the study in their facilities. Our thanks go to
Gary Endicott for his assistance in the development of the
Purdue Satisfaction Questionnaires.
tasks. The reasons for this are due to some of the following
weaknesses in studies:
1. When job satisfaction was assessed in actual industrial
work situations, one of the following two conditions
prevailed:
a. Only workers on M/P work were studied.
b. When studies compared job satisfaction on both M/P
and S/P work, work output and job content were
confounded with pacing and individual operators:
Different groups of people performed M/P and S/P
modes. Also the total work output (percentage of
work standard) was not controlled across pacing
modes. Furthermore, job contents in the two pacing
conditions were entirely different.
2. When job satisfaction on M/P and S/P work was assessed
in laboratory situations the confounding effects discussed
above were either eliminated or markedly reduced.
However, the following two conditions usually prevailed:
a. The durations of the laboratory experiments were of
very short duration. Therefore, subjects studied were
neither sufficiently experienced nor skilled in task
performance and were not exposed to the psychological
effects of long-term task performance experienced by
workers in field situations.

0003-6870/82/04 0293-07 $03.00 © 1982 Butterworth & Co (Publishers)Ltd AppliedErgonomics December 1982 293
 b. Most subjects were university students with no prior
shop floor industrial work experience. Since this
population is markedly different from the population
of unskilled industrial workers, results may not be
applicable.
The purpose of the study described in this paper was to
overcome the limitations described above in order to
compare job satisfaction of M/P and S/P work. To do this,
a statistically-balanced experiment was conducted in an
actual industrial setting and the subjects involved were
highly experienced industrial operators.
One potential limitation of this approach should be noted.
In this study the pacing mode was confounded with
simplified versus enriched jobs. However, this reflects the
reality of the situation in actual instances of S/P versus M/P
industrial tasks.
Method
Overview and tasks
The study was conducted at the Naval Avionics Center,
Indianapolis, Indiana. A segment of the Center's activities
includes hand manufacture of small electronic assemblies
such as printed circuit boards and switch modules. These
tasks require manual dexterity, visual acuity, and
concentration, but no physical exertion. Workers engaged
in these tasks provided the subject population for this study.
Prior to this study, no M/P work systems had been utilised in
these manufacturing tasks and so all operators were
experienced only with S/P work.
In the study, one of the work benches normally occupied
by four to six operators was replaced by a 7.3 m (24 ft)
carousel-type conveyor. During S/P portions of the study,
the conveyor was stationary and operators simply used it as
a fixed work-bench. In M/P conditions, work assemblies
were placed on small pallets that remained stationary for
predetermined work periods (which ranged from 40-100 s)
and then indexed (toward the worker's right) to move the
workpiece to the next work station. The indexing time
was 4 s.
The range of manufacturing tasks performed at the Center
was carefully surveyed and a set of tasks with readily
separable task elements was selected. An example of a task
element was to attach and solder one wire to one switch
terminal. During M/P conditions, the conveyor indexed so
that operators performed only one task element during each
work period. The same element was completed on all
workpieces and then the next (differ6nt) task element was
initiated. The order in which task elements were done was
matched to that chosen by operators when they freely
performed their tasks in a S/P fashion. Thus, the tasks
performed in S/P and M/P conditions were highly similar
except that:
1. In M/P conditions, operators completed a given task
element on all workpieces before beginning a new task
element; in S/P, all task elements were completed on a
workpiece before starting on a new work item. Thus the
cycle times for S/P varied from 8 to 12 min, while for
M/P tasks the times per cycle varied from 0.6 to 1 "6 min.
This represents a fairly typical industrial situation with
M/P associated with simplified jobs and S/P associated
with enlarged jobs. Thus pacing mode was confounded
with job enlargement/simplification.
294 AppliedErgonomics December 1982
2. In the M/P condition each task element was completed
within a rigidly fixed temporal window; in S/P, element
completion times could vary at the operator's discretion.
The specific tasks were of two general varieties: one type
task consisted of loading small electronic parts and wires into
pre-punched printed circuit boards. Hand soldering was
required to fix some components to the boards. Careful
inspection of the boards was necessary to ensure an extremely
low defective board count. Specific tasks within this category
varied as different circuit boards were loaded. A step-by-
step loading diagram was positioned in front of each operator
to show the proper sequence of board loading steps (ie, task
elements).
The other task variety consisted of attaching and soldering
precut wires to multi-terminal switch assemblies. This
required extensive use of long-nose and diagonal cutting
pliers, soldering irons, and again, very critical visual
inspection. Over 100 wires were attached to each switch
assembly. Wiring directions were located in front of each
operator. Variants of this task type differed according to
the particular switch assembly under construction.
The work environment, the Naval Avionics Center, is
quiet and spacious; it is generally rated very favourably by
employees. The work day began at 07.00 and terminated at
16.30. A half-hour lunch break was allowed from 12.00-
12.30.
Subjects
Twenty-eight female subjects (aged 2 8 - 6 4 years; ~ = 45-9,
sd = 10.3) volunteered for the experiment. Volunteers were
obtained by a joint union and management effort in which
the entire population of employees engaged in manufacturing
was solicited. Volunteers were not given any special rewards
for participation in the study other than a certificate of
appreciation from the experimenters which was added to
their personnel file. All volunteers were well experienced
at the general tasks required in this study (one or more years).
No attempt was made to select volunteers for special
attributes or good health. Instead, a random selection of
28 subjects was made from the volunteers.
The participating subjects were naive on machine-paced
work but all subjects had, at least, one year experience on
self-paced work.
Experimental design
Volunteers were tested in eight groups of three and one
group of four. Groups were formed on the basis of
administrative arrangements not related to the experiment.
These arrangements reflected such considerations as vacation
schedules and project commitments.
Each group experienced two consecutive weeks of M/P
work and two consecutive weeks of S/P work. The subjects
were divided into two groups of 14 subjects. One group
received the S/P condition first, while the other group
experienced the reverse order. A pre-test session was
administered on the Friday immediately preceding the
start of each four-week experimental period.
Because of the manner in which volunteers became
available for this study, it was not possible to fully balance
combinations of subject age with pacing order. However,
balance was approximated as closely as possible.
Table 1: Schedule of test administration

Schedule of
administration (z)

Question Abbreviation Reference 1 2 3 4

Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire MSQ Weiss etat, 1967 X

Job Description Index - Complete JDI-complete Smith, 1974 X

JDI-work section X

Position Analysis Questionnaire PAQ McCormick eta/, 1972 X

Job Activity Preference Questionnaire JAPQ Mecham et al, 1972 X

SRA Adaptability Test SRA Tiffin and Lawshe, 1954 X

16 PF 16 PF Cattell eta/, 1970 X

Eysenck Personality Inventory EPI Eysenck and Eysenck, 1968 X

Job Diagnosis Survey JDS Hackman and Oldham, 1975 X

Feeling Tone Checklist Pearson, 1957 X

Purdue Satisfaction (=) Questionnaire PSQ X

Purdue Comparative (2) Questionnaire PCQ X

Purdue Boredom (2) Questionnaire PBQ X

(1) 1 - The Friday prior to experimentation.

2- The Monday following the experimentation.
3- At the Friday afternoon of the second week of each pacing mode.
4- Administered a total of four times, twice in each pacing mode.
The Tuesday morning of the first week and the Friday afternoon of the second week.
(2) A copy of these questionnaires may be obtained from the first author of this paper.

Questionnaires inventory and other instruments designed to assess their

Personality attributes as well as job-related attitudes and
subjective feelings were assessed by a battery of questionnaires.
Some of these were standard instruments while others were
specially developed for the purpose of this study*. These
questionnaires were administered at fixed times according
to the schedule shown in Table 1.
Procedure
During the pre-testing, session volunteers met with
experimenters and the Center's Registered Nurse. The general
goals of the experiment were explained to volunteers as
attempting to "find out how to design jobs in the future that
are easier and more rewarding". It was stressed that there
were no plans to implement a conveyor-based production
system at the Naval Avionics Center.
The experiment reported here was conducted in parallel
with studies of pacing effects on workers' physiology and
psychomotor performance (Salvendy, Knight and Anderson,
1982). Consequently, the nurse explained how to wrap a
sphygnomanometer cuff around the ankle and how to attach
to cardio-respiratory monitoring electrodes. Finally during
this session, volunteers were asked to complete a personality
*Questions concerning the specially developed questionnaires
should be directed to the first author from whom copies
are available.
experience and attitudes concerning job pacing (see Table 1).
Volunteers were also given an introduction to the
conveyor that would serve as their work-bench for the next
four weeks. Since volunteers were naive with respect to
M/P operations, these procedures were demonstrated.
Various safety and control features of the conveyor were
carefully explained.
Volunteers were also shown the experiment-control
computers located about 50 m from the conveyor. This
remote location was chosen to minimise interaction between
experimenters and workers during testing phases. The
experimenter was provided with a complete picture of
conveyor and operator activity by observing a computer-
controlled video display. Once started at the beginning of
each testing month, the experiment was completely
automated with the experimenter serving only to monitor
for potential malfunctions.
The daily work routine during the experiment was
very similar to that normally experienced by operators.
Workers arrived at their stations at 07.00, wrapped the
pressure cuff around an ankle, and connected their
monitoring electrodes. They then performed their activities
as normal. In accordance with their normal schedules,
10 min work breaks were allowed each hour. Operators
could stand or sit at their discretion and could walk for a

Applied Ergonomics December 1982 295

short radius around their work stations without removing
the ankle cuff.
Throughout the four-week experimental periods,
questionnaires were regularly administered. Also, in a final
post-test session, other personality and attitude questionnaires
were administered for comparison with pre-test results.
possible, subject to the condition that Cpwas approximately
p. It should be noted that this type of approach leads to
equations with higher multiple correlations (for a given
number of predictor variables used) than the traditional
step-wise procedures. Finally, for each equation the
acceptability (McCabe, 1973) is reported.

Data analysis
Six measures of satisfaction were used. Satisfaction ratios Table 2: Personality trait and other predictors of satisfaction
are defined to be the ratio of satisfaction scores under S/P descriptive statistics
and M/P conditions.
A composite satisfaction measure was derived as follows. Standard
A principal components analysis on the seven satisfaction Label Variable* Mean deviation
scores indicated a strong overall satisfaction component. 1 Reservedvs Outgoing 10.0 2.4
The important variables in this component were JDS general 2 Less Intelligent vs More
satisfaction, JDS motivating potential, PSQ rate satisfaction Intelligent 7-5 1.4
and PSQ autonomy satisfaction, with each variable being 3 Affected by Feelings vs
of approximately equal importance. The composite score Emotionally Stable 15.1 4.3
was therefore defined to be a standardised average of these 4 Humble vs Assertive 9.1 3-2
variables: each variable was divided by its standard deviation, 5 Sober vs Happy-go-lucky 12.4 4.0
the results added, and the total was divided by the sum of 6 Experiment vs Conscientious 13.7 3.0
the inverses of the standard deviations. The resulting 7 Shy vs Venturesome 12.3 4.5
composite is thus standardised so that the expected value of 8 Tough-mindedvsTender-minded 12.2 2.3
the composite, under the null hypothesis that the ratios are 9 Trusting vs Suspicious 6.7 2.9
1, is also 1. 10 Practical vs Imaginative 10.0 3.1
To investigate the effect of S/P versus M/P conditions on 11 Forthright vs Shrewd 11 '0 2.6
satisfaction scores, paired sample t-tests were used to compare 12 Placid vs Apprehensive 10-9 3.0
the two means. In addition, the ratios were tested against a 13 Conservative vs
null hypothesis of one using a t-test. The composite Experimenting 6"4 2.5
satisfaction score was also tested using this second method. 14 Group Dependent vs Self-
sufficient 10" 1 3"9
Regression methods were used to construct prediction 15 Undisciplined Self-conflict vs
equations for the satisfaction ratios (including the Controlled 14.2 3.0
composite) using the variables in Table 2. A computer 16 Relaxed vs Tense 13-8 4.7
program which can calculate multiple correlations for all 17 Extroversion 11-8 3.5
possible subsets of predictor variables was used. Since the 18 Neu roticism 10.8 5" 1
program capability is limited to 20 variables, and since for 19 Lie Scale 2.7 1.6
this data set some numerical instabilities arose at this level, 20 Age 47.1 10.1
the 22 possible predictors were screened by running separat.e 21 Fatigue Ratio (feeling tone
analyses for the first 16 and last 16 variables. Note that these checklist) 1.0 0"3
sets have 10 variables in common. The best subset of eight 22 SRA 20.4 7.9
predictors was selected from each run and the program was
re-run using these variables. *Variables 1 to 16 are from 16PF; variables 17-19 are from
To determine how many variables to use in the ffmal the Eysenck Personality Inventory; Variable 21 is from
equation, Cpmethodology was used (see Hocking, 1976, for Fatigue checklist. References for the measures discussed in
details). In each case the size of the subset was the smallest this table are illustrated in Table 1.

Table 3: Descriptive statistics for satisfaction scores under self and machine-paced conditions

Self-paced Machine-paced Ratio

t-test for t-test for
Variable Mean SD Mean SD difference Mean SP ratio

JDS General Satisfaction 3.03 "57 2.76 .69 2.54** 1.14 .26 2.85**
JDS Motivating Potential 86.91 63.96 48.02 43.68 4.11 * * 2-58 1.63 5.22"*
JDI Work Satisfaction 23.00 10"56 20.66 9.26 1.74" 1-17 0.46 2.01 *
PSQ Rate Satisfaction 4.94 1"23 3.54 0.70 6.69** 1.44 .44 5.43**
PSQ Autonomy Satisfaction 13"86 7.81 12.31 6.45 2.57** 1-17 .37 2.54**
PSQ Task Satisfaction 22.83 4-80 20"55 3.85 1.84* 1.19 .59 1.74"

* p .05 for the one-tailed t-test

** p .01 for the one-tailed t-test

296 Applied Ergonomics December 1982

Table 4: Regression equations for predicting satisfaction ratios

Multiple correlation

Reduced setI Original set2

Satisfaction Regression
ratios Predictors+ coefficients F Actual Corrected Actual Corrected F p Cp Acceptability

JDS General 1 3.1 4.81"

Satisfaction 2 8.6 15.21"
3 5.3 29.24*
4 -4.8 30.70**
14 2.3 7.26*
16 2-9 12.56"*
0 -81.9 - •88 .84 -97 .87 12-84"* 7 7-0 -85

JDS Motivating 3 17.3 8.75**

Potential 9 26.9 7.28*
10 31.8 14.40"*
12 19.7 6.45*
13 -19.1 3.86
15 23.0 7-26*
19 -36.0 4-51"
0 -825.4 - •79 .71 -93 "66 4.92** 8 8-5 -95

JDI Work 3 -2.5 3.38

Satisfaction 4 -4.2 4.10
5 -4.7 6.47*
7 7.5 21.56"*
15 7.3 13.09"*
0 55.74 - •79 -74 -95 .76 7.67** 6 6.5 -82

PSQ Rate 2 14.1 10"39"*

Satisfaction 4 -9-7 24-36**
12 -3"8 3-72
20 -2"0 11.01"*
0 264-2 - •77 .72 .91 .57 8.83** 5 6.0 -72

PSQ 1 -3.2 2-76

Autonomyl 10 5.6 13"26"*
11 -8.1 11.85"*
13 -7.0 10.68"*
17 -2.4 3"36
19 -5.6 3.73
22 -2,4 11-06"*
0 -264.4 - •84 .78 .91 .57 7.32** 8 7.5 -94

PSQ Task 12 -4.3 1-52

Satisfaction 21 6.9 4.33*
0 98.8 - •46 .39 .86 0 3.57 * 3 3.5 -64

Composite 2 7.9 11.32"*

Satiffaction 4 -6.3 36.13"*
10 2.9 7.53*
11 -5-7 17.90"*
14 -1.7 4-73*
0 18.12 - •87 .84 .97 .86 14.85"* 6 4.4 .92

+ Described in Table 2 i Based on the number of variables listed as the predictions.

* p < .05 2 Based on all the 22 variables in the original data set.
* * p < .01

The true values of the multiple correlations probably lie somewhere between the corrected values portrayed in the reduced and
the original set. These values could conceivably be further reduced in cross-validation.

Applied Ergonomics December 1982 297

 Results and discussions
Caution must be exercised in the interpretation and use
of the results derived from this study. The reason for this
caution is attributed to the following constraints. Firstly
self-paced work was confounded with enriched jobs and
machine-paced work was confounded with simplified tasks;
these confounding effects are the way in which job designs
are frequently practised. Secondly the fact that the workers
were used to doing self-paced jobs prior to their participation
in these experiments did not result in their real task content
changing whereas the machine-paced task resulted in a new
task content for the workers.
The subjects who participated in this experiment have
shown a similar level of satisfaction on the Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire to that provided in the normative
data for blue collar workers (Weiss, Davis, England and
Lofquist, 1967) and the data derived on the 16PF (Cattell
et al, 1970) did not differ significantly from the available
normative data. This suggests the possibilit3~ that the results
derived from this study may have applications to a broader
sector of the blue collar labour force than has been directly
assessed in this study.
Results indicate that, on the average, workers were more
satisfied in doing the same job S/P rather than M/P (Table 3).
For the composite satisfaction ratio score, on the average
workers were 31% more satisfied doing the S/P rather than
the M/P work (,X = 1-31 ; SD = 0"30; t = 5.73; df = 28;
p < 0.01). For other measures of satisfaction, this ranged
from a low of 14% for JDS General Satisfaction to a high of
158% for JDS Motivating Potential as interpreted from the
'ratio' column of Table 3.
Although the personality characteristics of the population
studied were not different from normative data, the data
pertaining to intellectual abilities showed a higher score on
the SRA Adaptability Test (Tiffin and Lawshe, 1954) for
the workers who participated in the experiment in comparison
to the normative data.
Table 4 illustrates that satisfaction is highly correlated
with personality and intellectual attributes. For JDS General
Satisfaction, a 0.88 multiple correlation is derived by using
only six of the 16PF variables, whereas for the composite
satisfaction a multiple correlation of 0"87 is derived by using
only five of the 16PF variables. In neither of these cases was
the Eysenck Personality Inventory, the SRA, Age of the
Workers or subjective feeling of fatigue a meaningful
predictor of satisfaction.
Since different satisfaction ratios measure different
phenomena, they have different sets of predictors. Thus
some overlap between the different satisfaction ratios exists
since some predictors appear in more than one of the
regression equations for the satisfaction ratios.
The JDS General Satisfaction, as its name implies,
measures the overall satisfaction of individuals, for which it
is an effective tool in general work situations. The
composite satisfaction score aims at achieving the same
objective for the special work situation present during
experimentation by incorporating in the score also the PSQ
measures. Thus, the composite satisfaction score is used in
this study ultimately to assess job satisfaction. Table 5
illustrates the psychological attributes of those who would
be more satisfied to work on S/P rather than M/P work.
These psychological predictors are derived from the 16PF by
298 Applied Ergonomics December 1982
Table 5: Psychological attributes of those w h o p r e f e r
machine-paced and self-paced w o r k *
Machine-paced work Self-paced work
- less intelligent - more i n t e l l i g e n t
- assertive - humble
- practical - imaginative
- shrewd - forthright
- self-sufficient - group dependent
* Extracted from Table 4 "composite satisfaction"
using five out of the 16 predictors (the remaining 11
predictors had no significant contributions to the prediction).
Conclusions
The present paper is aimed at assessing the relative levels
of job satisfaction of M/P and S/P work. It is concluded that,
on the average, operators on S/P work have a one-third
higher job satisfaction than those working on M/P work and
that only less than one-seventh of operators would be more
satisfied on M/P rather than S/P work.
1. For many jobs M/P is more productive than S/P, and
2. The fact that one-seventh of the workers preferred to
work at M/P rather than S/P work and the fact that the
psychological attributes of these workers are known
suggest the possibility that, through appropriate personnel
guidance and selection procedures, a higher percentage
of the labour force could be satisfied in M/P tasks.
References
Cattell, R.B., Eber, H.W., and Tatsvoka, M.M.
1970 'Handbook for the sixteen personality factor
questionnaire (16PF)', Institute for Personality and
Ability Testing, Champaign, Illinois.
Eysenck, H.J., and Eysenck, B.G.
1968 'Manual for the Eysenck personality inventory',
Educational and Industrial Testing Service, San Diego,
California.
Davis, L.E.
1982 'Job Design', A chapter in 'Handbook of industrial
engineering', (Ed by G. Salvendy). New York: John
Wiley.
Dunnette, M.D. (Ed)
1976 'Handbook of industrial and organisational psychology'.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Hackman, J.R., and Oldham, G.R.
1975 Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170,
Development of the job diagnostic survey.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., and Snyderman, B.
1959 'The motivation to work'. New York: John Wiley.
Hocking, R.R.
1976 Biometrics, 32, 1-49. 'The analysis and selection of
variables in linear regression'.
Kornhauser, A.W.
1965 'Mental health of the industrial worker: A Detroit
study'. New York: John Wiley.
Locke, E.A.
1976 'The nature and causes of job satisfaction', in 'Hand-
book of industrial and organisational psychology',
Edited by Marvin Dunnette. Chicago: Rand McNally
College Publishing Co.
MeCabe, G.P., Jr.
1978 Technometrics, 2, 131-139. 'Evaluation of regression
coefficient estimates using ~acceptability.
McCormick, E.J., Jeanneret, P., and Meeham, R.
1972 Journal of Applied Psychology 56, 4,
pp 347-368. 'A study of job-characteristics and job
dimensions as based on the Position Analysis
Questionnaire (PAQ)'.
Mechan, R., Harris, A., McCormick, E.J., and Jeanneret, P.
1972 Job Activity Preference Questionnaire (JAPQ),
Copyright 1972, Purdue Research Foundation, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Pearson, R.G.
1957 Journal of Applied Psychology, 41,3, 186-191.
'Scale analysis of a fatigue checklist'.
Salvendy, G., Knight, J.L., and Anderson, V.L.
1982 'Physiological basis of machine-paced and self-paced
work: An industrial study', Unpublished report,
Human Factors Programme, School of Industrial
Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette,
Indiana.
Salvendy, G., and Smith, M.J. (Eds)
1981 'Machine pacing and occupational stress'. London:
Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Smith, P.C.
1974 'The development of a method of measurement of job
satisfaction: The Cornell studies', Chapter in
Fleishman, E.A. and Bass, A.R. (Eds), Studies in
personnel and industrial psychology (3rd Ed).
Homewood, 1L: Dorsey, pp 272-278.
Smith, P.C., Kendall, L.M., and Hulin, C.L.
1969 'The measurement of satisfaction in work and
retirement'. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Tiffin, J., and Lawshe, C.H.
1954 SRA Examiner Manual for the Adaptability Test,
Occupational Research Center, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, Indiana.
Vroom, V.H.
1964 'Work and motivation'. New York: John Wiley.
Walker, C.R., and Guest, R.H.
1952 'The man on the assembly line'. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Weiss, D., Davis, R., England, G., and Lofquist, L.
1967 'Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire',
Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation.

announcing a new journal from Butterworth Scientific

CELL
BIOCHEMIST/W
FIN/) FIINC'TION

the international journal of the function and interaction of cells

and organelles, the influence of disease, drugs and other chemicals.
First issue April 1983

Editor: P r o f e s s o r E. M. C r o o k
(Medical College of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, UK)

CELL B I O C H E M I S T R Y A N D F U N C T I O N will provide a forum for the exchange of ideas

between all workers whose interests involve them in investigating the functioning of cells at the
structural and molecular level and will be international in both scope and readership.
For further details and a sample copy please contact:
Mrs Sheila King
Butterworth Scientific Limited -- Journals Division
PO Box 63, Westbury House, Bury Street, Guildford, Surrey GU2 5BH, UK
Telephone: (0483) 31261 Telex: 8 5 9 5 5 6 SCITEC G

Applied Ergonomics December 1982 299