Age-Related Changes On The Effects of Job Characteristics On Job Satisfaction A Longitudinal Analysis

Article
The International Journal of Aging

and Human Development
Age-Related Changes 2020, Vol. 91(1) 60–84
© The Author(s) 2019
on the Effects of Job Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Characteristics on DOI: 10.1177/0091415019837996

journals.sagepub.com/home/ahd
Job Satisfaction:
A Longitudinal Analysis
Thomas M. Cavanagh1 ,
Kurt Kraiger2, and Kim L. Henry3
Abstract
Older adults constitute an increasingly large share of the workforce. Older workers
often contribute positively to organizational outcomes through characteristics such as
deep organizational knowledge and long-standing client relationships. Thus, it is impor-
tant to understand how to maintain or increase older workers’ job satisfaction, a var-
iable that has been linked to positive work outcomes. In this study, several hypotheses
regarding job satisfaction and age were derived from Carstensen’s socioemotional selec-
tivity theory and were tested using longitudinal analysis of a cross-sequential sample.
Supporting socioemotional selectivity theory, results showed that autonomy became
increasingly important to job satisfaction as workers age. Contrary to the theory, annual
income also became increasingly important to job satisfaction. We discuss the impor-
tance of our findings for theory, research, and practice.
Keywords
older workers, aging, employees, job satisfaction, socioemotional selectivity theory,
multilevel modeling
1
Dominican University of California, San Rafael, CA, USA
2
University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA
3
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Corresponding Author:
Thomas M. Cavanagh, Dominican University of California, 415-487-1942, 50 Acacia Ave, San Rafael, CA
94901, USA.
Email: thomas.cavanagh@dominican.edu
Cavanagh et al. 61
Importance of Older Workers

Successfully managing older workers has become a demographic inevitability
for most organizations today. Multiple researchers have noted that the work-
force is becoming both older and age-diverse (Truxillo, Cardiz, & Hammer,
2015). In 2014, nearly 40% of adults aged 55 years and older were working
or actively looking for work, and the labor participation rate was growing the
fastest for the oldest segments of the population—adults aged 65 years and
older (Toossi & Torpey, 2017). This trend is predicted to be ongoing, with the
percentage of working-age people decreasing in Western countries (Eurostat,
2015; United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2017).
In addition to demographic reality, however, there are other important rea-
sons to invest in and care about older workers. Investing in all workers should
be done principally because it is effective at improving firm performance
(Crook, Todd, Combs, Woehr, & Ketchen, 2011). Investing in older workers,
in particular, impacts the individual, organizational, and societal level. At the
individual level, continuing to perform meaningful work is associated with pos-
itive physical and psychological health outcomes for older adults. Working
involves many factors that may protect older adults from cognitive decline
(Roberts, Fuhrer, Marmot, & Richards, 2011). Older adults who consider them-
selves useful (e.g., effective at work) have lower rates of disability and mortality.
Strong social networks, like those found in many organizations, protect against
age-related cognitive decline (Charles & Carstensen, 2010).
Many theories posit that as age increases people desire to be socially active
and to give back to society in meaningful ways (e.g., Erikson, 1964; McAdams &
de St. Aubin, 1998), and there is some empirical evidence to support this prop-
osition (e.g., McAdams, de St. Aubin, & Logan, 1993). Work can provide an
outlet for these prosocial motives (Ebner, Freund, & Baltes, 2006; Freund, 2006;
Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004), thus benefiting older workers, their coworkers, and
the organization of which they are a part.
From an organizational perspective, older workers represent an important
organizational resource. Although aging is often associated with cognitive and
physical decline, core aspects of job performance remain relatively stable across
the lifespan (Ng & Feldman, 2008). Older workers are more reliable than youn-
ger workers (Grossman, 2013; Ng & Feldman, 2008), can serve as mentors to
younger workers, are storehouses of organizational knowledge, and often have
long established client relationships (Grossman, 2013). All of these traits make
them valuable contributors to organizational outcomes.
Finally, effectively managing older workers also has important impacts at the
societal level. For the reasons listed earlier, older workers represent a valuable
resource that can contribute to economic competitiveness through productivity
and efficiency. Unfortunately, many older adults do not have enough savings to
support themselves through retirement (VanDerhei, 2010), and when they retire
62 The International Journal of Aging and Human Development 91(1)
early, are terminated, or cannot find work, they often resort to depending on
already overburdened social programs. Other older adults rely on their children
to take care of them, creating “sandwich” workers who have to provide care for
both their children and their parents. Thus, it is not surprising that up to 60% of
older adults work out for financial need (AARP, 2013). In sum, the effective
management of older adults is a topic that impacts us all.
Affective Changes Associated With Aging

Whereas physical and cognitive age-related changes are marked almost entirely
by decline, age-related social and emotional changes with age seem to be
generally positive (Carstensen, Mikeis, & Mathers, 2006). Older adults, for
instance, exhibit similar amounts of positive emotion but significantly less
negative emotion than their younger counterparts, show superior emotional
regulation, experience less anger, and are less likely to experience conditions
such as major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder (Carstensen et al.,
2006; Charles & Carstensen, 2010; Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004).
Although the direct mechanisms responsible for these positive, age-related
socioemotional changes are unknown, one of the most popular theories to
explain these effects is socioemotional selectivity theory (Carstensen, 1993).
Socioemotional selectivity theory posits that these affective changes reflect a
change in priorities and motivation as people age. When people are young,
they tend to see life as open-ended. Younger adults, then, are motivated to
gather information and resources that will be useful as they progress through
their lives. As people age, they begin to understand the reality of their own
mortality. They no longer conceive of life as open-ended. As they see the end
of their lives approaching, their goals and motivations switch from obtaining
and gathering resources, which they may not have the time to utilize, to enjoying
the time they have left. This causes older adults to emphasize positive emotional
experiences and social interactions, as opposed to information and resource
gathering (Carstensen, 1993). These changes are expressed in part through
changing attitudes across the lifespan. Next, we discuss job satisfaction, an
important job-related attitude.
Job Characteristics and Work Motivation

Job characteristic theories posit that certain job characteristics will motivate
workers through the intrinsic satisfaction they find in doing job tasks
(Hackman & Oldham, 1976). When workers find job tasks enjoyable and mean-
ingful, they will like their jobs and be motivated to perform them well (Spector,
1997). One of the most influential and well-supported of these theories is
Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) job characteristic theory (JCT). The theory
posits that there are five core job characteristics that lead to both personal
Cavanagh et al. 63
and work outcomes. These five job characteristics are as follows: skill variety,
defined as the degree to which a job requires the use of a number of different
skills and talents of the employee; task identity, defined as the degree to which
the job requires completion of a whole and identifiable piece of work; task
significance, defined as the degree to which the job has a substantial impact
on the lives or work of other people; autonomy, defined as the degree to
which a job provides substantial discretion to individuals in scheduling the
work and determining the procedures to be used in carrying it out; and
feedback, defined as the degree to which carrying out the work activities
required by the job results in individuals obtaining clear and direct information
about the effectiveness of their performance.
According to Hackman and Oldham (1976), these five characteristics lead to
three critical psychological states (experienced meaningfulness, experienced
responsibility for work outcomes, and knowledge of results), which in turn
lead to personal and work outcomes including internal work motivation, quality
of work performance, and job satisfaction. Hackman and Oldham tested their
model empirically with a sample of nearly 700 employees from over 60 jobs in
seven different organizations, and their propositions were largely supported.
Additional studies have also provided evidence in support of the theory
(Champoux, 1991; Fried & Ferris, 1987).
By focusing on job content, job characteristics theories represented a theo-
retical breakthrough for organizational psychology. After years of research,
there is ample theoretical and empirical evidence that job characteristics influ-
ence employee motivation (Judge & Church, 2000; Jurgensen, 1978).
Individual Differences and the Impact of Job Characteristics

Although job characteristics have consistently been shown to influence employee
motivation, there is also evidence that individual differences moderate this rela-
tionship. In JCT, for example, it was hypothesized that the link between core job
characteristics and personal and work outcomes was stronger for individuals
high in growth need strength (the need for personal growth), and this hypothesis
was supported by empirical data (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Other individual
differences, including conscientiousness (Mount & Barrick, 1995), neuroticism
(Latham & Pinder, 2005), and positive social interactions (Oldham, 1976) have
been shown to moderate the effect of job characteristics on work outcomes.
Noting evidence that individual differences moderate how people react to
their work, Hackman and Oldham (1976) called for more research into specif-
ically which individual differences are important to work motivation and why.
In this study, we will investigate age as one of these differences. Specifically,
basing our predictions on socioemotional selectivity theory, we see age as a
marker for general changes in attitudes and perspectives over a lifespan, and
predict that, through these changes, age may moderate the job characteristics—
job satisfaction relationship.
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is often studied as one of the prime outcomes of work motiva-
tion, generally, and job characteristics theories, specifically. Multiple studies
have supported the link between job characteristics and job satisfaction (e.g.,
Campion, 1988; Fried & Ferris, 1987; Loher, Noe, Moeller, & Fitzgerald, 1985).
Job satisfaction is one of the most researched variables in industrial-
organizational psychology (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001). Spector
(1997) argued that there are three reasons for the prominence of this variable in
organizational research. First, job satisfaction matters from a humanitarian
perspective. Organizations have a tremendous impact on the people that work
in them. Employees dedicate a substantial portion of their lives to work, and
people deserve to be treated fairly and respectfully by their employers. Job
satisfaction is in part a reflection of this treatment as well as an indicator of
psychological health and emotional well-being (Spector, 1997).
Second, job satisfaction matters because it is related to both positive and
negative work behaviors. Although the causal direction is often unclear
(Judge et al., 2001; Spector, 1997), job satisfaction is related to job performance
(Judge et al., 2001; Riketta, 2008; Whitman, Van Rooy, Viswesvaran, 2010),
occupational citizenship behaviors (LePine, Arez, Johnson, 2002; McNeely &
Meglino, 1994; Organ & Ryan, 1995), absenteeism (Cohen & Golan, 2007;
Hammer & Landau, 1981; Steers & Rhodes, 1978; Tharenou, 1993), turnover
(Blau, 1993; Bluedorn, 1982; Crampton & Wagner, 1994; Hulin, Roznowski, &
Hachiya, 1985; Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979; Shore, Newton, &
Thornton, 1990; Tett & Meyer, 1993), burnout (Bacharach, Bamberger, &
Conley, 1991; R. T. Lee & Ashforth, 1993; Maslach, 2001; Shirom, 1989), phys-
ical health and psychological well-being (Begley & Czajka, 1993; Bluen, Barling,
& Burns, 1990; Fox, Dwyer, & Ganster, 1993; Jex & Gudanowski, 1992; C. Lee,
Ashford, & Bobko, 1990; O’Driscoll & Beehr, 1994; Palmore, 1969;
Schaubroeck, Gangster, & Fox, 1992; Spector, 1988), counterproductive behav-
ior (Chen & Spector, 1992; Keenan & Newton, 1984), and life satisfaction
(Judge & Watanabe, 1993; Lance, Lautenschlager, Sloan, & Varca, 1989;
Rain, Lane, & Steiner, 1991; Schaubroeck et al., 1992; Weaver, 1978).
Thus, job satisfaction is related to organizationally relevant job behaviors,
and employees with high job satisfaction are more cooperative and willing to
help the organization succeed (Spector, 1997).
Finally, job satisfaction can be a reflection of organizational functioning.
Evidence shows that aggregate job satisfaction is linked to organizational per-
formance across units and organizations, and that management practices
designed to increase job satisfaction increase business-level outcomes, including
Cavanagh et al. 65
profitability (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Messersmith, Patel, Lepak, &
Gould-Williams, 2011; Ostroff, 1992). There is also evidence that this relation-
ship is causal, that is, that higher job satisfaction causes better organizational
level outcomes, and not the other way around (Koys, 2001). Differences in job
satisfaction between organizations, or between different departments within the
same organization, can highlight organizational strengths, trouble spots, and
organizational mismanagement (Spector, 1997).
Each of these reasons alone is sufficient to justify research on job satisfaction;
together, they create a compelling reason to understand this construct.
Age and Job Satisfaction

Combining socioemotional selectivity theory and job characteristics theory, we
can posit how socioemotional age-related changes will affect the relationship
between job characteristics and job satisfaction. As workers age, they should be
more motivated by characteristics of their job that are socially and emotionally
satisfying (e.g., having autonomy over their own work, having positive social
interactions with coworkers) and less motivated by aspects of their job that
revolve around accumulating resources (e.g., salary, job training), and this, in
turn, should affect how satisfied older workers are with their jobs.
As job characteristics are antecedents of motivation, and job satisfaction is an
outcome of motivation, we would expect to see (a) relationships among job
characteristics, motivation, and job satisfaction and, (b) due to socioemotional
changes associated with aging, for these relationships to be moderated by age.
Although there is little extant research that integrates lifespan development and
work motivation theories (Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004), or the impact of aging on
work motivation in general (Kooij et al., 2007), there is some empirical evidence
to support the expected relationships.
There is, for example, evidence that age moderates the relationship between
job characteristics and work motivation, that older adults need more intrinsi-
cally challenging and fulfilling jobs to remain motivated, and that the relation-
ship between career opportunities and motivation shrinks as workers age
(Boumans, De Jong, & Janssen, 2011; Warr, 1997). Older adults have also
been shown to have higher levels of intrinsic motivation as compared to their
younger colleagues (Ng & Feldman, 2010; Rhodes, 1983) and to derive more job
satisfaction from intrinsic factors and internal rewards (Kooij et al., 2007).
At least in the United States, younger employees tend to place higher value
on learning and promotion opportunities while older employees perceive
social relations at work as more important (Loscocco & Kalleberg, 1988).
Because older adults tend to prioritize generativity, they may be more motivated
to perform tasks that are collaborative as opposed to competitive, such as con-
flict resolution and innovation (Paggi & Jopp, 2015). Evidence from a sample of
South Korean seniors also indicates a strong relationship between purpose,
meaning in life, and overall job satisfaction for adults older than 55 years (J.
Lee, Cho, & Suh, 2017). Older workers tend to remain active in the workforce
because they enjoy working, derive satisfaction from using their skills, gain a
sense of accomplishment from the job they perform, and enjoy the chance to be
creative (Lord, 2004). Older workers also place a higher value on the respect and
friendliness of coworkers (Linz, 2004). And, contrary to the propositions of
socioemotional selectivity cited earlier (i.e., that older workers should be more
motivated by emotionally positive, socially rewarding, and intrinsically satisfy-
ing job characteristics), there is some evidence that older adults highly value and
are motivated by salary (Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004; Kooij et al., 2007).
Besen, Matz-Costa, Brown, Smyer, and Pitt-Catsouphes (2013) empirically
tested the relationships among job characteristics, job satisfaction, and age by
surveying a cross-sectional sample of 1,873 employed adults aged 17 to 81 years.
They found that positive relationships between job satisfaction and skill variety
and autonomy weakened as employee age increased, whereas positive relation-
ships between job satisfaction and task identity, task significance, and feedback
did not vary with respondents’ age. Although these are useful findings for under-
standing the relationship between job characteristics, job satisfaction, and age, it
is important to note that, unlike the current sample, Besen et al.’s data were
cross-sectional, making it impossible to determine whether the changes in rela-
tionships between job characteristics and job satisfaction are actually due to age
or to cohort effects.
Thus, the exact relationship among age, job characteristics, and job satisfac-
tion remains an open question that, to date, has been the subject of much theory
but little empirical investigation. This study will add to this literature by ana-
lyzing the relationship among age, job characteristics, and job satisfaction in a
cross-sequential sample.
The Current Study

The relationships among age, certain job characteristics, and job satisfaction are
difficult to estimate without an appropriate sample. Much of the research
concerning older adults and job attitudes has used cross-sectional samples to
investigate mean differences in job attitudes across time (e.g., Ng & Feldman,
2010; Ng & Feldman, 2012). In these types of studies, it is impossible to differ-
entiate between-person differences (e.g., differences due to cohort membership)
from within-person changes over time (i.e., changes actually due to aging).
That is, do mean differences in job attitudes reflect changes that occur as indi-
viduals age, or do they reflect generational differences in regard to work?
To truly understand age-related changes in job satisfaction, ideally one would
have a cross-sequential sample. Cross-sequential samples are both longitudinal
(in order to capture intraindividual change over time) and multigenerational (to
capture differences between generations; Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004).
Cavanagh et al. 67
The current sample meets both criteria. The sample is longitudinal, including
data from participants collected 3 times over a period of 8 years. The sample
also consists of individuals ranging in age from 18 to 92 years. This allows for
analysis of between-person differences (e.g., differences in job attitudes between
a 20-year-old and a 60-year-old) but also within person differences (i.e., how
job attitudes change as respondents age).
Drawing from socioemotional selectivity theory, we hypothesize that the
relationship between job satisfaction and socially and emotionally relevant job
characteristics will increase with age, whereas the relationship between job sat-
isfaction and job characteristics related to obtaining resources will decrease with
age. Because the survey was designed for other purposes, there is no direct
measure of job characteristics such as the Job Diagnostics Survey (Hackman
& Oldham, 1975). Instead, Aging and Sense of Control (ASOC) respondents
were asked the following question: “If a good friend told you he or she was
interested in doing what you do (having the same job as you), would you . . . ”
and presented with the following response options: “strongly recommend,”
“have doubts about recommending,” or “advise against it.”
Although this item may not be a perfect proxy for job satisfaction, we believe
it is a useful one. In the business world, private companies such as Glassdoor.
com and TransparentCareers.com ask respondents if they would recommend
their job to a friend as a single-item indicator of job satisfaction. In the
organizational sciences literature, while the item rarely appears by itself as a
measure of job satisfaction, it does appear in short job satisfaction scales (see,
e.g., Alexopoulos, Palatsidi, Tigani, & Darviri, 2014; Cammann, Fichman,
Jenkins, & Klesh, 1983; Kay, 2008; Knight, 1990; Rusbult & Farrell, 1983).
Furthermore, for almost 40 years, researchers have argued that single-item
measures provide valuable information about constructs, and that the use of a
single-item variable is not a fatal flaw in a research study. Scarpello and
Campbell (1983) specifically investigated the relationship between single-item
measures of job satisfaction and multi-item scales, and the authors concluded
that single-item measures are not only valid and reliable, but that they are
actually superior to multi-item scales under certain circumstances, such as
when researchers are specifically interested in global job satisfaction.
Lamenting that Scarpello and Campbell’s (1983) work did little to counter the
stigma against single-item measures of job satisfaction, Wanous, Reichers, and
Hudy (1997) conducted a meta-analysis providing more evidence that, when
research situations dictate their use, single-item measures of job satisfaction
are reliable and valid, showing an average corrected correlation of .67 with
their multi-item counterparts.
More recently, Fisher, Matthews, and Gibbons (2015) compared single-item
and multi-item scales for a number of different constructs and found that all
single-item scales they investigated correlated significantly and moderately with
their multi-item counterparts. Of the 19 constructs they investigated, including
supervisor support, work role overload, and burnout, the single-item scale with
the strongest correlation to the corresponding multi-item scale was job satisfac-
tion. They further note that correlation between single- and multi-item scales of
the same construct is strongest when the single-item scale is taken from the multi-
item scale, and, asking whether a respondent would recommend a job to a friend
is a common item found in job satisfaction scales, including the Michigan
Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann et al., 1983 and is also
used in empirical research of job satisfaction (e.g., Rusbult & Farrell, 1983).
Even given the strong empirical evidence supporting the use of single-item
scales, we went a step further to empirically establish the appropriateness of this
item as a proxy measure of job satisfaction. Data were collected allowing for
comparison between responses to the 20-item short form Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire (MSQ) and the recommendation item from the ASOC survey.
The MSQ shows high test–retest reliability (r ¼ .89 over 1 week and .70 over 1
year), high internal consistency (estimated alphas between .87 and .92 over
multiple test samples), and high construct validity (Weiss, Dawis, England, &
Lofquist, 1967). We collected data from 183 employees of a Colorado branch of
a large national bank. The MSQ correlated moderately well with the recom-
mendation item from the ASOC survey (r ¼ .61, p < .001), supporting its use as a
proxy variable for job satisfaction.
The ASOC survey also had several other items related socially and emotionally
relevant job characteristic (having autonomy over one’s own work) as well as a job
characteristics related to obtaining resources (annual income). We hypothesize that
the relationship between both autonomy at work and job satisfaction and annual
income and job satisfaction will be moderated by age, such that, as age increases,
the relationship between autonomy and job satisfaction will increase, whereas the
relationship between annual income and job satisfaction will decrease.
Hypothesis 1: There will be an interaction between age and work autonomy and job
satisfaction, such that, as age increases, the relationship between work autonomy
and job satisfaction will become more positive.
Hypothesis 2: There will be an interaction between age and annual income and job
satisfaction, such that, as age increases, the relationship between annual income
and job satisfaction will become less positive.
Method
Sample
This study utilized the ASOC archival data set. Data collection was sponsored
by the National Institute on Aging, and conducted by the Survey Research
Cavanagh et al. 69
Laboratory at the University of Illinois, under the direction of principal inves-

tigator John Mirowsky.
The surveyors interviewed 2,593 Americans aged 18 to 95 years (M ¼ 52.00,
SD ¼ 18.65) at three time periods: originally in 1994–1995, again in 1997–1998,
and finally in 2000–2001. The same questions were asked during each interview
and covered topics including physical and mental health, health behaviors, use
of medical services, work status, sense of control, social support and participa-
tion, personal and household demographics, marital and family relations, socio-
economic status, and history of adversity. The sample was 41.3% male and
58.6% female, with 0.1% not reporting. In the sample, 85.8% identified as
White, 7.2% as Black, 1.5% as Asian or Pacific Islander, 1.3% a Native
American or Alaskan native, and 4.2% as something else or refused to answer.
Measures
Age. On each interview occasion, respondents were asked, “In what year were
you born?” Age was calculated by subtracting this value from the year the
interview took place. Three additional age variables were created: the grand
mean-centered version of age (respondents’ age at each time point minus the
grand mean of age), the person mean of age (each respondent’s mean age across
the duration of the study), and the person mean-centered version of age (the
respondents’ age at each time point minus their mean age). When the grand
mean-centered version of age and the person mean of age are entered into the
regression equation together, the grand mean-centered version of age represents
the within-person effect of age, whereas the person mean of age represents the
contextual effect of age. When the person mean-centered version of age and the
person mean of age are entered into the regression equation together, the person
mean-centered version of age represents the within-person effect of age, whereas
the person mean of age represents the between-person effect of age. Through
the remainder of the article, the variables will be referred by the effect
they represent.
Autonomy at work. On each interview occasion, respondents were asked, “Who

usually decides what you do at work?” with the following response options: you;
you and someone else equally; and someone else. Two additional autonomy at
work variables were created: the person mean-centered version (representing the
within-person effect) and the person mean version (representing the between-
person effect). Autonomy at work was treated as a socially and emotionally
relevant job characteristic.
Annual income. On each interview occasion, respondents were asked, “What was
your annual personal income? By this I mean income from your own wages,
salary, and other sources, before taxes.” Respondents’ answered with a
numerical value indicating their annual personal income. Two additional annual
income variables were created: the person mean-centered version (representing
the within-person effect) and the person mean version (representing the
between-person effect). Annual income was treated as a job characteristic rele-
vant for obtaining resources.
Willingness to recommend one’s job to a friend. ASOC respondents were not given a
job satisfaction scale per say, but they were asked the following question: “If a
good friend told you he or she was interested in doing what you do (having
the same job as you), would you . . . ” and presented with the following
response options: “strongly recommend,” “have doubts about recommending,”
or, “advise against it.” These responses were recoded as “1,” “2,” and “3,”
respectively.
Analyses
The growth models presented in the following sections were tested using the
MIXED command in IBM SPSS Statistics version 20. Descriptive statistics for
all variables are shown in Table 1.
Tests of assumptions. For all models, residuals were examined to ensure no assump-
tions were violated. No assumptions were violated for any of the variables, with
the exception of respondents’ annual income, which violated the assumption of
normality and linearity. Residual plots of the fitted model suggested that a trans-
formation of annual income was needed. A natural log transformation of annual
income was calculated, and this transformation improved both the normal distri-
bution of the residuals of the regression model and the linearity of the partial
relationship between transformed income and willingness to recommend one’s job
to a friend. The natural log of annual income was used in all analyses instead of
the raw value of that variable.
Null and unconditional growth models. Before testing any of the hypotheses, it was
necessary to analyze the unconditional means model in order to calculate the
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Variables of Interest.
N M SD
Age (first interview) 6519 55.49 18.68

Opportunity to learn new things at work 2552 1.77 0.69
Annual income (in thousands) 4141 27.572 33.910
Opportunity to interact with others at work 2548 1.62 0.60
Autonomy 2534 1.77 0.78
Note: SD ¼ standard deviation.
Cavanagh et al. 71
interclass correlation (ICC). The ICC is the proportion of the between-person

variance to the sum of the between- and within-person variances of the depen-
dent variable (i.e., would the respondents recommend their job to a friend).
The unconditional means model with a fixed intercept resulted in a deviance
estimate of 4,487.184, whereas the model with a random intercept resulted in a
deviance parameter of 4,297.434, a difference of 189.750. This value exceeded
the critical value of chi-squared (v2crit(1) ¼ 3.841) and was significant (p < .001),
indicating that the random intercept provided superior model fit. Therefore, the
random intercept was retained for all subsequent models.
The unconditional means model with a random intercept resulted in an inter-
cept of 2.627, indicating that the predicted average level of willingness to rec-
ommend one’s job to a friend across individuals in the sample was 2.627 (on a
scale of 3). The model also resulted in an intercept variance parameter estimate
(i.e., the amount of variance in willingness to recommend one’s job to a friend
between individuals) of 0.161 and a within-person residual variance parameter
estimate (i.e., the amount of variance in willingness to recommend one’s job to a
friend within persons) of 0.237, yielding an ICC of 0.679. Thus, 67.9% of the
variance in willingness to recommend one’s job to a friend was due to between
worker differences, whereas 32.1% of the variance in willingness to recommend
one’s job to a friend was due to within worker differences over time.
Next, we specified a model with variables representing both the within- and
between-person effects of age (i.e., an unconditional growth model) in order to
estimate changes in willingness to recommend ones’ job to a friend with the
increase of age.
We first tested whether it was necessary to specify a random slope for the
within-person effect of age by comparing model fit between a model that speci-
fied a fixed slope for the within-person effect of age against a model that speci-
fied a random slope for the within-person effect of age. The unconditional
growth model with a fixed slope for the within-person effect of age resulted in
a deviance estimate of 4,284.182, compared to the model with a random slope,
which resulted in a deviance estimate of 4,282.425. The difference in deviance
between the two models failed to exceed the critical value of chi-squared
(v2crit(1) ¼ 3.841) and was not significant (p ¼ .415). Therefore, the fixed slope
for the within-person effect of age was retained for all subsequent models.
In this model, the intercept was 2.647 (see Table 2), meaning that the pre-
dicted level of willingness to recommend one’s job to a friend for individuals of
the average age in the sample was 2.647. The fixed effect (i.e., slope) for the
person-mean-centered version of age was nonsignificant (p ¼ .868), indicating
that, within individuals, there was no relationship between age and willingness
to recommend one’s job to a friend. The fixed effect for the person-mean of age
was nonsignificant as well (b ¼ .002, SE ¼ .001, p ¼ .061), providing no evidence
indicating that individuals’ mean age was positively associated with willingness
to recommend one’s job to a friend.
Table 2. Results of the Unconditional Growth Model.
b SE df t p CI (low) CI (high)
Intercept 2.65 0.02 1435.05 137.36 >.001 2.61 2.68

Within-person effect of age �0.001 0.004 1555.05 �0.17 .868 �0.009 0.008
Between-person effect of age 0.002 0.001 1452.60 1.88 .061 0.000 0.004
Note: CI ¼ confidence interval; SE ¼ standard error.
Table 3. Longitudinal Model Including the Within and Between Effects of Age and Autonomy.
Intercept 2.641 0.019 1436.77 136.05 >.001 2.603 2.679

Between-person effect of age 0.002 0.001 1431.95 1.52 .130 �0.001 0.004
Within-person effect of autonomy 0.048 0.030 260.58 1.61 .108 �0.011 0.106
Between-person effect of autonomy 0.061 0.022 1410.69 2.79 .005 0.018 0.105
Key Predictors
In the following sections, key predictors will be added to the model that contains
the within- and between-effects of age. Key predictors were analyzed in separate
models for the sake of parsimony.
Autonomy at work. The first variable analyzed was respondents’ level of autonomy
at work. It was determined that a random slope for the within-person effect of
respondents’ level of autonomy at work was necessary (DD ¼ 12.741, v2crit(2) ¼
5.991, p ¼ .002).
Results for the first model, including the within- and between-person main
effects of age and respondents’ level of autonomy at work, are shown in Table 3.
The within-person effect of respondents’ level of autonomy at work was
nonsignificant (p ¼ .108). The between-person effect of respondents’ level
of autonomy at work, however, was significant (b ¼ 0.061, SE ¼ 0.022,
t[1,410.686] ¼ 2.790, p ¼ .005), indicating that, between individuals, mean
levels of respondents’ level of autonomy at work were positively related to
willingness to recommend one’s job to a friend.
In the second model, Level 1, Level 2, and cross-level interactions were
added. Full results are shown in Table 4. In this model, all of the interactions
were nonsignificant, with the exception of the interaction of the between-person
effect of respondents’ level of autonomy at work and the between-person effect
of age (b ¼ 0.004, SE ¼ 0.002, t[1,520.841] ¼ 2.310, p ¼ .021). This indicates that,
between individuals, mean age moderated the relationship between respondents’
Cavanagh et al. 73
Table 4. Longitudinal Model Including the Within and Between Effects of Age and Autonomy,
As Well As Two-Way Interactions.
Intercept 2.628 0.020 1507.21 131.352 >.001 2.589 2.667

Within-person effect 0.021 0.042 288.10 0.509 .611 �0.061 0.104
of autonomy
Between-person effect 0.094 0.026 1442.05 3.630 >.001 0.043 0.145
of autonomy
Within-Person Effect of �0.016 0.013 1729.41 �1.243 .214 �0.041 0.009
Age � Within-Person
Effect of Autonomy
Between-Person Effect of 0.004 0.002 1520.84 2.310 .021 0.001 0.007
Age � Between-Person
Effect of Autonomy
Effect of Age
Autonomy � Between-
Person Effect of Age
mean level of autonomy at work and willingness to recommend one’s job to a

friend, such that as mean age increased, so did the strength of the relationship
between between-person levels of autonomy at work and willingness to recom-
mend one’s job to a friend (see Figure 1).
Annual income. The next variable analyzed was the natural log transformation of
respondents’ annual income. It was determined that a random slope for the
within-person effect of respondents’ annual income was not necessary
(DD ¼ 0, v2crit(2) ¼ 5.991, p ¼ 1.000). Results from the models are shown in
Table 5. The within-person effect of the natural log transformation of respond-
ents’ annual income was nonsignificant (p ¼ .422). The between-person effect of
the natural log transformation of respondents’ annual income, however, was
significant (b ¼ �0.045, SE ¼ 0.020, t[1,256.203] ¼ �2.263, p ¼ .024), indicating
that, between individuals, mean levels of the natural log transformation of
respondents’ annual income were significantly related to willingness to recom-
mend one’s job to a friend.
In the second model, Level 1, Level 2, and cross-level interactions were
added. Full results are shown in Table 6. The only interaction that achieved
2.8
2.75
2.7
2.65
2.6
2.55
-1 SD b/w person age
2.5 Mean b/w person age
+1 SD b/w person age
2.45
2.4
-1 SD b/w person Mean b/w person +1 SD b/w person
autonomy autonomy autonomy
Figure 1. Effect of the two-way interaction of between person age and between person
autonomy to recommend one’s job to a friend. SD ¼ standard deviation.
Table 5. Longitudinal Model Including the Within and Between Effects of Age and
Annual Income.
Intercept 2.654 0.022 1284.89 120.60 >.001 2.611 2.697

Between-person effect of age 0.003 0.001 1248.29 2.14 .033 0.000 0.005
Within-person effect of 0.024 0.030 1086.80 0.80 .422 �0.035 0.084
annual income
Between-person effect �0.045 0.020 1256.20 �2.26 .024 �0.084 �0.006
of annual income
significance in this model was the interaction of the between-person effect of the
natural log transformation of respondents’ annual income and the between-
person effect of age (b ¼ 0.005, SE ¼ 0.002, t[1,321.457] ¼ �3.140, p ¼ .002),
indicating that, between individuals, mean age moderated the relationship
between individuals’ mean level of the natural log transformation of respond-
ents’ annual income and willingness to recommend one’s job to a friend, such
that the relationship between annual income and willingness to recommend
one’s job to a friend was stronger as age increased (see Figure 2).
Cavanagh et al. 75
Table 6. Longitudinal Model Including the Within and Between Effects of Age and Annual
Income, As Well As the Two-Way Interactions.
CI CI
b SE df t p (low) (high)
Intercept 2.632 0.023 1342.77 115.20 >.001 2.587 2.676

Within-person effect of annual income 0.007 0.041 1188.80 0.17 .862 �0.073 0.088
Between-person effect of annual income 0.002 0.025 1251.67 0.09 .930 �0.046 0.051
Within-Person Effect of 0.011 0.013 1918.94 0.84 .401 �0.014 0.035
Age � Within-Person
Effect of Annual Income
Between-Person Effect of 0.005 0.001 1321.46 3.14 .002 0.002 0.008
Effect of Annual Income
Within-Person Effect of Age � �0.001 0.000 1631.03 �1.74 .082 �0.001 0.000
Between-Person Effect of Age
Within-Person Effect of Annual �0.001 0.002 1286.77 �0.40 .686 �0.006 0.004
Income � Between-Person
Effect of Age
2.8
2.75
2.7
2.65
2.6
2.55
2.5
-1 SD B/w person age
2.45 MEAN B/w person age
+1 SD B/w person age
2.4
-1 SD B/w person MEAN B/w person +1 SD B/w person
annual income annual income annual income
Figure 2. Effect of the two-way interaction of between person age and between person
annual income on willingness to recommend one’s job to a friend. SD ¼ standard deviation.
Discussion
The goal of this study was to investigate how the relationship between job
characteristics and job satisfaction changes with age. Drawing from socioemo-
tional selectivity theory, we hypothesized that relationship between job satisfac-
tion and socioemotionally relevant job characteristics would increase with age,
whereas the relationship between job satisfaction and job characteristics related
to obtaining resources would decrease with age. We found partial support for
our hypotheses and socioemotional theory more generally. The relationship
between autonomy and job satisfaction did increase with age, thus supporting
Hypothesis 1. However, contrary to Hypothesis 2, the relationship between
annual income and job satisfaction also increased with age.
Socioemotional selectivity theory specifically hypothesizes that as people age
they should be less motivated by characteristics of their jobs that provide resour-
ces for the future, such as annual income. Because the relationship between both
autonomy and job satisfaction and annual income and job satisfaction increased
with age, it would seem that job characteristics and work design, in general, are
more important to job satisfaction as workers age. It is also important to note,
however, that autonomy more closely resembles the job characteristics described
in job characteristic theories, such as JCT, than does annual income. Thus, the
results might be seen more as a measure of how well the variables truly mea-
sured relevant job characteristics than as a condemnation of socioemotional
selectivity theory per se.
Annual income might not represent the gathering of resources for future use.
Instead, many older workers are facing the very real and very immediate finan-
cial issues associated with retirement. Older workers might not just see the end
of their biological life approaching, but the end of their work-life approaching,
too, and their future income may be in question. In this case, annual income
would not represent a future-oriented behavior in the sense of socioemotional
selectivity theory; instead, it would represent an immediate need that older
workers are consciously and adaptively focusing on to ensure the quality of
their retirement years.
Finally, willingness to recommend one’s job to a friend was used as a proxy
variable for job satisfaction as the dependent variable in this study. Although
this measure correlated relatively well with a validated measure of job satisfac-
tion (i.e., the MSQ), its accuracy as a proxy may have fluctuated with respond-
ents’ age. That is, regardless of job satisfaction, 20-year-olds might be more
likely to recommend their job to a friend simply because their friends are
more likely to be looking for work, whereas 60-year-olds might be less likely
to recommend their job to a friend, because their friends are already firmly
established in their careers or retired. This type of responding could have intro-
duced excess noise in the dependent variable, influencing the results of the anal-
yses. Unfortunately, age data were not collected in the validation sample, so it
Cavanagh et al. 77
was impossible to statistically test whether or not age influenced the relationship
between the results of the MSQ and willingness to recommend one’s job to
a friend.
Practical Implications
Though the hypotheses were not fully supported, the results of the study still
hold practical implications for managers working with employees from across
the age spectrum. Although the relationships we found were small, it is impor-
tant to remember their impact adds up over the course of a lifetime. Relating to
others at work, autonomy, and learning new things become increasingly impor-
tant to job satisfaction as workers age. To retain and motivate top talent,
managers should keep this in mind when designing jobs for older workers
and ensure that their jobs are socially and emotionally rich and diverse.
Although these characteristics are important, managers should also appreciate
that older workers are often motivated to continue working for financial reasons
and compensate their employees accordingly (Kanfer & Ackerman, 2004; Kooij
et al., 2007).
Limitations
There were several limitations to this study. Probably the most important is that
all of the constructs analyzed were measured using single-item scales. Single-
item measures have been shown to be reliable and valid (Fisher et al., 2015;
Towler et al., 2008; Wanous et al., 1997), and the significant relationships in this
study support that conclusion. Wanous et al. (1997) specifically cautioned
against considering the use of single-item measures as a fatal flaw in scientific
studies and encouraged their use when the situation demands as it, as in this
case, with the secondary analysis of archival data. In regard to job satisfaction,
we collected additional data correlating the single item in the ASOC data set
inquiring whether respondents would recommend their job to a friend with the
short form MSQ, finding sufficient evidence of convergent validity for research
purposes (r ¼ .61, p < .001). Ideally, the ASOC survey would have included a job
satisfaction scale, but we believe the uniqueness of this data set, and the poten-
tial value multi-level analyses of cross-sequential data has to the topic of aging
justify our research, despite the arguable shortcomings of the outcome variable.
Another limitation was the lack of an organizational tenure control variable.
Without this variable, it is impossible to differentiate the effects of age from the
effects of organizational tenure. It is plausible that the relationship between
salary and job satisfaction is driven, at least in part, by tenure, not age.
That is, the longer people stay at an organization, the more important it is to
their job satisfaction that their contributions be recognized through higher pay.
Unfortunately, the archival ASOC data set did not include a variable measuring
organizational tenure. Future research should include organizational tenure as a

control variable to distinguish the effects of tenure from age.
There is also a theoretical limitation to our analyses. Socioemotional selec-
tivity theory seeks to explain age-related differences in social and emotional
experiences but, ironically, does not credit age per se. In the theory, socioemo-
tional changes are not credited to time since birth but, instead, to time until
death. Certainly, due to the nature of human mortality, the two variables are
strongly correlated; they are, however, conceptually distinct. A fit and healthy
70-year-old may expect to live another 20 years, whereas a sickly 60-year-old
may expect to only live another 10 years, and a 30-year-old with a terminal
illness may expect to live only a few more months. Future research could inves-
tigate the relationship between socioemotional changes and time until death
directly by asking participants not only how old they are but also how much
longer they expect to live.
Conclusion
This article used socioemotional selectivity theory to predict how the relation-
ship between job characteristics and job satisfaction would change as workers
aged. Results provided some support for the theory, in that the relationship
between autonomy and job satisfaction increased with age. Contrary to the
theory, the relationship between annual income and job satisfaction also
increased with age. Practical implications and limitations of the study
were discussed.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.
ORCID iD
Thomas M. Cavanagh http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2222-290X
References
AARP. (2013). Staying ahead of the curve 2013: Snapshot of the wants and needs of older
workers. Washington, DC: Author.
Alexopoulos, E. C., Palatsidi, V., Tigani, X., & Darviri, C. (2014). Exploring stress levels,
job satisfaction, and quality of life in a sample of police officers in Greece. Safety and
Health at Work, 5, 210–215.
Cavanagh et al. 79
Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S. (1991). Work–home conflict among nurses
and engineers: Mediating the impact of role stress on burnout and Satisfaction at
work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 39–53.
Begley, T. M., & Czajka, J. M. (1993). Panel analysis of the moderating effects of com-
mitment on job satisfaction, intent to quit, and health following organizational
change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 552–556.
Besen, E., Matz-Costa, C., Brown, M., Smyer, M. A., & Pitt-Catsouphes, M. (2013).
Job characteristics, core self-evaluations, and job satisfaction: What’s age got to do
with it? The International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 76, 269–295.
Blau, G. (1993). Further exploring the relationship between job search and voluntary
individual turnover. Personnel Psychology, 46, 313–330.
Bluedorn, A. C. (1982). A unified model of turnover from organizations. Human
Relations, 35, 135–153.
Bluen, S. D., Barling, J., & Burns, W. (1990). Predicting sales performance, job satisfac-
tion, and depression by using the achievement strivings and impatience-irritability
dimensions of Type A behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 212–216.
Boumans, N. P. G., De Jong, A. H. J., & Janssen, S. M. (2011). Age-differences in work
motivation and job satisfaction: The influence of age on the relationships between
work characteristics and workers’ outcomes. The International Journal of Aging &
Human Development, 73, 331–350.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D. J., & Klesh, J. R. (1983). Assessing the attitudes
and perceptions of organizational members. In S. D. Seashore, E. E. Lawler, P. H.
Mirvis, & C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizational change. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Campion, M. A. (1988). Interdisciplinary approaches to job design: A constructive rep-
lication with extensions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 467–481.
Carstensen, L. L. (1993). Motivation for social contact across the life span: A theory of
socioemotional selectivity. In J. E. Jacobs (Ed.) Nebraska symposium on motivation:
1992, developmental perspectives on motivation (Vol. 40, pp. 209–254). Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska Press.
Carstensen, L. L., Mikels, J. A., & Mather, M. (2006). Aging and the intersection of
cognition, motivation, and emotion. In James E. Birren & K. Warner Schaie (Eds.),
Handbook of the psychology of aging (6th ed., pp. 343–362). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Champoux, J. E. (1991). A multivariate test of the job characteristics theory of work
motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 431–446.
Charles, S. T., & Carstensen, L. L. (2010). Social and emotional aging. Annual Review of
Psychology, 61, 383–409.
Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors with aggression,
withdrawal, theft and substance use: An exploratory study. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 65, 177–184.
Cohen, A., & Golan, R. (2007). Predicting absenteeism and turnover intentions by past
absenteeism and work attitudes: An empirical examination of female employees in
long term nursing care facilities. Career Development International, 12, 416–432.
Crampton, S. M., & Wagner, J. A., I. I. (1994). Percept-percept inflation in microorga-
nizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied
Crook, T. R., Todd, S. Y., Combs, J. G., Woehr, D. J., & Ketchen, D. J. (2011).
Does human capital matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between human cap-
ital and firm performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 443–456.
Ebner, N. C., Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (2006). Developmental changes in personal
goal orientation from young to late adulthood: From striving for gains to mainte-
nance and prevention of losses. Psychology and Aging, 21, 664–678.
Erikson, E. (1964). Insight and responsibility. New York, NY: Norton.
Eurostat. (2015). Demography report. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/docu
ments/7330775/7339482/Demographyþreportþ%E2%80%93 þ 2015þedition/
ce8144e3-8e9b-427d-b6a2-61ff42950d41
Fisher, G. G., Matthews, R. A., & Gibbons, A. M. (2016). Developing and investigating
the use of single-item measures in organizational research. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 21, 3–23.
Fox, M. L., Dwyer, D. J., & Ganster, D. C. (1993). Effects of stressful job demands and
control on physiological and attitudinal outcomes in a hospital setting. Academy of
Management Journal, 36, 289–318.
Freund, A. M. (2006). Age-differential motivational consequences of optimization
versus compensation focus in younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging,
21, 240–252.
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review
and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40, 287–322.
Grossman, R. J. (2013). Invest in older workers. HR Magazine, 58, 20–25.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159–170.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test
of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.
Hammer, T. H., & Landau, J. (1981). Methodological issues in the use of absence data.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 574–581.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship
between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268–279.
Hulin, C. L., Roznowski, M., & Hachiya, D. (1985). Alternative opportunities and with-
drawal decisions: Empirical and theoretical discrepancies and an integration.
Psychological Bulletin, 97, 233–250.
Jex, S. M., & Gudanowski, D. M. (1992). Efficacy beliefs and work stress: An exploratory
study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 509–517.
Judge, T. A., & Church, A. H. (2000). Job satisfaction: Research and practice. In C. L.
Cooper & E. A. Locke (Eds.), Industrial and organizational psychology: Linking theory
with practice (pp. 166–198). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
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.
Judge, T. A., & Watanabe, S. (1993). Another look at the job satisfaction-life satisfaction
relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 939–948.
Jurgensen, C. E. (1978). Job preferences (What makes a job good or bad?). Journal of
Applied Psychology, 63, 267–276.
Cavanagh et al. 81
Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (2004). Aging, adult development, and work motivation.
Academy of Management Review, 29, 440–458.
Kay, F. M. (2008). Professional monopolies and divisive practices in law: ‘les femmes
juridiques’ in civil law, Canada. International Journal of Law in Context, 4, 187–215.
Keenan, A., & Newton, T. J. (1984). Frustration in organizations: Relationships to role
stress, climate, and psychological strain. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 57, 57–65.
Knight, N. E. (1990). Student perceptions of college work-study experiences at Iowa
State University: A descriptive analysis. Retrospective Theses and Dissertations.
16774. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/16774.
Kooij, D., de Lange, A., Jansen, P., & Dikkers, J. (2007). Older workers’ motivation to
continue to work: Five meanings of age. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
23, 364–394.
Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behav-
ior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: A unit-level, longitudinal analysis.
Personnel Psychology, 54, 101–114.
Lance, C. E., Lautenschlager, G. J., Sloan, C. E., & Varca, P. E. (1989). A comparison
between bottom-up, top-down, and bidirectional models of relationships between
global and life facet satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 57, 601–624.
Latham, G. P., & Pinder, C. C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn
of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485–516.
Lee, C., Ashford, S. J., & Bobko, P. (1990). Interactive effects of “Type A” behavior and
perceived control on worker performance, job satisfaction, and somatic complaints.
Academy of Management Journal, 33, 870–881.
Lee, R. T., & Ashforth, B. E. (1993). A further examination of managerial burnout:
Toward an integrated model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 3–20.
Lee, J., Cho, D., & Suh, Y. J. (2017). Purpose and meaning in life and job satisfaction
among the aged. The International Journal of Aging & Human Development,
85, 377–402.
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). A meta-analysis of the dimensionality of
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52–65.
Linz, S. J. (2004). Motivating Russian workers: Analysis of gender and age differences.
Journal of Socioeconomics, 33, 261–289.
Loher, B. T., Noe, R. A., Moeller, N. L., & Fitzgerald, M. P. (1985). A meta-analysis of
the relation of job characteristics to job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology,
70, 280–289.
Lord, R. L. (2004). Empirical evaluation of classical behavioural theories with respect to
the motivation of older knowledge workers (Dissertation). University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa, AL.
Loscocco, K. A., & Kalleberg, A. L. (1988). Age and the meaning of work in the United
States and Japan. Social Forces, 67, 337–356.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of
McAdams, D. P., & de St. Aubin, E. (Eds.). (1998). Generativity and adult development.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
McAdams, D. P., de St. Aubin, E., & Logan, R. L. (1993). Generativity among young,
midlife, and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 8, 221–230.
McNeely, B. L., & Meglino, B. M. (1994). The role of dispositional and situational
antecedents in prosocial organizational behavior: An examination of the
intended beneficiaries of prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,
79, 836–844.
Messersmith, J. G., Patel, P. C., Lepak, D. P., & Gould-Williams, J. S. (2011). Unlocking
the black box: Exploring the link between high-performance work systems and per-
formance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1105–1118.
Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. W., Hand, H. H., & Meglino, B. M. (1979). Review and
conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin,
86, 493–522.
Mount, M. K., and Barrick, M. R. (1995). The big five personality dimensions:
Implications for research and practice in human resources management. Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13(3), 153–200.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 392–423.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). The relationships of age with job attitudes:
A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 63, 677–718.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). Evaluating six common stereotypes about older
workers with meta-analytical data. Personnel Psychology, 65, 821–858.
O’Driscoll, M. P., & Beehr, T. A. (1994). Supervisor behaviors, role stressors and uncer-
tainty as predictors of personal outcomes for subordinates. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 15, 141–155.
Oldham, G. R. (1976). Job characteristics and internal motivation: The moderating
effects of interpersonal and individual variables. Human Relations, 29, 559–569.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and
dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel
Ostroff, C. (1992). The relationship between satisfaction, attitudes, and performance: An
organizational level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 963–974.
Paggi, M. E., & Jopp, D. S. (2015). Outcomes of occupational self-efficacy in older
workers. The International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 80, 357–378.
Palmore, E. (1969). Predicting longevity: A follow-up controlling for age. The
Gerontologist, 9, 247–250.
Rain, J. S., Lane, I. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1991). A current look at job satisfaction/life
satisfaction relationship: Review and future considerations. Human Relations,
44, 287–305.
Rhodes, S. R. (1983). Age-related differences in work attitudes and behavior. A review
and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 328–367.
Riketta, M. (2008). The causal relation between job attitudes and performance: A meta-
analysis of panel studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 472–481.
Roberts, B. A., Fuhrer, R., Marmot, M., & Richards, M. (2011). Does retirement influ-
ence cognitive performance? The Whitehall II study. Journal of Epidemiology and
Community Health, 65, 958–963.
Cavanagh et al. 83
Rusbult, C. E., & Farrell, D. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The
impact on job satisfaction, job commitment, and investments. Journal of Applied
Scarpello, V., & Campbell, J. P. (1983). Job satisfaction: Are all the parts there? Personnel
Schaubroeck, J., Gangster, D. C., & Fox, M. L. (1992). Dispositional affect and work-
related stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 322–335.
Shirom, A. (1989). Burnout in work organizations. In C. L. Copper & I. T. Robertson
(Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 25–48).
Chichester, England: Wiley.
Shore, L. M., Newton, L. A., & Thornton, G. C., I. I. (1990). Job and organizational
attitudes in relation to employee behavioral intentions. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 11, 57–67.
Spector, P. E. (1988). Development of the work locus of control scale. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 61, 335–340.
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and consequences.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Steers, R. M., & Rhodes, S. (1978). Major influences on employee attendance: A process
model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 391–407.
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover
intention, and turnover: Path analysis based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel
Tharenou, P. (1993). A test of reciprocal causality for absenteeism. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 14, 269–290.
Toossi, M., & Torpey, E. (2017, May). Older workers: Labor force trends and career
options. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/career
outlook/2017/article/older-workers.htm
Towler, A., Kraiger, K., Sitzmann, T., Van Overberghe, C., Cruz, J., Ronen, E., &
Stewart, D. (2008). The seductive details effect in technology-delivered instruction.
Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21, 1–23.
Truxillo, D. M., Cadiz, D. M., & Hammer, L. B. (2015). Supporting the aging workforce:
A review and recommendations for workplace intervention research. Annual. Review
of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 351–381.
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017). Employment projections—2016-26.
Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecopro.pdf
VanDerhei, J. (2010). Retirement savings shortfalls for today’s workers. Employee Benefit
Research Institute: Notes, 31, 2–9.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good
are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247–252.
Warr, P. (1997). Age, work and mental health. In K. W. Schaie & W. I. E. Schooler
(Eds.), The impact of work on older adults (pp. 252–296). New York, NY: Springer.
Weaver, C. N. (1978). Job satisfaction as a component of happiness among males and
females. Personnel Psychology, 31, 831–840.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H. (1967). Manual for the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation,
No. 22. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Whitman, D. S., van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Satisfaction, citizenship
behaviors, and performance in work units: A meta-analysis of collective construct
relations. Personnel Psychology, 63, 41–81.
Author Biographies
Thomas M. Cavanagh, PhD, is an assistant professor of management at the
Barowsky School of Business at Dominican University of San Rafael. His
research interests include older workers, leadership, and communication.
Kurt Kraiger, PhD, is a professor and chair of the department of management,

Fogelman College of Business and Economics, University of Memphis. His
research focuses on learning in ill-structured environments.
Kim L. Henry, holds a PhD in biobehavioral health from the Pennsylvania State
University. Her research focuses on prevention science and positive youth
development.

Age-Related Changes On The Effects of Job Characteristics On Job Satisfaction A Longitudinal Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Age-Related Changes On The Effects of Job Characteristics On Job Satisfaction A Longitudinal Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article

The International Journal of Aging

Characteristics on DOI: 10.1177/0091415019837996

Importance of Older Workers

Affective Changes Associated With Aging

Job Characteristics and Work Motivation

Individual Differences and the Impact of Job Characteristics

Age and Job Satisfaction

The Current Study

Laboratory at the University of Illinois, under the direction of principal inves-

Autonomy at work. On each interview occasion, respondents were asked, “Who

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Variables of Interest.

Age (first interview) 6519 55.49 18.68

interclass correlation (ICC). The ICC is the proportion of the between-person

Table 2. Results of the Unconditional Growth Model.

Intercept 2.65 0.02 1435.05 137.36 >.001 2.61 2.68

Intercept 2.641 0.019 1436.77 136.05 >.001 2.603 2.679

Intercept 2.628 0.020 1507.21 131.352 >.001 2.589 2.667

mean level of autonomy at work and willingness to recommend one’s job to a

Intercept 2.654 0.022 1284.89 120.60 >.001 2.611 2.697

Intercept 2.632 0.023 1342.77 115.20 >.001 2.587 2.676

organizational tenure. Future research should include organizational tenure as a

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Kurt Kraiger, PhD, is a professor and chair of the department of management,

You might also like