P~ychologicalReporrs, 1976, 38, 603-610. @ Psychological Reports 1976
SELF-CONCEPT A N D JOB SATISFACTION CHARLES DAVID SNYDER1 A N D LEONARD W. FERGUSON
Ohio University Summary.-Authors outline procedures to construct 6 pair-comparisons, satisfaction-based, self-concept scales and show only one to produce scores related to employee satisfaction/dissatisfaction.
The term self-concept is singularly absent from literature on job-satisfaction: witness, the chapter on "Motivation and job satisfaction'' in the current and sixth edition of a widely used text on lndu~trialpsychology (McCormick & Tiffin, 1974). In that chapter the authors discuss, in relation to job satisfaction, needs and incentives (after Maslow, 1970); need gratification (after Wolf, 1970); job involvement (after Lodahl & Kejner, 1965); valences, instrumentalities, and expectancies (after Vroom, 1964); intrinsic and extrinsic factors or motivators and hygienes (after Herzberg, 1966; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959); achievement-oriented activity (after Atkinson, 1957; Atkinson & Feather, 1966, pp. 327-370; McClelland, 1961); work values (after Porter, 1963); occupational goals (after Goodwin, 1969); and attitudes (after Brayfield & Crockett, 1955). One can argue that each concept which McCormick and Tiffin discuss is related in so intimate a way to self-concept that no separate discussion of the term is necessary. Despite that possibility, the fact remains that, except for Korman's work on self-esteem (Korman, 1971, pp. 143-146), so little attention has been given to possible interactions between self-concept and job satisfaction that a study of the empirical relations (if any) between selfconcept and job satisfaction seems long overdue. The authors chose as a job-satisfaction assessment device the well-known Job Descriptive Index ( J D I ) developed by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin ( 1969). They chose as measures of self-concept, scores based upon responses to items in selected subsets of items from Ferguson's 150-item, pair-comparisons, person-perception form (Ferguson, 1970). The pair-comparisons items for each predictor subset were selected to produce a self-concept score related to a predesignated and "adjusted" JDI satisfaction score. Before selecting the pair-comparisons items for a given self-concept scale, the authors subjected scores on the JDI scales to a procedure which made the mean interscale correlation near zero (-.04). The purpose of this report is to describe the 'Mr. Snyder has recendy completed work for his MBA degree, College of Business Administration, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio. He and LWF hereby thank Drs. Patricia Cain Smith and L. K. Waters for critical reading and commentary upon early versions of the manuscript.
GO4
C. D. SNYDER & L. W. FERGUSON
methods which produced the low JDI interscale correlations and the paircomparisons, self-concept scales.
METHOD Data were secured by Ohio University students supervised by both a ~ t h o r s . ~Sponsorship by the Athens (Ohio) Chamber of Commerce encouraged Athens employers to grant permission for investigators to contact employees. Ad7nilzistration of Fo7ms I n approaching an employee the investigator or associate explained the purpose as securing (on an anonymous basis) an assessment of certain aspects of the employee's job and a rating of self or supervisor. If the employee agreed to participate, there were spread before him or her several unmarked envelopes, of which one was to be selected. "All the envelopes," said the investigator, "contain forms asking you to describe your job. Half contain forms which ask you to rate yourself; the other half, your supervisor. The envelope you choose is to determine whether you rate your supervisor or yourself." In addition, the investigator explained that each envelope contained an ID (identification) number to be placed-by the employee-on each of two IBM answer sheets upon which responses were to be recorded. The fact that each participant was allowed to choose the envelope containing the response forms assured each employee that he could not be identified (there was no secret code) and allowed chance to determine whether the employee was to rate self or supervisor.
subject^
All respondents were employees of Ohio University or of business establishments located in or near Athens, Ohio. More than 600 employees completed answer sheets in sufficient detail for all planned analyses. Three hundred and five employees selected envelopes containing request that his/her supervisor be rated; the remaining employees (approximately 300) selected envelopes containing request that self be rated. As indicated earlier, every employee was asked to complete the JDI. Thirty-one percent of the respondents were male; 69%, female. Fortyfive percent of the respondents had supervisory responsibility. Sixteen percent were 19 yr. or younger, 37% were 20 to 24, 22% were 25 to 29, 13% 'The authors hereby thank each organization that permitted employees to be interviewed, each employee who responded, and each associate who helped to collect data: Debbie Baker, Daryl Douple, D. Duerksen, Gary French, Zaid Goussous, Martha Hand Schumacher, N. Harper, Steven C. Hunt, Neal Kanoff, Linda Lombard, Thomas McClellan, Ronald Shoemaker. Scott Simon, Mark J. Smallhoover, R Spring, Pam Wagner, and Jan Washam.
SELF-CONCEPT A N D JOB SATISFACTION
605
were 30 to 34, and 12% were 35 yr. or older. Fifty-two percent had been employed less than 2 yr.; 16%, 2 yr, but less than 3 yr.; 1596, 3 yr. but less than 4 yr.; lo%, 4 yr. but less than 5 yr.; 796, 5 yr. or more. Thirty-six percent were clerical workers, 25% were in sales work, 7 % were in administrative work, 1% were in educational work, 31% were in a variety of miscellaneous categories. Sixty-two percent of the respondents were paid by the hour, 17% by the week, 13% by the month, 8% were on piece rates. Each envelope given to a respondent contained seven items: a Chamber of Commerce letter explaining the nature and the purpose of the inquiry, an I D number, two IBM answer sheets, two inquiry forms, and an instruction sheet. The items of interest here are the report forms: ( a ) a person-perception form and ( b ) a modified version of the JDI." Job Descriptive Index.-The JDI, developed by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969), was modified in two ways. Instructions were changed to make it possible for a respondent to use an IBM answer sheet, and a sixth section was added. That sixth section asked the respondent to describe "the majority of the people you meet in connection with your work (excluding your supervisor or supervisors and other people who work for the same organization you do)." Items for this section were identical with those for the section asking a respondent to describe his fellow employees. Each respondent's completed JDI was scored in accord with the method devised by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969, pp. 79-80). In addition, for each section two other scores were computed: (1) a "total" score equal to the sum of scores on all sections of the JDI, excluding score on the section under immediate review; and ( 2 ) an "adjusted section score that made scores on the section relatively independent of scores on each other section. Person perception.-For the present research, instructions told a respondent to read the pair of adjectives in each of 150 items and to check the one which better described self. Data for any respondent who omitted five or more items were excluded from analysis. (Results when supervisor was the perceptual target are to be given elsewhere.) Reducing ]Dl ln~erscaleCorrelatio~zs T o aid in the discovery of pair-comparisons items containing adjectives descriptive of self, the authors desired (for each JDI dimension) criterion scores independent-so far as possible-of those on all other JDI scales. T o accomplish the foregoing, steps as follows were taken. 'The copyright of the JDI has been transferred to Bowling Green State University. The scales may be obtained from Dr. Patricia Cain Smith, Deparunent of Psychology, Bowling Green Stare University, Bowling Green, Ohio 43403. Permission to modify the copyrighted form for our research was granted by Dr. Smith.
606
C. D. SNYDER & L. W. FERGUSON
( 1 ) For each JDI section, the authors converted the raw-score distribution into a normalized stanine distribution, such that 4% of the cases fell into Stanine 1, 7% into Stanine 2, 12% into Stanine 3, 17% into Stanine 4, 20% into Stanine 5 , 17% into Stanine 6, 12% into Stanine 7, 7% into Stanine 8, and 4% into Stanine 9. For two sections (pay and promotion), due to bunching of cases toward the lower ends of the distributions, certain stanine categories contained no case or a percentage of cases not in accord with an ideal normalized distribution. ( 2 ) For each JDI section and for each respondent, the authors computed a "total" score equal to the sum of the scores on the five sections of the JDI not under immediate review, e.g., if work scores were the focus of interest, "total" score on the JDI was the sum of scores on the remaining sections: pay, promotion, associates, supervision, and others. For each section the total-score distribution appropriate for that section was converted into a normalized stanine distribution. The authors make no claim that a JDI "total" score, as just defined, can serve any one of the prime purposes for which the JDI was designed; but for the aims of the present research, such a "total" score was needed. ( 3 ) For each JDI section, the authors prepared a scatterplot to display the relation between scores on the section and the appropriate "total" JDI score, i.e., the total that did ?tot include, as a component part, score on the section to which that total was to be related. ( 4 ) Separately for each section, and for each total-score stanine category, the authors prepared cumulative-frequency and cumulative-percentage distributions and determined appropriate standardized section-stanine scores. Raw scores on each section were converted, via percentile ranks, into stanines in accord with the following schedule: 0% to 3% = Stanine 1, 4% to 10% = Stanine 2, 11% to 22% = Stanine 3, 23% to 39% = Stanine 4, 40% to 59% = Stanine 5, 60% to 76% = Stanine 6, 77% to 88% = Stanine 7, 89% to 95 % = Stanine 8, and 96% to 100% = Stanine 9. Stanine section scores as just computed offer no substitute for the i~tterpretutivenorms that the authors of the JDI have established. They were needed for the present research as a basis for subdividing respondents in the Athens sample into groups relatively low and relatively high on each JDI dimension. Reference to and use of earlier-established interpretative norms would not have served the authors' purpose. ( 5 ) By procedures described elsewhere (Ferguson, 1959) stanine values were smoothed; then, used as standard scores co assess an employee's position on each JDI dimension, given his position on the total-score variable. ( 6 ) The authors correlated (via Pearson r ) all adjasted section scores with each other and secured the results presented below the diagonal in Table
SELF-CONCEPT AND JOB SATISFACTION
607
1. Had the described procedures not been followed, the mean JDI sectionscore intercorrelation would have been near .40. See the intercorrelations (Pearson r ) unadjusted for correlation with "total" score as given above the diagonal in Table 1. Every correlation above the diagonal in Table 1 is positive, but 11 of those below the diagonal are negative. The negative correlations result, undoubtedly, from "overcorrection." Each correlation below the diagonal in Table 1 shows the relation between two series of section scores each of which has been adjusted for correlation with "total" score. When two adjusted scores are intercorrelated, the total-score effect has been nvice partialled out, causing overcorrection. TABLE 1
INT'ERCORRELATIONS AMONGSCORESON JDI * TDI Scale
Work
Pay
Promotion Associates Supervision
Others
.31 .39 .46 .59 .42 Work Pay -.03 .47 .33 .35 .32 Promotion -.03 .11 .32 .4 1 .26 Associates -.03 -.08 -. 16 .47 .50 Supervision .I0 -.06 -.03 -.09 .4 1 Others .01 -.lo -.21 .06 -.I5 'Below diagonal, zs (N = 660) hased on "adjusted" JDI scores; above diagonal, rs ( N = 196) based on "random" sample of unadjusted JDI scores.
Selection of Criterion Cases After securing JDI section scores nearly uncorrelated with each other, the authors designated (by means of those scores and for the Athens sample) certain respondents as having relatively low scores; others, as having relatively high scores. On each of four JDI sections, a low-scoring respondent was one with a stanine score of 4 or less; a high-scoring respondent, one with a stanine score of 6 or more. On the pay section a low-scoring respondent was one with a stanine score of 2, 3, or 4 (no respondent secured a stanine score of 1); a high-scoring respondent, one with a stanine score of 7 or more. On the promotion section a low-scoring respondent was one with a stanine score of 4 or 5 (no respondent received a stanine score of 1, 2, or 3 ) ; a high-scoring respondent, one who received a stanine score of 7, 8, or 9. After each respondent was classified (on each JDI section) as having a relatively low score, a relatively high score, or neither, the authors subdivided respondents into ( a ) item-analysis and ( b ) cross-validation groups. Within each stanine classification, and separately for each JDI section, the authors selected every third case to be set aside as a member of a cross-validation group; the remaining two-thirds, as members of item-analysis groups. The numbers of cases in criterion item-analysis groups (low group; then, high group) were
608
C. D. SNYDER &
L. W. FERGUSON
as follows: 86 and 79 for work, 80 and 90 for pay, 80 and 95 for promotion, 60 and 105 for associates, 88 and 85 for supervision, and 81 and 85 for others.
ltem Analysis of Person-perception ltems ( 1 ) The authors counted ( a ) the number and calculated (b) the percent of respondents in each criterion group (for each JDI section) that claimed as self-descriptive each response adjective in each pair-comparisons, person-perception item (an item consists, as'earlier stated, of a pair of response adjectives). ( 2 ) For each response adjective, the authors counted ( a ) the number of items that contained an adjective that produced a difference of f 10 or more (an arbitrarily set criterion) between the percents of satisfied and dissatisfied respondents claiming it self-descriptive; also, ( b ) the number of items containing adjectives producing differences favoring each criterion group. ( 3 ) After excluding from further consideration response adjectives yielding inconsistent results the authors determined the mean percent of respondents claiming each adjective self-descriptive. If satisfied employees more often than dissatisfied employees claimed an adjective self-descriptive, the authors assigned a score weight of 1. If dissatisfied employees more often than satisfied employees claimed an adjective self-descriptive, the authors assigned a score weight of -1. For any one item in the 150-item, pair-comparisons form, this scheme resulted in the following possible weight assignments: ( a ) -1 and 1 or 1 and -1 (depending upon the position of the adjective in the item) for any item containing two discriminating response adjectives; ( b ) 0 and 1, 1 and 0, -1 and 0, or 0 and -1 for any item containing one discriminating adjective and one nondiscriminating adjective; and ( c ) 0 and 0 for any item containing no discriminating adjective. After determining score values for the response adjectives in the personperception items which discriminated between satisfied and dissatisfied employees on each of the "relatively independent" JDI sections, the authors applied the new scales to cross-validation groups and for each JDI dimension prepared a 3 X 3 bivariate distribution to show the extent to which scores on the appropriate self-concept scale related to JDI criterion scores. On both predictor and criterion scales, respondents with stanine scores of 1, 2, or 3 were considered below average;, respondents with stanine scores of 4, 5, or G were considered average; and respondents with stanine scores of 7, 8, or 9 were considered above average.
RESULTSAND DISCUSSION With five of the JDI dimensions (work, pay, promotion, supervision, others) self-concept, as assessed by the pair-comparisons scales described here-
SELF-CONCEPT AND JOB SATISFACTION
609
in, shows insignificant interaction; consequently, for them no data need be presented. Table 2 gives the data for the one JDI dimension (satisfaction/dissatisfaction with associates) with which self-concept, as assessed by the appropriate (31-item) pair-comparisons scale, shows interaction. Table 2 shows that as self-concept score increases, percent of above-average JDI scores does likewise: l o % , 19%, 41%; percent of below-average JDI scores declines: 3896, 1996, 14%. Chi square (based on frequencies) equals 12.35 (df = 4 ) and shows the relation to be significant at the .O1 level. TABLE 2 ASSOCIATES-REFERENCED SELF-CONCEPT SCORE AND SATISFACTION WITHASSOCIATES* JDI Scale for Associates Below Average ( n=21)
Self-concept score ( % ) t Average Above Average ( n = 74) ( n = 37)
Above Average Average Below Average Total 'Chi square = 12.35, df = 4, p .01. tScale has 31 pair-comparisons items in which 13 adjectives carry diagnostic weights. Carrying plus ( +) weights are humorous, humane, generous, popular, good-natured, altruistic, and talkative. Carrying minus ( - ) weights are imaginative, sociable, wise, reliable, strong, and persistent Carrying zero ( 0 ) weights are happy, honest, serious, good-looking, and important.
SELF-CONCEPT A N D JOB SATISFACTION CHARLES DAVID SNYDER1 A N D LEONARD W. FERGUSON
Ohio University Summary.-Authors outline procedures to construct 6 pair-comparisons, satisfaction-based, self-concept scales and show only one to produce scores related to employee satisfaction/dissatisfaction.
The term self-concept is singularly absent from literature on job-satisfaction: witness, the chapter on "Motivation and job satisfaction'' in the current and sixth edition of a widely used text on lndu~trialpsychology (McCormick & Tiffin, 1974). In that chapter the authors discuss, in relation to job satisfaction, needs and incentives (after Maslow, 1970); need gratification (after Wolf, 1970); job involvement (after Lodahl & Kejner, 1965); valences, instrumentalities, and expectancies (after Vroom, 1964); intrinsic and extrinsic factors or motivators and hygienes (after Herzberg, 1966; Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959); achievement-oriented activity (after Atkinson, 1957; Atkinson & Feather, 1966, pp. 327-370; McClelland, 1961); work values (after Porter, 1963); occupational goals (after Goodwin, 1969); and attitudes (after Brayfield & Crockett, 1955). One can argue that each concept which McCormick and Tiffin discuss is related in so intimate a way to self-concept that no separate discussion of the term is necessary. Despite that possibility, the fact remains that, except for Korman's work on self-esteem (Korman, 1971, pp. 143-146), so little attention has been given to possible interactions between self-concept and job satisfaction that a study of the empirical relations (if any) between selfconcept and job satisfaction seems long overdue. The authors chose as a job-satisfaction assessment device the well-known Job Descriptive Index ( J D I ) developed by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin ( 1969). They chose as measures of self-concept, scores based upon responses to items in selected subsets of items from Ferguson's 150-item, pair-comparisons, person-perception form (Ferguson, 1970). The pair-comparisons items for each predictor subset were selected to produce a self-concept score related to a predesignated and "adjusted" JDI satisfaction score. Before selecting the pair-comparisons items for a given self-concept scale, the authors subjected scores on the JDI scales to a procedure which made the mean interscale correlation near zero (-.04). The purpose of this report is to describe the 'Mr. Snyder has recendy completed work for his MBA degree, College of Business Administration, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio. He and LWF hereby thank Drs. Patricia Cain Smith and L. K. Waters for critical reading and commentary upon early versions of the manuscript.
GO4
C. D. SNYDER & L. W. FERGUSON
methods which produced the low JDI interscale correlations and the paircomparisons, self-concept scales.
METHOD Data were secured by Ohio University students supervised by both a ~ t h o r s . ~Sponsorship by the Athens (Ohio) Chamber of Commerce encouraged Athens employers to grant permission for investigators to contact employees. Ad7nilzistration of Fo7ms I n approaching an employee the investigator or associate explained the purpose as securing (on an anonymous basis) an assessment of certain aspects of the employee's job and a rating of self or supervisor. If the employee agreed to participate, there were spread before him or her several unmarked envelopes, of which one was to be selected. "All the envelopes," said the investigator, "contain forms asking you to describe your job. Half contain forms which ask you to rate yourself; the other half, your supervisor. The envelope you choose is to determine whether you rate your supervisor or yourself." In addition, the investigator explained that each envelope contained an ID (identification) number to be placed-by the employee-on each of two IBM answer sheets upon which responses were to be recorded. The fact that each participant was allowed to choose the envelope containing the response forms assured each employee that he could not be identified (there was no secret code) and allowed chance to determine whether the employee was to rate self or supervisor.
subject^
All respondents were employees of Ohio University or of business establishments located in or near Athens, Ohio. More than 600 employees completed answer sheets in sufficient detail for all planned analyses. Three hundred and five employees selected envelopes containing request that his/her supervisor be rated; the remaining employees (approximately 300) selected envelopes containing request that self be rated. As indicated earlier, every employee was asked to complete the JDI. Thirty-one percent of the respondents were male; 69%, female. Fortyfive percent of the respondents had supervisory responsibility. Sixteen percent were 19 yr. or younger, 37% were 20 to 24, 22% were 25 to 29, 13% 'The authors hereby thank each organization that permitted employees to be interviewed, each employee who responded, and each associate who helped to collect data: Debbie Baker, Daryl Douple, D. Duerksen, Gary French, Zaid Goussous, Martha Hand Schumacher, N. Harper, Steven C. Hunt, Neal Kanoff, Linda Lombard, Thomas McClellan, Ronald Shoemaker. Scott Simon, Mark J. Smallhoover, R Spring, Pam Wagner, and Jan Washam.
SELF-CONCEPT A N D JOB SATISFACTION
605
were 30 to 34, and 12% were 35 yr. or older. Fifty-two percent had been employed less than 2 yr.; 16%, 2 yr, but less than 3 yr.; 1596, 3 yr. but less than 4 yr.; lo%, 4 yr. but less than 5 yr.; 796, 5 yr. or more. Thirty-six percent were clerical workers, 25% were in sales work, 7 % were in administrative work, 1% were in educational work, 31% were in a variety of miscellaneous categories. Sixty-two percent of the respondents were paid by the hour, 17% by the week, 13% by the month, 8% were on piece rates. Each envelope given to a respondent contained seven items: a Chamber of Commerce letter explaining the nature and the purpose of the inquiry, an I D number, two IBM answer sheets, two inquiry forms, and an instruction sheet. The items of interest here are the report forms: ( a ) a person-perception form and ( b ) a modified version of the JDI." Job Descriptive Index.-The JDI, developed by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969), was modified in two ways. Instructions were changed to make it possible for a respondent to use an IBM answer sheet, and a sixth section was added. That sixth section asked the respondent to describe "the majority of the people you meet in connection with your work (excluding your supervisor or supervisors and other people who work for the same organization you do)." Items for this section were identical with those for the section asking a respondent to describe his fellow employees. Each respondent's completed JDI was scored in accord with the method devised by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969, pp. 79-80). In addition, for each section two other scores were computed: (1) a "total" score equal to the sum of scores on all sections of the JDI, excluding score on the section under immediate review; and ( 2 ) an "adjusted section score that made scores on the section relatively independent of scores on each other section. Person perception.-For the present research, instructions told a respondent to read the pair of adjectives in each of 150 items and to check the one which better described self. Data for any respondent who omitted five or more items were excluded from analysis. (Results when supervisor was the perceptual target are to be given elsewhere.) Reducing ]Dl ln~erscaleCorrelatio~zs T o aid in the discovery of pair-comparisons items containing adjectives descriptive of self, the authors desired (for each JDI dimension) criterion scores independent-so far as possible-of those on all other JDI scales. T o accomplish the foregoing, steps as follows were taken. 'The copyright of the JDI has been transferred to Bowling Green State University. The scales may be obtained from Dr. Patricia Cain Smith, Deparunent of Psychology, Bowling Green Stare University, Bowling Green, Ohio 43403. Permission to modify the copyrighted form for our research was granted by Dr. Smith.
606
C. D. SNYDER & L. W. FERGUSON
( 1 ) For each JDI section, the authors converted the raw-score distribution into a normalized stanine distribution, such that 4% of the cases fell into Stanine 1, 7% into Stanine 2, 12% into Stanine 3, 17% into Stanine 4, 20% into Stanine 5 , 17% into Stanine 6, 12% into Stanine 7, 7% into Stanine 8, and 4% into Stanine 9. For two sections (pay and promotion), due to bunching of cases toward the lower ends of the distributions, certain stanine categories contained no case or a percentage of cases not in accord with an ideal normalized distribution. ( 2 ) For each JDI section and for each respondent, the authors computed a "total" score equal to the sum of the scores on the five sections of the JDI not under immediate review, e.g., if work scores were the focus of interest, "total" score on the JDI was the sum of scores on the remaining sections: pay, promotion, associates, supervision, and others. For each section the total-score distribution appropriate for that section was converted into a normalized stanine distribution. The authors make no claim that a JDI "total" score, as just defined, can serve any one of the prime purposes for which the JDI was designed; but for the aims of the present research, such a "total" score was needed. ( 3 ) For each JDI section, the authors prepared a scatterplot to display the relation between scores on the section and the appropriate "total" JDI score, i.e., the total that did ?tot include, as a component part, score on the section to which that total was to be related. ( 4 ) Separately for each section, and for each total-score stanine category, the authors prepared cumulative-frequency and cumulative-percentage distributions and determined appropriate standardized section-stanine scores. Raw scores on each section were converted, via percentile ranks, into stanines in accord with the following schedule: 0% to 3% = Stanine 1, 4% to 10% = Stanine 2, 11% to 22% = Stanine 3, 23% to 39% = Stanine 4, 40% to 59% = Stanine 5, 60% to 76% = Stanine 6, 77% to 88% = Stanine 7, 89% to 95 % = Stanine 8, and 96% to 100% = Stanine 9. Stanine section scores as just computed offer no substitute for the i~tterpretutivenorms that the authors of the JDI have established. They were needed for the present research as a basis for subdividing respondents in the Athens sample into groups relatively low and relatively high on each JDI dimension. Reference to and use of earlier-established interpretative norms would not have served the authors' purpose. ( 5 ) By procedures described elsewhere (Ferguson, 1959) stanine values were smoothed; then, used as standard scores co assess an employee's position on each JDI dimension, given his position on the total-score variable. ( 6 ) The authors correlated (via Pearson r ) all adjasted section scores with each other and secured the results presented below the diagonal in Table
SELF-CONCEPT AND JOB SATISFACTION
607
1. Had the described procedures not been followed, the mean JDI sectionscore intercorrelation would have been near .40. See the intercorrelations (Pearson r ) unadjusted for correlation with "total" score as given above the diagonal in Table 1. Every correlation above the diagonal in Table 1 is positive, but 11 of those below the diagonal are negative. The negative correlations result, undoubtedly, from "overcorrection." Each correlation below the diagonal in Table 1 shows the relation between two series of section scores each of which has been adjusted for correlation with "total" score. When two adjusted scores are intercorrelated, the total-score effect has been nvice partialled out, causing overcorrection. TABLE 1
INT'ERCORRELATIONS AMONGSCORESON JDI * TDI Scale
Work
Pay
Promotion Associates Supervision
Others
.31 .39 .46 .59 .42 Work Pay -.03 .47 .33 .35 .32 Promotion -.03 .11 .32 .4 1 .26 Associates -.03 -.08 -. 16 .47 .50 Supervision .I0 -.06 -.03 -.09 .4 1 Others .01 -.lo -.21 .06 -.I5 'Below diagonal, zs (N = 660) hased on "adjusted" JDI scores; above diagonal, rs ( N = 196) based on "random" sample of unadjusted JDI scores.
Selection of Criterion Cases After securing JDI section scores nearly uncorrelated with each other, the authors designated (by means of those scores and for the Athens sample) certain respondents as having relatively low scores; others, as having relatively high scores. On each of four JDI sections, a low-scoring respondent was one with a stanine score of 4 or less; a high-scoring respondent, one with a stanine score of 6 or more. On the pay section a low-scoring respondent was one with a stanine score of 2, 3, or 4 (no respondent secured a stanine score of 1); a high-scoring respondent, one with a stanine score of 7 or more. On the promotion section a low-scoring respondent was one with a stanine score of 4 or 5 (no respondent received a stanine score of 1, 2, or 3 ) ; a high-scoring respondent, one who received a stanine score of 7, 8, or 9. After each respondent was classified (on each JDI section) as having a relatively low score, a relatively high score, or neither, the authors subdivided respondents into ( a ) item-analysis and ( b ) cross-validation groups. Within each stanine classification, and separately for each JDI section, the authors selected every third case to be set aside as a member of a cross-validation group; the remaining two-thirds, as members of item-analysis groups. The numbers of cases in criterion item-analysis groups (low group; then, high group) were
608
C. D. SNYDER &
L. W. FERGUSON
as follows: 86 and 79 for work, 80 and 90 for pay, 80 and 95 for promotion, 60 and 105 for associates, 88 and 85 for supervision, and 81 and 85 for others.
ltem Analysis of Person-perception ltems ( 1 ) The authors counted ( a ) the number and calculated (b) the percent of respondents in each criterion group (for each JDI section) that claimed as self-descriptive each response adjective in each pair-comparisons, person-perception item (an item consists, as'earlier stated, of a pair of response adjectives). ( 2 ) For each response adjective, the authors counted ( a ) the number of items that contained an adjective that produced a difference of f 10 or more (an arbitrarily set criterion) between the percents of satisfied and dissatisfied respondents claiming it self-descriptive; also, ( b ) the number of items containing adjectives producing differences favoring each criterion group. ( 3 ) After excluding from further consideration response adjectives yielding inconsistent results the authors determined the mean percent of respondents claiming each adjective self-descriptive. If satisfied employees more often than dissatisfied employees claimed an adjective self-descriptive, the authors assigned a score weight of 1. If dissatisfied employees more often than satisfied employees claimed an adjective self-descriptive, the authors assigned a score weight of -1. For any one item in the 150-item, pair-comparisons form, this scheme resulted in the following possible weight assignments: ( a ) -1 and 1 or 1 and -1 (depending upon the position of the adjective in the item) for any item containing two discriminating response adjectives; ( b ) 0 and 1, 1 and 0, -1 and 0, or 0 and -1 for any item containing one discriminating adjective and one nondiscriminating adjective; and ( c ) 0 and 0 for any item containing no discriminating adjective. After determining score values for the response adjectives in the personperception items which discriminated between satisfied and dissatisfied employees on each of the "relatively independent" JDI sections, the authors applied the new scales to cross-validation groups and for each JDI dimension prepared a 3 X 3 bivariate distribution to show the extent to which scores on the appropriate self-concept scale related to JDI criterion scores. On both predictor and criterion scales, respondents with stanine scores of 1, 2, or 3 were considered below average;, respondents with stanine scores of 4, 5, or G were considered average; and respondents with stanine scores of 7, 8, or 9 were considered above average.
RESULTSAND DISCUSSION With five of the JDI dimensions (work, pay, promotion, supervision, others) self-concept, as assessed by the pair-comparisons scales described here-
SELF-CONCEPT AND JOB SATISFACTION
609
in, shows insignificant interaction; consequently, for them no data need be presented. Table 2 gives the data for the one JDI dimension (satisfaction/dissatisfaction with associates) with which self-concept, as assessed by the appropriate (31-item) pair-comparisons scale, shows interaction. Table 2 shows that as self-concept score increases, percent of above-average JDI scores does likewise: l o % , 19%, 41%; percent of below-average JDI scores declines: 3896, 1996, 14%. Chi square (based on frequencies) equals 12.35 (df = 4 ) and shows the relation to be significant at the .O1 level. TABLE 2 ASSOCIATES-REFERENCED SELF-CONCEPT SCORE AND SATISFACTION WITHASSOCIATES* JDI Scale for Associates Below Average ( n=21)
Self-concept score ( % ) t Average Above Average ( n = 74) ( n = 37)
Above Average Average Below Average Total 'Chi square = 12.35, df = 4, p .01. tScale has 31 pair-comparisons items in which 13 adjectives carry diagnostic weights. Carrying plus ( +) weights are humorous, humane, generous, popular, good-natured, altruistic, and talkative. Carrying minus ( - ) weights are imaginative, sociable, wise, reliable, strong, and persistent Carrying zero ( 0 ) weights are happy, honest, serious, good-looking, and important.
