2009
DOI: 10.1080/13594320701873264
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A note on the relationship between affect(ivity) and differing conceptualizations of job satisfaction: Some unexpected meta-analytic findings

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
42
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
0
42
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Theoretical approaches to measure worker SWB reflect the model used in the broader psychological sciences. In the organizational sciences, measures of job satisfaction are typically understood to capture primarily the cognitive aspects of SWB, whereas measures of job affect primarily capture the affective aspects of SWB (Kaplan et al, 2009). Multi-dimensional measures of job satisfaction include dimensions such as satisfaction with work, supervisor, colleagues, pay, communication, and promotion (Job Descriptive Index (JDI); Smith et al, 1969).…”
Section: Swb and Physiological Functioningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Theoretical approaches to measure worker SWB reflect the model used in the broader psychological sciences. In the organizational sciences, measures of job satisfaction are typically understood to capture primarily the cognitive aspects of SWB, whereas measures of job affect primarily capture the affective aspects of SWB (Kaplan et al, 2009). Multi-dimensional measures of job satisfaction include dimensions such as satisfaction with work, supervisor, colleagues, pay, communication, and promotion (Job Descriptive Index (JDI); Smith et al, 1969).…”
Section: Swb and Physiological Functioningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Kunin (1955) faces scale has a strong affective component, whereas the job itself intrinsic satisfaction scale is more cognitive (see Kaplan, Warren, Barsky, & Thoresen, 2009). We wanted to balance these components and give equal weight to each of them.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This distinction is important because, when a given JS satisfaction measure primarily taps the affective aspects of satisfaction, then the role of affective dispositions should be more pronounced; conversely, when the JS measure is more cognitive in nature, one would except affect influence to be less strong (Kaplan et al, 2009). Therefore it is plausible that emotion-related dispositions should be related primarily to affective constructs of JS.…”
Section: Group Evaluative Judgment Of Managers' Trait Ei and Group Jsmentioning
confidence: 93%