1965
DOI: 10.1037/h0021692
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The definition and measurement of job involvement.

Abstract: Job involvement is tile degree to wliiclr a person is itlentifietl pv;ycliologicaliy with his work, or the importance of work in his total self-image. Very little is presently known about this class of job attitudes, although speculations almui. it are implicit in mucli ol the work on industrial motivation, especj:llly th:it which deals with "participation." The purpose oE the present research .rv;is to define job involvement, develop a scale for measuring it, gather evidence on the reliability and validity of… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

12
957
5
66

Year Published

1996
1996
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1,461 publications
(1,068 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
(2 reference statements)
12
957
5
66
Order By: Relevance
“…Cases in point are the definitions of organisational commitment by Allen and Meyer (1990), Cook and Wall (1980), Mowday et al (1979), and Porter, Steers, Mowday and Boulian (1974). When job involvement is more closely examined, one finds different definitions by Allport (1943) Lodahl and Kejner (1965), Pinder (1984) and Reitz and Jewell (1979). The same argument is applied in the case of work involvement when the definitions by Jans (1982), Kanungo (1982a), and Newton and Keenan (1983) are revisited.…”
Section: Lack Of a Comparative Theoretical Basis Between Commitment Focimentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Cases in point are the definitions of organisational commitment by Allen and Meyer (1990), Cook and Wall (1980), Mowday et al (1979), and Porter, Steers, Mowday and Boulian (1974). When job involvement is more closely examined, one finds different definitions by Allport (1943) Lodahl and Kejner (1965), Pinder (1984) and Reitz and Jewell (1979). The same argument is applied in the case of work involvement when the definitions by Jans (1982), Kanungo (1982a), and Newton and Keenan (1983) are revisited.…”
Section: Lack Of a Comparative Theoretical Basis Between Commitment Focimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This may result in construct contamination with other measures that tap into the same manifest behaviours such as job satisfaction, job dissatisfaction or even positive and negative affectivity. Also, many measures (Lodahl & Kejner, 1965;Patchen, 1965) contain items that refer to consequential conditions or behaviours of commitment. This may result in construct contamination with other measures that tap into the same manifest behaviours such as job satisfaction, negative affectivity, organisational citizenship, tardiness, absenteeism and intention to leave.…”
Section: Distinguishing the State Of Commitment From Its Antecedentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Job involvement, originally defined by Lodahl and Kejner (1965) as the "degree to which a person is psychologically identified with his work," has frequently been measured on a scale constructed from a list of items. Because we cannot construct a classic job involvement scale, we choose to capture two psychological and behavioral dimensions of job involvement and employee effort.…”
Section: The Indicators Of Employee Attitudes and Effortmentioning
confidence: 99%