1. 1 Experience-Sampled Job Satisfaction Remus Ilies and Timothy A. Judge University of Florida

2. 2 Background Information (1)  Traditionally, job satisfaction has been defined as an emotional reaction to the work situation (e.g., Cranny, Smith, & Stone, 1992; Locke, 1969, 1976).  Perhaps the best-known definition of job satisfaction is Locke’s contention: “job satisfaction is a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from an appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (p. 1300).

3. 3 Background Information (2)  Even though job satisfaction is defined as an emotional state, it has been generally treated as a broad job attitude (e.g., Weiss, Nicholas, & Dauss, 1999).  Job satisfaction has been generally measured with a ‘single-shot’, survey that assumes the construct to be stable.  The relationships of job satisfaction with other constructs have been typically investigated with cross-sectional designs.

4. 4 Issues in the Current Literature  The assumed equivalence between job satisfaction as an affective or emotional state and as general attitude about the job needs to be re-evaluated (Weiss, 2002).  Examine within-person variations in job satisfaction, which enables the study of dynamic relationships with other constructs such as affect (Ilies & Judge, 2002).

5. 5 Theoretical Framework (1)  Defining an attitude  Eagly and Chaiken (1993)  “a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor ” (p. 1)  “an evaluative state that intervenes between certain classes of stimuli and certain classes of responses…and it is assumed to account for covariation between these stimuli and these responses “(p. 3).

6. 6 Theoretical Framework (2)  Defining job satisfaction  Ilies and Judge (under review):  “an evaluative tendency toward one’s job that is manifested through discrete evaluative states of the job situation during the workday ” (p. 5)  Temporal fluctuations  “the term tendency does not necessarily imply a very long-term state” (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, p. 2).  Ilies and Judge (2002) found that more than one third of the variance in experience sampled (E-S) job satisfaction was due to within individual variation

7. 7 Affect, Cognitions, and Satisfaction  Weiss et al. (1999): both affect and job beliefs predicted general job satisfaction  Ilies and Judge (2002):  Momentary affect predicted state E-S satisfaction  Average (across time) affect predicted average E-S satisfaction  Assumed that average levels of E-S job satisfaction are equivalent to general job satisfaction

8. 8 Questions for Current Study  Do average levels of experience-sampling (E-S) job satisfaction indicate the general evaluation of the job (general job satisfaction)?  How many momentary measures of job satisfaction are needed to form a good measure of general job satisfaction?  Is average-level E-S job satisfaction more affective in nature than the general evaluation?  If so, then average mood should be a stronger predictor of job satisfaction than beliefs, when satisfaction is measured with the average-level E-S approach (vs. general evaluation).

9. 9 Hypotheses (1)  (H1): Pleasant mood and beliefs about the job will make independent contributions to the prediction of general job satisfaction.  (H2): Average levels of E-S job satisfaction ratings will be correlated with overall job satisfaction and the correlation will remain significant when the effects of average levels of pleasant mood are partialled out.

10. 10 Hypotheses (2)  (H3): Pleasant mood and beliefs about the job will have independent contributions to the prediction of average levels of E-S job satisfaction.  (H4): (a) Pleasant mood will mediate the relationship between affectivity and job satisfaction; (b) the mediation effect will be stronger when job satisfaction is measured with the E-S measure.

11. 11 Method  Phase 1: Self and other ratings of affectivity  Phase 2: Interval contingent experience- sampling methodology (ESM).  One week after phase 1 was completed  33 employees reported their mood and job satisfaction three times a day, for two weeks.  Phase 3: Self reports of general job satisfaction and job beliefs  Two months after the completion of phase 2.

12. 12 Results (1)  Affect and beliefs predicted general job satisfaction (see Table 1) – H1 supported.  Average E-S satisfaction predicted general satisfaction (zero order-r=.59, p <.01), even when controlling for average mood (r=.36, p <.05) – H2 supported.  Affect and beliefs predicted general job satisfaction (see Table 2) – H3 supported.

13. 13 Results (2)  Affect was a stronger predictor of E-S job satisfaction (compare Tables 1 and 2) – H4a supported  Affect mediated a higher proportion of the affectivity satisfaction relationship when satisfaction was measured with E-S reports (compare path estimates from Figure 1 with those from Figure 2) – H4b supported  About 10 E-S ratings are needed to form a good measure of general satisfaction (see Figure 3).

14. Table 1: Regression of General Job Satisfaction on Affect and Beliefs Notes: N = 33. Tests are two tailed.

15. Table 2: Regression of Average ES Job Satisfaction on Affect and Beliefs Notes: N = 33. Tests are two tailed.

16. Figure 1: Mediation Effect: General Satisfaction Trait Pleasantness General Job Satisfaction.42*.41** 42** Pleasant Mood Notes: N = 33. * p <.05. ** p <.01. All tests are two-tailed.

17. Figure 2: Mediation Effect: E-S Satisfaction Trait Pleasantness E-S Job Satisfaction.42*.16 55** Pleasant Mood Notes: N = 33. * p <.05. ** p <.01. All tests are two-tailed.

18. Figure 3: Average E-S Job Satisfaction vs. Pleasant Mood and General Job Satisfaction