1 Adaptation-Level Theory, Opponent Process Theory and Dispositions

(1)

Adaptation-Level Theory, Opponent Process Theory, and Dispositions: An Integrated Approach to the Stability of Job Satisfaction

Nathan A. Bowling, Terry A. Beehr, Stephen H. Wagner, and Terry M. Libkuman

Central Michigan University

Research suggests that the stability of job satisfaction is partially the result of dispositions (J. J. Connolly

& C. Viswesvaran, 2000; C. Dormann & D. Zapf, 2001; T. A. Judge & J. E. Bono, 2001a; T. A. Judge, D. Heller, & M. K. Mount, 2002). Opponent process theory (R. L. Solomon & J. D. Corbit, 1973, 1974) and adaptation-level theory (H. Helson, 1948) are alternative explanations of this stability that explain how environmental effects on job satisfaction dissipate across time. On the basis of an integration of these explanations, the authors propose that dispositions (a) influence employees’ equilibrium or adaptation level of job satisfaction, (b) influence employees’ sensitivity to workplace events, and (c) influence the speed at which job satisfaction returns to equilibrium after one is exposed to a workplace event. Research and applied implications are discussed.

Keywords: job satisfaction, job attitudes, dispositions, opponent process theory, adaptation-level theory

Job satisfaction is one of the most widely studied variables in the history of industrial and organizational psychology (Spector, 1997). As researchers sought to discover the causes and consequences of job satisfaction, questions emerged concerning the extent to which it is stable across time and across situations.

Overall, research suggests that job satisfaction is relatively stable.

An early study of the test–retest reliability of the Job Descriptive Index (JDI), for example, yielded an average 16-month stability coefficient of .57 across the measure’s five subscales (Schneider &

Dachler, 1978). More recent research continues to reveal that job satisfaction exhibits some degree of temporal stability (e.g., Dor- mann & Zapf, 2001; Gerhart, 1987; Kinicki, McKee-Ryan, Schriesheim, & Carson, 2002; Newton & Keenan, 1991; Pulakos

& Schmitt, 1983; Schaubroeck, Ganster, & Kemmerer, 1996;

Spector, 1985; Steel & Rentsch, 1997) even despite changes in pay, job prestige, employer, and occupation (Elfering, Semmer, &

Kalin, 2000; Gupta, Jenkins, & Beehr, 1992; Staw & Ross, 1985).

A recent meta-analysis of the stability of job satisfaction yielded a (approximately 3-year) mean test–retest correlation of .42 and a mean correlation corrected for unreliability of .50 (Dormann &

Zapf, 2001). The authors argued, however, that these values represent a conservative estimate of the true stability of job satisfaction because no correction for range restriction was made.

The emotional landscape of the workplace comprises many types of affect, and stability or temporal issues are often invoked as distinguishing features. Personality or dispositional characteristics of the person are usually considered to be quite stable, whereas moods and emotions are less stable than personality.

Weiss (2002a), taking a cue from Larsen (2000), defined moods as being of longer duration (also less intense and less aimed at specific objects or events) than emotions, with less clear and identifiable beginning and end points; the difference is considered a matter of degree, however.

It is important to note that research consistently shows that the observed stability of job satisfaction decreases with length of time and as individuals change occupations or employers. Dormann and Zapf (2001), for example, found a correlation of⫺.41 between the test–

retest correlations of job satisfaction and the amount of time that passes between the administration of job satisfaction measures. Fur- thermore, the meta-analysis yielded corrected mean test–retest correlations of .48 for those individuals who remained in the same job and .35 for those who changed jobs. In short, these findings suggest that although job satisfaction is influenced by situational factors, it exhibits at least some degree of stability across time.

The objective of the present article is to develop an integrated model of the stability of job satisfaction that incorporates the dispositional approach to work-related attitudes (Connolly &

Viswesvaran, 2000; Dormann & Zapf, 2001; Judge & Bono, 2001a; Judge, Heller & Mount, 2002) with adaptation-level theory (Helson, 1948, 1964a, 1964b) and opponent process theory (Landy, 1978; Solomon & Corbit, 1973, 1974). Dispositions, adaptation-level theory, and opponent process theory all predict temporal stability of job satisfaction, but each assumes a different set of explanations for that stability. We argue here that the three explanations are not mutually exclusive and should in fact be integrated. Indeed, Oliver (1981) had once argued for an integration of two of these—an integration of adaptation-level theory with opponent process theory.

The present article necessarily emphasizes the role of time in the development of work-related attitudes. Time is an inherent part of any discussion of opponent process theory and adaptation-level theory and is a variable in dispositional explanations as well.

Indeed, other authors recognizing the importance of time have suggested that a dynamic or longitudinal approach to job satisfaction is needed (e.g., Ilies & Judge, 2002).

Nathan A. Bowling, Terry A. Beehr, Stephen H. Wagner, and Terry M.

Libkuman, Department of Psychology, Central Michigan University.

We thank Frank J. Landy for providing encouraging and useful insights.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Nathan A. Bowling, who is now at the Department of Psychology, Wright State University, 335 Fawcett Hall, 3640 Colonel Glenn Highway, Dayton, OH 45435-0001. E-mail: psybowling@yahoo.com

1044 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(2)

Dispositional Explanations for the Stability of Job Satisfaction

The most popular explanation for why job satisfaction exhibits temporal stability is that enduring dispositional characteristics predispose people to a certain level of satisfaction. Consistent with this explanation is the finding from twin studies that genetic factors, which presumably affect disposition, may account for as much as 30% of the variance in job satisfaction (Arvey, Bouchard, Segal, & Abraham, 1989; Arvey, McCall, Bouchard, Taubman, &

Cavanaugh, 1994). The heritability approach did not initially iden- tify any specific dispositional characteristics that influence job satisfaction, but more recent research suggests that dispositions mediate the relationship between genetics and job satisfaction (Ilies & Judge, 2003). Additional research directly examines the relationship between specific dispositions and job satisfaction.

Negative and Positive Affectivity

Much research has explored the relationship between negative affectivity (NA) and job satisfaction. NA is a stable personality variable manifested in one’s affect and self-concept (Watson &

Clark, 1984) that is closely related to the five-factor model characteristic of Neuroticism (Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988).

Watson, Pennebaker, and Folger (1986) suggested that high-NA individuals tend to be dissatisfied with their jobs—a hypothesis supported by a number of studies. Two recent meta-analyses, for instance, reported mean corrected correlations between NA and job satisfaction ranging from⫺.33 to⫺.40 (Connolly & Viswes- varan, 2000; Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, & de Chermont, 2003).

There is less research on positive affectivity (PA) as an ante- cedent of job satisfaction. PA is a personality characteristic representing a tendency to experience pleasurable engagement and enthusiasm across a wide range of situations and is similar to the five-factor model characteristic of Extraversion (Watson et al., 1988). Meta-analyses report that the mean corrected correlations between PA and job satisfaction are approximately .50 (Connolly

& Viswesvaran, 2000; Thoresen et al., 2003).

Core Self-Evaluations

Aside from NA and PA, Judge and colleagues (Judge, Locke &

Durham, 1997) introduced a broad set of personality characteristics that they labeled core self-evaluations (for a review, see Bono

& Judge, 2003). Core self-evaluations represent fundamental self- evaluations and include self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability (Judge & Bono, 2001a;

Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000; Judge et al., 1997; Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998). Drawing on factor analyses showing that these four personality characteristics load on the same factor, Judge and colleagues argued that the set of characteristics is a manifestation of a higher order construct (e.g., Erez & Judge, 2001). In addition, meta-analyses (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2002) show that the set of four core self-evaluations intercorrelate highly and yield poor discriminant validity within the set. In short, core self-evaluations may be treated as a single personality characteristic representing an alternative conceptualization of emotional stability (Judge & Bono, 2001b).

A recent meta-analysis revealed that job satisfaction was asso- ciated with each facet of the core self-evaluation variables (median corrected r⫽.29; Judge & Bono, 2001a). Judge et al. (2000) also found that core self-evaluations assessed during childhood predict job satisfaction 30 years later, and Judge and Heller (2002) found that core self-evaluations predicted job satisfaction better than did PA, NA, or a combination of the Big Five personality traits.

Processes by Which Dispositions Influence Job Satisfaction

A number of processes by which dispositions could influence job satisfaction have been suggested (see Judge & Larsen, 2001, for a review). First, dispositions may have a direct effect on job satisfaction. Judge et al. (1997), for example, argued that core self-evaluations would have a direct effect on job satisfaction via emotional generalization from feelings about one’s self to feelings about jobs. Dispositions may also influence the manner in which employees perceive their jobs, which, in turn, impacts job satisfaction. It has been argued, for example, that NA impacts job satisfaction by influencing how individuals collect, process, and evaluate the information they receive from their work environment (Levin & Stokes, 1989; Necowitz & Roznowski, 1994). That is, high-NA individuals attend to and recall a greater number of negative aspects of their jobs and therefore perceive their jobs more negatively. Necowitz and Roznowski (1994) found that high-NA individuals tend to perceive a laboratory task more negatively and are able to recall a greater number of negative features of the task. Thus, to the extent that NA is a stable disposition, it could affect the stability of job satisfaction through its effects on job perceptions and recall.

Even more to the point, Judge et al. (1998) found that the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction may be partially mediated by perceptions of job characteristics. Specif- ically, those who hold favorable core self-evaluations tend to perceive more task identity, task significance, skill variety, task feedback, and autonomy in their work than do individuals with unfavorable self-concepts. These perceptions of job characteristics, in turn, were related to job satisfaction.

Dispositional characteristics may also have indirect effects on job satisfaction that are mediated by job choice. That is, dispositional characteristics may predispose individuals to self-select into particular types of work environments (Davis-Blake & Pfeffer, 1989; Dormann & Zapf, 2001; Judge et al., 2000; Schneider, Gunnarson, & Wheeler, 1992). Consistent with this prediction are the findings that neuroticism predisposes individuals to self-select into situations that are likely to produce negative affect (Diener, Larsen, & Emmons, 1984; Magnus, Diener, Fujita, & Pavot, 1993). Likewise, an indirect link between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction was demonstrated by Judge et al. (2000), who found that objective job complexity mediates the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction. In short, job satisfaction may be stable because enduring individual differences predispose people to consistently choose and be selected into particular kinds of work environments.

Adaptation-Level Theory as an Explanation for the Stability of Job Satisfaction

Little effort has been made to examine causes beyond the dispositional argument for the temporal stability of job satisfac- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(3)

tion. Adaptation-level theory (Helson, 1948, 1964a, 1964b), however, offers one potential explanation for the temporal stability of job satisfaction. According to adaptation-level theory, exposure to earlier stimuli serves as a frame of reference by which later stimuli are judged. These earlier stimuli are mathematically combined to form one’s unique adaptation level. Later stimuli that are similar to the adaptation level produce an indifferent response, whereas stimuli that are significantly different from the adaptation level can produce either positive or negative responses. New experiences are integrated into the adaptation level, which can cause one’s adaptation level to shift. The net result of these processes is that stimuli have only temporary effects. As an example, someone who has worked for decades without a pay raise would be expected to respond positively to even a small pay increase because this change in pay would be significantly different from that individual’s adaptation level. This positive response, however, would be only temporary, because the person’s adaptation level would eventually change (i.e., move upward) as the experience of the pay increase is integrated into the employee’s adaptation level. In addition to these within-person effects, differences in adaptation levels between two individuals could explain why an individual accustomed to large pay raises would be dissatisfied by a 5% raise, but an individual who has never before received a pay raise would be happy with a 2% raise.

Research Supporting Adaptation-Level Theory Support for adaptation-level theory is provided by research in several substantive areas (Helson, 1964b). Helson (1948), for instance, described a study in which participants were asked to judge the heaviness of several weights. Prior to judging the weights, the participants lifted either a relatively heavy or a relatively light standard. The judgments of the target weights were influenced by the weight of the standard. Specifically, the target weights were judged to be light when followed by a heavy standard and heavy when followed by a light standard. Furthermore, the adaptation level (i.e., the value of the target weight that was judged to be neutral rather than heavy or light) shifted upward when a heavy standard was used and shifted downward when a light standard was used. Support for adaptation-level theory is provided by research in several other substantive areas, including vision (Helson, 1948), hearing (Bevan, Pritchard, & Reed, 1962), smell (Pol, Hijman, Baare´, & van Ree, 1998), and taste (Kroeze, 1982). Perhaps even more relevant to the present study, adaptation-level theory has been used to explain affective outcomes such as customer satisfaction (Oliver, 1981), happiness (Brickman, Coates, & Janoff-Bulman, 1978), and satisfaction with performance on a laboratory task (Brickman, 1975).

Opponent Process Theory as an Explanation for the Stability of Job Satisfaction

Another explanation not based on a dispositional argument has been given for the stability of job satisfaction. As presented below, opponent process theory is a complementary explanation for job satisfaction stability that can be integrated with the dispositional argument and with adaptation-level theory. Proponents of opponent process theory argue for a particular way in which job satisfaction is affected by both the person and the environment.

Landy (1978) suggested that the opponent process theory could

account for why individuals seem to display a stable level of job satisfaction regardless of the nature of the work environment.

Opponent process theory, which was first proposed by Solomon and Corbit (1973, 1974), explains the means by which emotional responses to stimuli are regulated by an underlying physiological mechanism involving feedback loops sensing and responding to affective and physiological changes. Solomon and Corbit argued that in the absence of emotionally arousing stimuli, people experience a state of hedonic neutrality; that is, in most instances, people are in a neutral rather than in a positive or a negative emotional state.

One should not take the term neutrality literally, however, and assume that this state is actually without positive or negative affect for all individuals. Rather, hedonic neutrality is more correctly viewed as whatever steady-state or equilibrium level is unique to an individual—similar to the “set point” in set-point theory (Wil- liams & Thompson, 1993). As mentioned above, it is similar to the adaptation level (Helson, 1948, 1964a, 1964b). It could therefore represent one’s typical level of job satisfaction (George & Jones, 1996). Buessing (Buessing & Bissels, 1998; Buessing, Bissels, Fuchs, & Perrar, 1999), among others, has noted that wide-scale surveys frequently show that over half of employees express satisfaction rather than dissatisfaction with their jobs, suggesting that the typical state of hedonic neutrality is usually above, or more positive than, the point of neutral affect. Although average levels of job satisfaction appear to be relatively positive across people, there is of course variability in satisfaction, and for some people, the typical attitudinal point may actually be negative. The exis- tence of chronic depression in some people suggests this likelihood.

Furthermore, it is assumed that individual differences would dictate that one person’s state of hedonic neutrality could be more positive or more negative than another person’s, reinforcing the idea that neutrality is not actually a point of neutral affect for everyone. Even though people’s affect may change temporarily, it is argued in opponent process theory that any one person’s equilibrium point is relatively stable. Although stable, the hedonic system can be under tension, with internal and/or external coun- tervailing forces that constantly pressure one’s job satisfaction toward more positive or more negative states. Thus, the outward relative stability of the hedonic satisfaction level is achieved not necessarily because the person is in a calm and unpressured state but instead because the positive and negative forces are equivalent in strength.

This hedonic neutrality is similar to the notion of adaptation level that is mentioned above. One notable difference, however, is that adaptation-level theory emphasizes that this equilibrium level can change, whereas opponent process theory implies that the equilibrium is more stable. Thus, adaptation-level theory provides an explanation for the particular value of one’s equilibrium level.

We should note that adaptation-level theory and opponent process theory are in many ways similar to set-point theory (Larsen, 2000; Williams & Thompson, 1993), which simply states that each individual has his or her own unique equilibrium level that is maintained by some biological mechanism. Indeed, articles some- times refer to research on adaptation-level theory to support arguments about set-point theory (e.g., Lucas, Clark, Georgellis, &

Diener, 2003). Because it explicitly describes how one’s set-point or equilibrium level is determined, we believe that adaptation-level theory is superior to set-point theory. Furthermore, opponent pro- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(4)

cess theory is superior to set-point theory because opponent process theory provides more detail about the specific processes that maintain hedonic neutrality.

According to opponent process theory (Solomon & Corbit, 1973, 1974), upon the introduction of an emotionally arousing stimulus, an individual experiences an excursion from one’s typical or hedonic neutrality state. This initial emotional response, which is directly caused by the emotionally arousing environmental stimuli, is called the primary process. Described as either emotionally positive or negative, the nature of the primary process depends on the nature of the stimuli that produced it. Specifically, pleasant stimuli elicit an emotionally positive primary process, whereas aversive stimuli elicit an emotionally negative primary process. If the magnitude of the primary process surpasses a predetermined threshold, then an inhibitory process, known as the opponent process, is activated. The opponent process, which is the hedonic opposite of the primary process, neutralizes the primary process and thus eventually returns the individual to his or her equilibrium state. Thus, the hedonic response to an emotionally arousing stimulus is predicted to weaken across time, even if the stimulus remains present in the environment.

After the emotionally arousing stimulus is removed, the primary process quickly decays. The absence of the primary process then leads to an eventual decay of the opponent process. However, because the opponent process decays at a slower rate than does the primary process, the opponent process is still active for a period of time after the primary process has completely decayed. With only the opponent process active, the individual experiences an emotional response that is the hedonic opposite of that of the primary process. Thus, in the process of maintaining one’s affective state, the individual does not simply experience an emotional state followed by a return to equilibrium. Rather, before returning to equilibrium, the individual experiences an emotional state that has a hedonic quality opposite of the primary process. This phenomenon is referred to as an overshoot effect and is one feature that distinguishes opponent process theory from adaptation-level theory.

Another unique feature of opponent process theory that distinguishes it from adaptation-level theory is that with increased use, the opponent process is posited to become stronger, to increase in the speed at which it is activated, and to decrease in its rate of decay (Solomon & Corbit, 1974). Thus, the frequency with which the opponent process is used has important implications for the emotional response that one manifests. That is, after repeated activation of the opponent process, the affective response that one manifests is largely determined by the opponent process rather than by the primary process.

Novice parachute jumpers, for instance, typically experience extreme negative emotional reactions during their jumps followed by little or no positive reaction after the jump is completed (Ep- stein, 1967). More experienced jumpers, however, tend to experience little negative affect during the jump followed by extreme positive affect after the jump is completed. Studies in a number of other content domains, including the emotional responses of dogs that have been exposed to electric shock, opiate use in humans, the emotional experience of love, and imprinting behavior of young animals, provide evidence for this phenomenon (Hoffman & So- lomon, 1974; Solomon & Corbit, 1973, 1974).

This phenomenon has important organizational implications.

Because of a strengthening of the opponent process, repeated

exposure to organizational development interventions aimed at improving the work environment may actually contribute to job dissatisfaction. Indeed, others have argued that repeated exposure to organizational development interventions can contribute to negative attitudes such as organizational cynicism (Wanous, Reichers,

& Austin, 2000).

Research Supporting Opponent Process Theory Since Landy (1978) proposed opponent process theory as an explanation for the temporal stability of job satisfaction, support for the opponent process theory was garnered from research conducted in several other substantive domains. For example, research on the anxiety-reducing effects of inhaling a carbon dioxide and oxygen mixture (Ley, 1994) on mothers’ motivation to breast-feed (Myers & Siegel, 1985) and on the emotional effects of cocaine (Ettenberg, Raven, Danluck, & Necessary, 1999) have all yielded findings that are consistent with opponent process theory.

Longitudinal studies of the relationship between stressors and affect in nonwork settings have also yielded findings that are consistent with one prediction of opponent process theory: the decay of emotional responses across time. Specifically, individuals exposed to stressors over a series of consecutive days initially exhibited NA that dissipated over time. Such results were found in two studies of married couples that assessed daily stressors and mood over the duration of 6 weeks (Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, &

Schilling, 1989) and 6 months (DeLongis, Folkman, & Lazarus, 1988) and in a sample of working mothers that assessed daily stressors, mood, and satisfaction over the duration of 8 days.

Likewise, Williams, Suls, Alliger, Learner, and Wan (1991) found that the negative effects of multiple role juggling on task enjoy- ment and end-of-day satisfaction were temporary. This line of research has also yielded evidence consistent with the hypothesis presented by opponent process theory that the removal of an emotionally arousing stimulus produces a response that is the hedonic opposite of the response that was directly produced by the stimulus (i.e., the overshoot effect). Bolger et al. and DeLongis et al., for example, found that individuals exhibited more positive affect on stress-free days that followed stress-filled days than on stress-free days that followed other stress-free days. As mentioned in the previous section, research has also supported the prediction of opponent process theory concerning the strengthening of the opponent process with use. The fact that opponent process theory has received support in such a wide range of topics is impressive, and it reinforces the idea that the theory may generalize to job satisfaction. Yet, the task of examining its usefulness regarding job satisfaction remains to be done.

Organizational Research Supporting Adaptation-Level and Opponent Process Theories

Despite the fact that opponent process theory and adaptation- level theory have received considerable support in other domains and that a theoretical description of opponent process theory in relation to job satisfaction was offered 25 years ago (Landy, 1978), the two theories have garnered surprisingly little interest from those who study job satisfaction (Beehr, 1996). To date, no studies have been published that explicitly test the opponent process theory of job satisfaction (Brief, 1998), and little direct effort has been made to apply adaptation-level theory to job satisfaction.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(5)

Although we review some related studies here, it should be noted that many job satisfaction measures do not measure the affective component of job satisfaction very well but may tap into some more cognitive reactions (e.g., see Brief & Weiss, 2002; Organ &

Near, 1985; Weiss, 2002b). Opponent process theory is likely to be explanatory only for the emotional or affective part of job satisfaction, and, therefore, many prior studies of job satisfaction are not ideal studies of the arguments being offered here. Future studies of opponent process theory and job satisfaction should use measures focusing explicitly on the affective part of satisfaction.

One exception to the neglect of adaptation-level theory in job satisfaction research is research on the Cornell model of job satisfaction (for a recent review of the Cornell model, see Hulin &

Judge, 2003). According to the Cornell model, job satisfaction is influenced by one’s frame of reference or adaptation level (Hulin, 1991; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969). Specifically, the model suggests that job satisfaction is the result of comparing one’s current working conditions against an adaptation level. Satisfac- tion results when employees perceive their work environment as being more favorable than the adaptation level, and dissatisfaction results when employees perceive their work environment as being less favorable than the adaptation level. Research showing that favorable economic conditions in one’s community are negatively related to job satisfaction is consistent with the Cornell model (Hulin, 1966; Kendall, 1963). Presumably, the economic conditions of one’s neighboring area serve as the adaptation level against which one’s own working conditions are judged.

Although not intended to be tests of either adaptation-level theory or opponent process theory, there are studies of job redesign that include job satisfaction as a variable and whose results can be generally interpreted as consistent with both theories. The results of a longitudinal study conducted by Griffin (1991), for example, are consistent with the predictions of adaptation-level theory and opponent process theory. In that study, participants’ job satisfaction was measured on one occasion before and at 6 months, 24 months, and 48 months following the introduction of a job enrichment program. Consistent with adaptation-level theory and opponent process theory, the study found that the job enrichment program produced an initial increase in job satisfaction that dissipated within 24 months of the introduction of the intervention.

Campion and McClelland (1993) likewise found that the initially positive effects that job redesign had on job satisfaction disappeared over the 2-year course of their study. Similarly, Champoux (1978) found that changes in job design produced temporary increases in job satisfaction that returned to preintervention levels after only 1 month.

Evaluations of organizational development interventions other than job redesign have yielded similar results. Griffin (1988), for example, measured job satisfaction before and at 6 months, 18 months, and 36 months after the initiation of a quality circle (QC) intervention. The QC intervention produced an increase in job satisfaction that peaked after 18 months, only to return to preintervention levels. Ivancevich (1972) found that management-by- objectives programs (MBO) produced initial increases in job satisfaction that disappeared within 18 months of the introduction of the program. Finally, Lam, Yik, and Schaubroeck (2002) found that positive performance feedback resulted in initial increases in job satisfaction that disappeared over the course of 3 months.

These studies found that decay in job satisfaction increases over time. They did not find opponent process theory’s overshoot

effect, although it must be acknowledged that they were not necessarily designed to do so.

Proposition 1: It is expected that the strength of the effects of work-related events upon job satisfaction dissipates across time.

An Integrated Theory of the Stability of Job Satisfaction Thus far, we have treated dispositions, adaptation-level theory, and opponent process theory as separate explanations for the stability of job satisfaction. We propose, however, that each explanation is partially correct and that an integration of disposition theory with adaptation-level theory and opponent process theory provides a better explanation for the stability of job satisfaction. It should be noted that others have argued that adaptation-level theory should be integrated with opponent process. Oliver (1981) presented a model in which the two theories were integrated in an attempt to explain customer satisfaction (Oliver, 1981). Weiss and Kurek (2003) suggested that workers differ in the average level of affect, in the intensity of affective highs and lows, and in how quickly they move from one affective state to another. The integrated model discussed below provides explanations for Weiss and Kurek’s (2003) observations.

As previously discussed, opponent process theory and adaptation-level theory suggest that individuals have an equilibrium level of job satisfaction. This equilibrium level, or typical level of job satisfaction that is experienced in the absence of emotionally arousing workplace events, differs from one individual to the next (George & Jones, 1996). As discussed above, adaptation-level theory describes how one’s equilibrium level is the result of one’s past experiences. We posit that dispositions likely play an important role in the development of one’s adaptation or equilibrium level. As mentioned above, dispositions influence both employees’ perceptions of the work environment and the objective nature of the work environment. Dispositions would thus influence one’s adaptation level via effects on past work-related experiences. High-NA individuals, for example, would likely have different adaptation levels than would low-NA individuals because they have less favorable past job experiences. To the extent that they are the result of stable dispositions, adaptation levels are expected to be stable across time. The research reviewed above examining the link of affect (i.e., job satisfaction) to dispositions, which was conducted outside the frameworks of either adaptation- level theory or opponent process theory, provides an explanation for why equilibrium levels of job satisfaction differ across individuals.

Proposition 2: Individuals’ dispositions influence their adaptation or attitudinal equilibrium level. Specifically, individuals with positive dispositions (i.e., those with higher PA, lower NA, or with favorable core self-evaluations) exhibit relatively high levels of job satisfaction when at equilibrium, and individuals with negative dispositions (i.e., with lower PA, higher NA, or unfavorable core self-evaluations) exhibit relatively low levels of job satisfaction when at equilibrium.

Sensitivity to Workplace Events

As suggested in Proposition 2, dispositions play an important role in influencing job satisfaction when emotionally arousing This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(6)

workplace events are absent. It is likely, however, that dispositions also combine with workplace events to influence job satisfaction.

Specifically, research has shown that dispositions influence the extent to which individuals are sensitive to positive and negative events. A laboratory experiment by Larsen and Ketelaar (1991), for example, found that participants responded differently to positive and negative mood inductions on the basis of their levels of extraversion and neuroticism. Individuals who were high in extraversion and individuals who were low in neuroticism were more sensitive to positive mood inductions than were individuals who were low in extraversion and individuals who were high in neuroticism. However, individuals who were low in extraversion and high in neuroticism were more sensitive to negative mood induction than were individuals who were high in extraversion and low in neuroticism.

Results consistent with this observation were garnered by a study using data obtained from naturalistic diary recordings (Suls, Green, & Hillis, 1998). In that study, individuals high in neuroticism were more sensitive to stressful events (which are presumed negative) than were individuals low in neuroticism. In addition, negative affect elicited by stressful events lasted longer for individuals who were high in neuroticism than for individuals who were low in neuroticism. Job satisfaction research has obtained similar findings. Brief, Butcher, and Roberson (1995), for example, measured job satisfaction from nurses who had been given a small gift (a positive event) and nurses who received no such gift.

Receiving the gift had a larger effect on job satisfaction for low-NA individuals than for high-NA individuals. A study examining the effects of performance feedback among bank employees yielded similar results (Lam et al., 2002). In that study, the positive effects on job satisfaction caused by receiving positive performance feedback persisted for the 6-month duration of the study for low-NA individuals but not for high-NA individuals. However, the negative effects on job satisfaction caused by receiving negative performance feedback persisted for high-NA individuals but not for low-NA individuals. Hemenover (2003) obtained a similar pattern of results in a series of laboratory experiments that used affect-inducing videos as stimuli. The following propositions refer to the effects of dispositions on the excursion of attitudes from the return to equilibrium, thus linking dispositional and opponent process effects on job satisfaction. Proposition 3 links dispositions to initial excursions from equilibrium.

Proposition 3: Dispositions influence the extent to which individuals are responsive to work-related events. Specifi- cally, the job satisfaction of individuals with positive dispositions increases more when positive work events occur but decreases less when negative events occur than does the satisfaction of individuals with negative dispositions.

Proposition 4 links dispositions to the decay of attitude change over time after the excursion from a state of equilibrium.

Proposition 4: Dispositions influence the speed at which responses to work-related events decay across time. Specifi- cally, the job satisfaction increases of individuals with positive dispositions last relatively longer after exposure to positive work events when compared with individuals with negative dispositions. However, the job satisfaction decreases caused by negative work events last relatively shorter for

individuals with positive dispositions than for individuals with negative dispositions.

The phenomena described in Propositions 3 and 4 might result from potential effects of dispositions on both the primary and opponent processes. An individual with a positive disposition (i.e., high PA, low NA, or high core self-evaluation), for example, may possess a strong primary process in response to positive stimuli and a relatively weak corresponding opponent process. The same individual may possess a weak primary process in response to negative stimuli and a relatively strong corresponding opponent process. The reverse would be expected for individuals with negative dispositions.

Dispositions may also influence the hedonic location of the threshold that must be surpassed by the primary process in order to activate the opponent process. An individual with a positive disposition, for example, may have a high threshold for positive stimuli and a low threshold for negative stimuli. Thus, it would require a strong primary process to activate the opponent process when the individual is exposed to positive stimuli and a weak primary process to activate the opponent process when the individual is exposed to weak stimuli. We would expect the opposite for individuals with negative dispositions.

Proposition 4 is based on the assumption that dispositions influence the primary and opponent processes. When exposed to a positive organizational event, individuals with positive dispositions will have relatively strong and long-lasting primary processes, whereas the opponent processes will be relatively weak and short-lasting. When exposed to a negative organizational event, however, individuals with positive dispositions will experience relatively weak and short-lasting primary processes and relatively strong and long-lasting opponent processes. An opposite pattern is expected among individuals with negative dispositions.

When exposed to a positive work event, individuals with positive dispositions experience a longer sustained increase in job satisfaction than do individuals with negative dispositions. When exposed to a negative work event, however, individuals with negative dispositions experience a greater and longer sustained decrease in job satisfaction than do individuals with positive dispositions. This could happen because of effects of dispositions on either the strengths of the primary and opponent processes or via a threshold effect.

It is also likely that dispositions influence the overshoot effect that an individual displays, as suggested in Proposition 5. This hypothesized pattern of overshoot effects is expected to be the result of the effects of dispositions on the primary and opponent processes that are discussed above.

Proposition 5: The overshoot for individuals with positive dispositions is expected to be relatively pronounced for negative work events and relatively modest for positive work events. However, the overshoot for individuals with negative dispositions is expected to be relatively mild for negative work events and relatively pronounced for positive work events.

Research Considerations

There are several important considerations that must be addressed by researchers who apply adaptation-level theory and This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(7)

opponent process theory to the study of job satisfaction. First, by their very nature, these theories require longitudinal data collec- tion. Simply put, adaptation-level theory and opponent process theory predict dynamic changes in job satisfaction across time, and in order to capture these changes, one must collect data at several points in time. We should note that although adaptation-level theory implies the use of longitudinal research designs, most research on the theory has used cross-sectional designs (Frederick

& Loewenstein, 1999). However, most research on opponent process theory has used longitudinal designs. One problem yet to be resolved concerns the lengths of time that researchers must allow between administrations of satisfaction measures. Others have argued that researchers should more thoughtfully consider pre- cisely when measurements should be taken in longitudinal research (Mitchell & James, 2001). Unfortunately, the time span required for the opponent process to return one’s hedonic state to equilibrium is unknown and may even vary across substantive domains. For example, data were collected over the course of 15 min in the Ettenberg et al. (1999) study of drug effects and over the course of 6 months in the Myers and Siegel (1985) study of breast-feeding motivation. One study revealed that the effects of a minor positive mood induction (produced by giving the participants free stationery) decayed in about 20 min (Isen, Clark, &

Schwartz, 1976). More relevant to the present model, data collected over the course of months or even years were used in longitudinal research on job satisfaction, discussed above (Cham- poux, 1978; Griffin, 1988, 1991; Ivancevich, 1972; Lam et al., 2002).

Because of such uncertainty concerning when to administer satisfaction measures, it may be difficult for organizational researchers to detect the overshoot effect. One possible solution for this problem may involve using an experience-sampling design in which beepers are used to indicate to respondents when to complete a series of job satisfaction questionnaires. Weiss, Nicholas, and Daus (1999), for instance, used an experience-sampling design to study employees’ mood cycles. Mood cycle research, however, differs from opponent process theory research in that no specific stimulus was identified as the cause of employees’ mood changes.

Rather, mood was examined as a naturally oscillating phenomenon. Regarding the model presented here, employees may also be asked to indicate what workplace events have been occurring. In a review of experience-sampling methodology, Alliger and Williams (1993) briefly discussed the use of event-contingent designs in industrial and organizational research, and Wheeler and Reis (1991) discussed event-contingent designs and compared them with other forms of experience sampling. This specific form of experience sampling, which is used to examine the effects of specific workplace events, involves the recording of the event of interest as it occurs. For instance, a researcher interested in study- ing interpersonal conflict at work might ask participants to complete a questionnaire every time they argue with a coworker or supervisor over the course of several weeks. Applied to adaptation- level theory and opponent process theory research, an event- contingent design could be used in which participants are asked to complete a survey as a target event occurs and at several predetermined periods after the event has ended.

Another issue related to the detection of the overshoot effect is the fact that some workplace events are discrete (e.g., being yelled at by a supervisor), whereas other workplace events are more permanent (e.g., job redesign). The overshoot effect is predicted to

occur only after the stimulus that initiated the primary process is removed (Landy, 1978; Solomon & Corbit, 1973, 1974). Thus, discrete workplace events but not more permanent events are expected to produce overshoot effects.

Another issue that must be addressed is how to measure employees’ equilibrium levels. Above we suggest that one’s equilibrium level is the level of job satisfaction one experiences in the absence of work-related events. One approach has been to measure equilibrium levels by assessing job satisfaction at a single time prior to a key workplace event (e.g., the introduction of an organizational development intervention). This approach has been used in a number of studies (e.g., Griffin, 1988, 1991). However, the work environment is ever changing as stimuli are continually introduced and removed from the environment. Thus, there is never really an absence of workplace events. This fact suggests that equilibrium levels may be assessed by having individuals complete multiple measures of job satisfaction over a period of time. Presumably, both negative events and positive events would occur over a period of time, and these different types of events would cancel each other out. In addition, the use of multiple measures would provide the advantage of increased reliability.

Although the present model integrates adaptation-level theory, opponent process theory, and dispositions, some researchers may wish to examine individual components of the model. To test adaptation-level theory, for example, researchers may examine the effects of experiences with past jobs, employers, or occupations on current adaptation levels. For instance, an employee who has a history of work in low-complexity jobs would be expected to have a different adaptation level from someone who has worked for decades in a more complex job, such as the CEO of a large company.

The most obvious support for opponent process theory would be research showing evidence of the overshoot effect. Researchers could examine, for example, the effects of rumors about impending pay raises on employee attitudes. Measurement of employee attitudes could be taken prior to and after the announcement of impending pay raises and after employees learn that the pay raises will not in fact actually occur. In this case, the overshoot effect would occur if employees would have more negative attitudes after learning that they would not get a pay raise than they had prior to learning that a pay rise might be introduced.

It may be the case that whether adaptation-level theory or opponent process theory is more descriptive of the stability of job satisfaction varies with the specifics of a given study and its measure of job satisfaction. Adaptation-level theory may better describe the temporal stability of the cognitive component of job satisfaction, and opponent process theory may better describe the temporal stability of the affective component of job satisfaction.

Indeed, much of the research on adaptation-level theory has focused on the perceptual process involving emotionally neutral stimuli (e.g., the judgment of weights), whereas research on opponent process theory has focused on the effects of emotionally arousing stimuli (e.g., emotion in response to drug use). More cognitive versus more affective measures of job satisfaction may respond differently over time, therefore. Future research is war- ranted to determine under what conditions job satisfaction stability is best explained by either adaptation-level theory or by opponent process theory.

Finally, it seems likely that job satisfaction may not be a single affective reaction to work and that some forms of it may be more This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(8)

or less stable than others. Buessing (Buessing & Bissels, 1998;

Buessing et al., 1999) discusses Bruggeman, Groskurth, and Ulich’s (1975) description of six forms of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction, often depending on the source or cause of the affect. People with some form of job satisfaction (e.g., progressive satisfied) are focused on the future, with attainment of future goals necessary for satisfaction to increase or stay at its current level over time, whereas people with other forms of satisfaction (e.g., stabilized satisfied ) try and expect to maintain the status quo in their work and affect. Relevant to the present arguments are the propositions that job satisfaction can be dynamic or static, that dynamism can be because of changes in both the work environment and in individuals’ aspiration levels, and that some changes can be seen as adaptation.

Practical Implications

The integrated theory of the stability of job satisfaction presented here has important implications for practitioners who hope to increase employee satisfaction. One direct question arising from this model concerns whether it is futile to seek to enhance employee satisfaction. If any improvement in satisfaction resulting from environmental changes or events is only temporary, then is there any point in trying? Although this is an unpleasant thought for many of us, we believe we should accept it, if it is true, rather than deny it, even though it may mean all hope is lost! There are, however, different nuanced answers to this question. First, the viability and futility of effort aimed at increasing satisfaction depends on the cost and time duration of the effect. A simplistic example showing the possibilities may be the supervisor who is likable and who praised subordinates. Is his or her pleasant behavior a continuous state or an intermittent event? If it is the former, then the subordinates will adapt and their satisfaction will no longer be affected. If it is the latter, however, then the supervisor may offer some special praise or pleasant exchange every few days, and the effects may last for 1 day each time. In this case, the cost of supervisor praise is low, and the benefits in terms of frequent satisfaction “spikes” may be high. And of course, if it turns out that the improvement in satisfaction lasts months rather than days, then the benefits would be even higher. Second, it may be possible to eventually move the baseline or set point (point of

“hedonic neutrality”) higher so that the person tends to naturally be more satisfied than before without future environmental changes or events. Indeed, adaptation-level theory suggests this possibility.

This could result from constant or at least frequent positive environmental events (a phenomenon recently demonstrated in regard to life satisfaction; Lucas, Clark, Georgellis, & Diener, 2004). If some organizations consistently have more satisfied employees than others over time, then it seems unlikely that this is solely because of their selection of naturally happy people. They may have succeeded in raising their employee’s normal set point.

Primarily, the model suggests that efforts to improve employee satisfaction are likely to have only temporary effects, although the duration of the effects may vary systematically across people or situations. Research reviewed here suggests that the effects of workplace interventions on job satisfaction decay across time (Champoux, 1978; Griffin, 1988, 1991; Ivancevich, 1972). Con- sistent with this view are reviews suggesting that organization development efforts aimed at improving job satisfaction are often unsuccessful in the long run. Porras and Robertson (1992), for

example, reported that the majority of organizational development interventions have no effect on individual outcomes such as job satisfaction; Neuman, Edwards, and Raju (1989) suggested that organizational development interventions generally have no sig- nificant effect on job attitudes, and that when they do affect attitudes, they tend to impact nonsatisfaction attitudes more than they impact job satisfaction. Investigation of a model integrating dispositions, adaptation-level theory, and opponent process theory may provide insight into this issue.

References

Alliger, G. M., & Williams, K. J. (1993). Using signal-contingent experience sampling methodology to study work in the field: A discussion and illustration examining task perceptions and mood. Personnel Psychol- ogy, 46, 525–549.

Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L., & Abraham, L. M. (1989). Job satisfaction: Environmental and genetic components. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 187–192.

Arvey, R. D., McCall, B. P., Bouchard, T. J., Taubman, P., & Cavanaugh, M. A. (1994). Genetic influences on job satisfaction and work values.

Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 21–33.

Beehr, T. A. (1996). Basic organizational psychology. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bevan, W., Pritchard, J. F., & Reed, W. G. (1962). Single-stimulus judgments of loudness as a function of presentation-interval. American Journal of Psychology, 75, 612– 618.

Bolger, N., DeLongis, A., Kessler, R. C., & Schilling, E. A. (1989). Effects of daily stress on negative mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 808 – 818.

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Core self-evaluations: A review of the trait and its role in job satisfaction and performance. European Journal of Personality, 17, S5–S18.

Brickman, P. (1975). Adaptation level determinants of satisfaction with equal and unequal outcome distributions in skill and chance situations.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 191–198.

Brickman, P., Coates, D., & Janoff-Bulman, R. (1978). Lottery winners and accident victims: Is happiness relative? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 917–927.

Brief, A. P. (1998). Attitudes in and around organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brief, A. P., Butcher, A. H., & Roberson, L. (1995). Cookies, disposition, and job attitudes: The effects of positive mood-inducing events and negative affectivity on job satisfaction in a field experiment. Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 55– 62.

Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. In S. T. Fiske, D. L. Schacter, & C. Zahn-Waxler (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 53, pp. 279 –307). Palo Alto, CA:

Annual Reviews.

Bruggemann, A., Groskurth, P., & Ulich, E. (1975). Arbeitszufriedenheit [Work satisfaction]. Bern, Switzerland: Huber.

Buessing, A., & Bissels, T. (1998). Different forms of work satisfaction:

Concept and qualitative research. European Psychologist, 3, 209 –218.

Buessing, A., Bissels, T., Fuchs, V., & Perrar, K.-M. (1999). A dynamic model of work satisfaction: Qualitative approaches. Human Relations, 52, 999 –1028.

Campion, M. A., & McClelland, C. L. (1993). Follow-up and extension of the interdisciplinary costs and benefits of enlarged jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 339 –351.

Champoux, J. E. (1978). A serendipitous field experiment in job design.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 12, 364 –370.

Connolly, J. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The role of affectivity in job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 265–281.

Davis-Blake, A., & Pfeffer, J. (1989). Just a mirage: The search for This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(9)

dispositional effects in organizational research. Academy of Manage- ment Review, 14, 385– 400.

DeLongis, A., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). The impact of daily stress on health and mood: Psychological and social resources as medi- ators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 486 – 495.

Diener, E., Larsen, R. J., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). Person⫻situation interactions: Choice of situations and congruence response models.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 580 –592.

Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. (2001). Job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of stabilities. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 483–504.

Elfering, A., Semmer, N. K., & Kalin, W. (2000). Stability and change in job satisfaction at the transition from vocational training into “real work.” Swiss Journal of Psychology, 59, 256 –271.

Epstein, S. M. (1967). Toward a unified theory of anxiety. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research (Vol. 4, pp. 1– 89).

New York: Academic Press.

Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 86, 1270 –1279.

Ettenberg, A., Raven, M. A., Danluck, D. A., & Necessary, B. D. (1999).

Evidence for opponent-process actions of intravenous cocaine. Pharma- cology, Biochemistry and Behavior, 64, 507–512.

Frederick, S., & Loewenstein, G. (1999). Hedonic adaptation. In D.

Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundation of hedonic psychology (pp. 302–329). New York: Russell Sage Foun- dation.

George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1996). Understanding and managing organizational behavior. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Gerhart, B. (1987). How important are dispositional factors as determinants of job satisfaction? Implications for job design and other personnel programs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 366 –377.

Griffin, R. W. (1988). Consequences of quality circles in an industrial setting: A longitudinal assessment. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 338 –358.

Griffin, R. W. (1991). Effects of work redesign on employee perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors: A long-term investigation. Academy of Man- agement Journal, 34, 425– 435.

Gupta, N., Jenkins, G. D., & Beehr, T. A. (1992). The effects of turnover on perceived job quality: Does the grass look greener? Group & Orga- nization Management, 17, 431– 445.

Helson, H. (1948). Adaptation-level as a basis for a quantitative theory of frames of reference. Psychological Review, 55, 297–313.

Helson, H. (1964a). Adaptation-level theory. Oxford, England: Harper &

Row.

Helson, H. (1964b). Current trends and issues in adaptation-level theory.

American Psychologist, 19, 26 –38.

Hemenover, S. H. (2003). Individual differences in rate of affect change:

Studies in affective chronometry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 121–131.

Hoffman, H. S., & Solomon, R. L. (1974). An opponent-process theory of motivation: III. Some affective dynamics in imprinting. Learning and Motivation, 5, 149 –164.

Hulin, C. L. (1966). The effects of community characteristics on measures of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50, 185–192.

Hulin, C. L. (1991). Adaptation, persistence, and commitment in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hugh (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 445–505). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Hulin, C. L., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Job attitudes. In W. C. Borman &

D. R. Ilgen (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organiza- tional psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 255–276). New York: Wiley.

Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2002). Understanding the dynamic relationships among personality, mood, and job satisfaction: A field experience sampling study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 1119 –1139.

Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2003). On the heritability of job satisfaction: The mediating role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 750 – 759.

Isen, A. M., Clark, M., & Schwartz, M. F. (1976). Duration of the effect of good mood on helping: “Footprints on the sands of time.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 385–393.

Ivancevich, J. M. (1972). A longitudinal assessment of management by objectives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 126 –138.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001a). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta- analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 80 –92.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001b). A rose by any other name. Are self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, neuroticism, and locus of control indicators of a common construct? In B. W. Roberts & R. Hogan (Eds.), Personality psychology in the workplace (pp. 93–118). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 237–249.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self- efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 693–710.

Judge, T. A., & Heller, D. (2002, April). The dispositional sources of job satisfaction: An integrative test. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organization Psychology annual meeting, Toronto, On- tario, Canada.

Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530 –541.

Judge, T. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). Dispositional affect and job satisfaction: A review and theoretical extension. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 67–98.

Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151–188.

Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998).

Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 17–34.

Kendall, L. M. (1963). Canonical analysis of job satisfaction and behav- ioral, personal background, and situational data. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.

Kinicki, A. J., McKee-Ryan, F. M., Schriesheim, C. A., & Carson, K. P.

(2002). Assessing the construct validity of the Job Descriptive Index: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 14 –32.

Kroeze, J. H. (1982). The influence of relative frequencies of pure and mixed stimuli on mixture suppression in taste. Perception & Psycho- physics, 31, 276 –278.

Lam, S. S. K., Yik, M. S. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (2002). Responses to formal performance appraisal feedback: The role of negative affectivity.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 192–201.

Landy, F. J. (1978). An opponent process theory of job satisfaction.

Larsen, R. J. (2000). Toward a science of mood regulation. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 129 –141.

Larsen, R. J., & Ketelaar, T. (1991). Personality and susceptibility to positive and negative emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 132–140.

Levin, I., & Stokes, J. P. (1989). Dispositional approach to job satisfaction:

Role of negative affectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 752–

758.

Ley, R. (1994). An opponent-process interpretation of the anxiolytic effects of single inhalations of large concentrations of carbon dioxide. Journal of Behavior Therapy & Experimental Psychiatry, 25, 301–309.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(10)

Lucas, R. E., Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., & Diener, E. (2003). Reexam- ining adaptation and the set point model of happiness: Reactions to changes in marital status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 527–539.

Lucas, R. E., Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., & Diener, E. (2004). Unem- ployment alters the set point for life satisfaction. Psychological Science, 15, 8 –13.

Magnus, K., Diener, E., Fujita, F., & Pavot, W. (1993). Extraversion and neuroticism as predictors of objective life events: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1046 –1053.

Mitchell, T. A., & James, L. R. (2001). Building better theory: Time and the specification of when things happen. Academy of Management Review, 26, 530 –547.

Myers, H. H., & Siegel, P. S. (1985). The motivation to breastfeed: A fit to the opponent-process theory? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 188 –193.

Necowitz, L. B., & Roznowski, M. (1994). Negative affectivity and job satisfaction: Cognitive processes underlying the relationship and effects on employee behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 270 –294.

Neuman, G. A., Edwards, J. E., & Raju, N. S. (1989). Organizational development interventions: A meta-analysis of their effects on satisfaction and other attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 42, 461– 489.

Newton, T., & Keenan, T. (1991). Further analyses of the dispositional argument in organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 781–787.

Oliver, R. L. (1981). Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings. Journal of Retailing, 57, 25– 48.

Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1985). Cognition versus affect in measures of job satisfaction. International Journal of Psychology, 20, 241–253.

Pol, H. E. H., Hijman, R., Baare´, W. F. C., & van Ree, J. M. (1998). Effects of context on judgements of odor intensities in humans. Chemical Senses, 23, 131–135.

Porras, J. I., & Robertson, P. J. (1992). Organizational development:

Theory, practice, and research. In M. Dunnette & L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 719 – 822). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Pulakos, E. D., & Schmitt, N. (1983). A longitudinal study of a valence model approach for the prediction of job satisfaction of new employees.

Schaubroeck, J., Ganster, D. C., & Kemmerer, B. (1996). Does trait affect promote job and attitude stability? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 191–196.

Schneider, B., & Dachler, H. P. (1978). A note on the stability of the Job Descriptive Index. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 650 – 653.

Schneider, B., Gunnarson, S. K., & Wheeler, J. K. (1992). The role of opportunity in the conceptualization and measurement of job satisfaction. In C. J. Cranny, P. C. Smith, & E. F. Stone (Eds.), Job satisfaction:

How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance (pp. 53– 68). New York: Lexington Books.

Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). Measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Solomon, R. L., & Corbit, J. D. (1973). An opponent-process theory of motivation: II. Cigarette addiction. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 81, 158 –171.

Solomon, R. L., & Corbit, J. D. (1974). An opponent-process theory of motivation: I. Temporal dynamics of affect. Psychological Review, 81, 119 –145.

Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction:

Development of the Job Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Com- munity Psychology, 13, 693–713.

Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approach to job attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 469 – 480.

Steel, R. P., & Rentsch, J. R. (1997). The dispositional model of job attitudes revisited: Findings of a 10-year study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 873– 879.

Suls, J., Green, P., & Hillis, S. (1998). Emotional reactivity to everyday problems, affective inertia, and neuroticism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 127–136.

Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & de Chermont, K. (2003). The affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914 –945.

Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Cynicism about organizational change: Measurement, antecedents, and correlates. Group

& Organizational Management, 25, 132–153.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465–

490.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and vali- dation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

Watson, D., Pennebaker, J. W., & Folger, R. (1986). Beyond negative affectivity: Measuring stress and satisfaction in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 8, 141–157.

Weiss, H. M. (2002a). Conceptual and empirical foundations for the study of affect at work. In R. L. Lord, R. J. Klimoski, & R. Kanfer (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Understanding the structure and role of emotions in organizational behavior (pp. 20 – 63). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Weiss, H. M. (2002b). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs, and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 193–194.

Weiss, H. M., & Kurek, K. E. (2003). Dispositional influences on affective experiences at work. In M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp.

121–149). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Weiss, H. M., Nicholas, J. P., & Daus, C. S. (1999). An examination of the joint effects of affective experiences and job beliefs on job satisfaction and variations in affective experiences over time. Organizational Be- havior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 1–24.

Wheeler, L., & Reis, H. T. (1991). Self-recording of everyday life events:

Origins, types, and uses. Journal of Personality, 59, 339 –354.

Williams, D. E., & Thompson, J. K. (1993). A set-point hypothesis of psychological functioning. Behavior Modification, 17, 43–57.

Williams, K. J., Suls, J., Alliger, G. M., Learner, S. M., & Wan, C. K.

(1991). Multiple role juggling and daily mood states in working mothers:

An experience sampling study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 664 – 674.

Received June 3, 2003 Revision received October 9, 2004

Accepted January 7, 2005 䡲 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.