This study investigated the mediating role of basic psychological needs at work in the association from work values to job satisfaction. Using a four-factor model of work values, we tested how each work value factor was related to basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration at work. The sample included 228 workers (72% female) surveyed twice over a 7-week interval. Results showed that need satisfaction at work was positively predicted by intrinsic and social work values and negatively predicted by extrinsic work values. Need frustration at work was positively predicted by extrinsic and status work values and negatively predicted by intrinsic work values. Also, need satisfaction fully mediated the relationship from intrinsic, extrinsic, and social work values to job satisfaction. These findings suggest that organizational and career development interventions aiming to enhance employees need satisfaction at work should aim to promote growth-oriented work values endorsement rather than instrumental work values.
The association between work values and key motivational variables has been repeatedly supported in previous studies. However, little attention has been devoted to understanding intraindividual patterns of work values and how combinations of work values relate to other motivational variables. This study aimed to identify profiles of work values based on a four-factor model (i.e., intrinsic, extrinsic, social, and status). It also investigated how profile membership relates to basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration at work using a self-determination perspective. A sample of French Canadian adults (N = 476) participated in this study by filling out an online questionnaire. Latent profile analyses revealed five distinct work values profiles. Results showed that participants in more positive profiles (i.e., high level of intrinsic, social, and status work values) generally reported higher level of need satisfaction and lower level of need frustration at work than participants belonging to more negative profiles (i.e., low level of intrinsic, social, and status work values). These results support the importance of considering work values in organizational and career development interventions, and to do so using a person-centered approach, to better understand need satisfaction and frustration at work.
The use of unproctored Internet‐based testing (IBT) for personality assessment is increasingly popular, especially in personnel selection. Previous studies on its equivalence to traditional proctored paper‐and‐pencil testing (PPT) have used between‐subjects designs, which makes it difficult to separate intergroup effects from format effects, and have shown mixed results. The aim of the present study was to assess the quantitative, qualitative, and auxiliary equivalence of unproctored IBT and proctored PPT of personality, using a within‐sample design. Undergraduate students (n = 407) completed both an Internet and a paper‐and‐pencil version of a measure of the Big Five, with a 1 to 3 week interval. The proctored paper‐and‐pencil assessment was completed in class and the unproctored Internet assessment was completed at the time and place chosen by the participants. Results showed effect sizes for mean differences to vary from null to small. Skewness and kurtosis indices, reliability coefficients, intercorrelations magnitudes, as well as factor solutions, were highly similar across formats. Respondents did not prefer IBT over PPT on a series of statement about their perceptions and reactions to IBT. In conclusion, results suggest that IBT and PPT of the Big Five personality traits are equivalent, and that the data obtained are comparable across formats.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.