1996
DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1379(199603)17:2<191::aid-job777>3.3.co;2-o
|Get access via publisher |Summarize |Cite
Does trait affect promote job attitude stability?
Abstract: SummaryTrait affect has been studied as a factor which may help explain why job attitudes tend to be rather enduring over time. In this study, test-retest correlations of various job attitudes measured 7 years apart were relatively unaffected by controlling for five measures of affective disposition.
Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Select...
13
2
1
1
Citation Types
2
17
1
0
Year Published
1998
2020
Publication Types
Select...
11
4
Relationship
1
14
Authors
Journals
Cited by 15 publications
(20 citation statements)
References 0 publications
2
17
1
0
“…Shaw et al's (1999, 2003) results supported the predicted interaction between PA and salary level in relating to administration/structure and benefits satisfaction, though not to pay level or pay raise satisfaction (Shaw et al, 1999), and between PA and merit increase size in relating to happiness with the increase and intent to work harder, though not to change in pay level satisfaction (Shaw et al, 2003). Consistent with previous studies (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Schaubroeck et al, 1996), Shaw et al's (1999) results also supported their argument that NA should not relate to positive outcomes because positively regarded systems do not activate it. We argue that PA should not be activated by a negatively regarded system; therefore, it should not predict reactions when pay decisions are viewed as negative.…”
Section: The Met Expectations Hypothesissupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Shaw et al's (1999, 2003) results supported the predicted interaction between PA and salary level in relating to administration/structure and benefits satisfaction, though not to pay level or pay raise satisfaction (Shaw et al, 1999), and between PA and merit increase size in relating to happiness with the increase and intent to work harder, though not to change in pay level satisfaction (Shaw et al, 2003). Consistent with previous studies (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Schaubroeck et al, 1996), Shaw et al's (1999) results also supported their argument that NA should not relate to positive outcomes because positively regarded systems do not activate it. We argue that PA should not be activated by a negatively regarded system; therefore, it should not predict reactions when pay decisions are viewed as negative.…”
Section: The Met Expectations Hypothesissupporting
confidence: 89%
“…A further alternative explanation worth considering is that an unknown third variable may be responsible for the observed relationships. As for the most likely candidate of a third variable explaining the relationships that we found, personality (George, 1992), results by Schaubroeck, Ganster and Kemmerer (1996) suggest that trait affect explains correlations of job attitudes only to a moderate extent. Because we did not measure personality traits, we cannot rule out this possibility.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 79%
“…Job satisfaction encompasses elements that could evoke both reward-sensitivity and punishment-sensitivity. By contrast, our theoretical position and preliminary empirical evidence (e.g., Folger & Konovsky, 1989;Schaubroeck et al, 1996) suggest thatpay satisfaction evokes reward-sensitivity only.…”
Section: Signal Sensitivity Perspectivecontrasting
confidence: 71%
