Journal of Applied Psychology

1978, Vol. 63, No. 5, 533-547

An Opponent Process Theory of Job Satisfaction

Frank J. Landy
Pennsylvania State University

The role of job satisfaction in research and theory in the area of industrial and
organizational psychology is considered. Job satisfaction seems to occupy a
position as the hedonic or affective component in theories of motivation. In
spite of its importance, little theory is available for understanding the affective
state represented by the concept of job satisfaction. Opponent process theory
is suggested as a reasonable deductive statement for a consideration of the
phenomenon of satisfaction. The theory proposes that every excursion from
hedonic neutrality is accompanied by an attempt to bring the excursion back
within "normal" limits. This return to normal levels is accomplished via an
opponent process. The theory further suggests that the opponent process grows
in strength with use. The theory is applied to some current questions regarding
the relationship between job satisfaction and work motivation. The major
parameters of the theory are represented by a series of research hypotheses
and corollaries.

Job satisfaction is a popular concept in strongly negative one. The position that the
industrial and organizational psychology. The individual occupies depends on both internal
reasons for its popularity have been well and external variables. Job-related stimuli
documented in Locke's (1976) recent chapter comprise a class of these variables. Thus, it is
in the Handbook of Industrial and Organiza- assumed that, at least in part, a person's
tional Psychology (Dunnette, 1976). At various emotional state is affected by interactions with
times, the concept has been a dependent the work environment. It is normally this
variable, an independent variable, a covariate, portion of general hedonic or affective variance
and a moderator variable. It has been linked that is referred to as job satisfaction.
to productivity, motivation, absenteeism and Locke (1976) defines job satisfaction as
tardiness, accidents, mental health, physical "a pleasurable or positive emotional state
health, and general life satisfaction. Fifty resulting from the appraisal of one's job or job
years of research have attempted to document experiences" (p. 1300). This definition high-
the relationship between an individual's lights one of the major questions addressed
feelings about his or her job and that individ- in job satisfaction research: Under what
ual's behavior. conditions does a positive or negative state arise?
There does seem to be one common theme The answer to this question has implications
that pervades the research on job satisfaction. for theories of work motivation. At a basic
An affective state is implied. It is assumed that level, all models of work motivation imply
at any specific point in time, an individual that individuals will expend energy in main-
occupies a point on a continuum that ranges taining or increasing pleasurable experiences;
from a strongly positive emotional state to a conversely, energy will be expended in min-
imizing or decreasing unpleasant experiences.
Thus, the affective reaction of an individual
The author is grateful to Mary Dunnette, Jim Farr,
John Hall, Jeanne Herman, and to the late Don to work-related stimuli (either positive or
Trurabo for comments on an earlier version of this negative) is an indication of the potential
manuscript. power that those stimuli have for affecting
Requests for reprints should be sent to Frank J.
Landy, Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania the individual's behavior.
State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802. As an illustration of the role of job satisfac-
Copyright 1978 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0021-9010/78/6305-0533$00.75

533
534 FRANK J. LANDY
tion in current theories of work motivation,
consider Maslow's (1943) need hierarchy
theory. In this framework, unfulfilled lower
needs represent a deficiency in the individual;
this deficiency is experienced as discomfort by
the individual. Presumably, if an individual
were asked a question concerning well-being
while "under the influence" of this deficiency,
the answer would imply some dissatisfaction.
The theory proposes that the individual will
engage in actions that will diminish this
discomfort. The same basic mechanism seems
to be implied in the fulfillment of upper level
needs. Once lower level needs are fulfilled, the
degree to which upper levels needs are fulfilled
assumes major importance for determining
the degree of satisfaction of dissatisfaction
that an individual experiences. Once again,
the theory implies that if an individual were
asked questions concerning his or her well-
being, the answers would reflect the degree to
which the individual perceived these upper
level needs as being met, and concomitantly,
the degree to which the individual would
engage in activities aimed at fulfilling these
needs. Thus, in need hierarchy theory, states
of satisfaction-dissatisfaction precede directed
behavior. Additionally, since there is no firm
continuum underlying the ordering of Maslow's
needs in the hierarchy, one might infer that
satisfaction at one level functions as a release
mechanism for dissatisfaction at the next
higher level.
In equity theory, dissatisfaction is an
unpleasant aftereffect of discordant cognitions.
As such, this dissatisfaction represents a source
of tension to be reduced, and the organism
expends energy in service of this reduction.
The discordant cognitions are the result of
individuals' comparisons of their own inputs
and outcomes to the inputs and outcomes of
significant others. In that sense, equity theory
emphasizes the role of social stimuli in general
hedonic states. Nevertheless, the implicit
assumption that individuals will engage in
activities to reduce tension or discomfort is
similar to the one proposed by Maslow.
Research in equity theory has attempted to
show that individuals with discordant cogni-
tions report dissatisfactions; this dissatisfac-
tion is thought to represent felt tension; it
is proposed that individuals will engage in
activities related to the reduction of this
tension. The role of satisfaction in equity
theory is less clear. The most reasonable
interpretation of available theoretical discus-
sion and empirical research is that satisfaction
is the absence of dissatisfaction. There has
been little attention devoted to the phenom-
enon of the positive end of the hedonic contin-
uum by researchers using the equity paradigm.
Finally, in the Porter and Lawler (1968)
version of Vroom's (1964) VIE model, satisfac-
tion is hypothesized to be a derivative variable,
depending for its value on the match between
expected and obtained rewards. Satisfaction,
in turn, has a general excitatory or inhibitory
effect on future estimations made by the
person concerning the value of promised
rewards. By virtue of the capacity to remember
pleasant and unpleasant experiences and
relate these experiences to specific contexts
and stimuli, the individual is able to anticipate
future hedonic experiences and choose behav-
ioral alternatives accordingly.
Even though the work motivation theories
presented above are only a sample of a much
larger domain, they are representative of the
implied role of job satisfaction in the area of
work motivation. The following general prin-
ciples would hold for most of these theories:
(a) The hedonic state of an individual can
be located on a continuum from positive
(pleasant) to negative (unpleasant), and (b)
there are systematic interactions between the
emotional state of an individual and work-
related variables. These work-related variables
may either be temporally antecedent to the
emotional state (e.g., reward policies of the
organization) or temporally consequent to the
emotional state (e.g., absenteeism or tardiness).
In the motivation theories presented above,
job satisfaction had clear emotional overtones.
It represented a psychophysiological state of
pleasure or displeasure. This psychophysiolog-
ical state had implications for future action
choices by the individual. Thus, it is surprising
that there have been no well-articulated
theories that include hedonic components in
accompanying postulates or corollaries. Most
research attention has been directed toward
identifying the environmental elements or
conditions capable of producing positive or
negative emotional states. Taylor (1947)
 OPPONENT PROCESS 535

implied that monetary rewards mediated these to recognize that attention has been paid
emotional states in workers. The Hawthorne almost exclusively to the conditions antecedent
researchers replaced monetary rewards with to that affective state (Lawler, 1973). Little
social rewards and incentives (Roethlisberger or no attention has been paid to the character-
& Dixon, 1939). Schaffer (1953) introduced istics of the state itself or to the intra-individual
the notion of individual differences in the past history of that state. For example, few
salience of rewards. Maslow (1943) suggested researchers in the area would quarrel with the
five sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. proposition that the perception of constant
Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1959) levels of work-related stimuli (such as pay,
proposed two general sources, and Alderfer co-workers, or challenge) changes systemat-
(1969) suggested three classes of potential ically over time. Yet no current theories of
rewards. Even though they were not clearly job satisfaction suggest any mechanisms for
"content theorists," the Cornell researchers understanding this change. A valuable theory
(Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969) implied five of hedonic states and their effects on behavior
sources of job satisfaction. Locke (1976) should be able to deal with these systematic
proposes that feelings of well-being or satisfac- and gradual changes in hedonic states over
tion derive from a system of values rather than time. There have been some attempts to deal
from needs. While needs are innate, values with these changes in the general experimental
are assumed to be learned. It is these values paradigm as adaptation (Helson, 1964) or
that determine the individual's actual choices habituation (Groves & Thompson, 1970). In
and emotional reactions. Thus, values are the industrial and organizational area, mech-
thought to be the determiners of hedonic states. anisms like arousal or activation have been
In addition to content theories of satisfac- invoked to deal with perceptions of stimulus
tion, emphasizing the source of the emotional change (Duffy, 1962; McGrath, 1970; Scott,
state, there have been various process theories 1966). Nevertheless, the issue of satisfaction
of satisfaction, suggesting how various reac- is seldom explicitly addressed in these con-
tions to environmental stimuli combine to siderations. As I have indicated above, the
produce the state called satisfaction or hedonic state represented by the term satisfac-
dissatisfaction. Early theorists implied a single tion has some rather important implications
variable, linear model. Schaffer (1953) made for more general theories of industrial behavior.
some radical changes in that model. He Consequently, theories of satisfaction should
suggested multiple variables with weights more clearly address the characteristics of the
determined by need strength. This might be state itself, not solely the antecedents of this
thought of as the discrepancy model (Lawler, state.
1973) and is characteristic of the work of The present article is an attempt to adapt
many satisfaction researchers (Katzell, 1964; a general theory of derived motivation
Likert, 1961; Morse, 1953). Herzberg et al. (Solomon & Corbit, 1973) to a specific con-
(1959) suggested a radically different process sideration of the phenomenon of job satisfac-
model proposing that satisfaction and dissatis- tion. In this adaptation, specific emphasis
faction were not on a single continuum and will be placed on affective arousal, main-
that there were limits to the effects of increased tenance, and decay as separate processes. It is
"rewards," yielding asymptotic curves. Recent hoped that by decomposing the phenomenon
work by more cognitively oriented theorists of job satisfaction-dissatisfaction and reducing
has generally followed a discrepancy framework it to simpler process components, the flexibility
in which rewards are thought to be linearly and utility of the concept will be broadened.
and additively related to the general emotional
state on a satisfaction-dissatisfaction con-
tinuum. An Opponent Process Theory of
Job Satisfaction
If one accepts the proposition that job
satisfaction represents some affective state In several recent articles, Solomon (Hoffman
that is an important component of most & Solomon, 1974; Solomon & Corbit, 1973,
theories of work motivation, it is distressing 1974) proposes that many emotional or hedonic
536 FRANK J. LANDY
Primary Process
_ ittr&shold
Hedonic _^
Neutrality \.
Opponent Process
I STIMULUS I
onset termination
Figure 1. Underlying opponent processes after few
stimulus presentations.
states that can be commonly observed in
humans seem to follow a regular pattern of
change. This pattern of change suggests that
there is a two-phase underlying process govern-
ing manifest emotional behavior. The first
stage is excitatory and commences with
stimulus presentation. This is called the
primary process. The second state is inhibitory
(at least initially) and is instigated by the
excitatory or primary state. The second stage
is called the opponent process. Figure 1
graphically depicts the interaction of the two
processes. Stimulus onset is shown at the
bottom of the figure. The upper portion of the
figure shows the effect of the stimulus onset
on the primary process and the sequential
effect of the primary process on the opponent
process when a hedonic threshold is exceeded.
Solomon proposes that the inhibitory or
opponent process seems to function as a
control on the level of stimulation. The model
implies that there are limits to a departure Hedonic
from hedonic neutrality that are acceptable to
the organism. The interaction of the primary Neutrality
and opponent processes is thought to be
governed by neural mechanisms that place
limits on levels of excitation. Thus, the
operation of the mechanism is straightforward:
(a) the organism is excited by external stimula-
tion; (b) when excitation exceeds critical
levels, an opposing inhibitory process com-
mences to bring excitation within normal or
acceptable levels; (c) when external stimulation Figure 2. Manifest hedonic response after few stimulus
disappears, the primary process ceases, and presentations.
shortly thereafter, the opponent process
decays as well. Figure 2 presents the net
effect of stimulus onset and termination and
the joint operation of the primary and oppo-
nent processes. Thus, Figure 2 represents
the behavioral manifestation of the opposing
processes.
Solomon suggests that this type of model is
most parsimonious for explaining a number of
hedonic phenomena. In support of the model,
he presents data from both infrahuman and
human studies of "emotionality." These
studies include examinations of imprinting
behavior in young ducklings, responses of
dogs to varying amounts of electrical shock,
reactions of parachutists to free-fall conditions,
responses to the loss of a loved one, cyclic
variations in opiate usage, and cyclic variations
characteristic of cigarette addiction. He points
out that when individuals are stimulated
above some level, they do not return imme-
diately to some "base" level when the source
of stimulation is removed. Instead, they tend
to "overshoot" the base level in a direction
opposite to that produced by the original
stimulation. Only gradually do they return to
base level. This overshoot phenomenon can
be seen both physiologically and behaviorally.
Solomon stresses the capacity of the opponent
process mechanism to explain systematic
changes in hedonic responses over time. It
is this capacity that makes the theory poten-
tially useful in understanding the phenomenon
of job satisfaction. There are a number of
theoretical postulates that must be presented
STIMULUS!
onset termination
 OPPONENT PROCESS
in order to fully understand how the proposi-
tions relate to hedonic change.
The first major postulate is that there are
central nervous system mechanisms that
function in such a manner as to reduce all
variations beyond some normal excursions
from hedonic neutrality. Such mechanisms
must assume the role of a hypothetical con-
struct at this point. Nevertheless, it is no
less reasonable than other similar constructs
such as "activation" or "arousal" levels
(Duffy, 1962; Scott, 1966).
The second postulate of the theory is that
these mechanisms work identically for positive
and negative stimuli. As far as central nervous
system responses are concerned, both positive
and negative variations from hedonic neutral-
ity are equally threatening. Once again, this
assumption is similar to the inverted-U
hypothesis of the arousal models (Duffy, 1962).
The overarousal end of the continuum implies
that too much stimulation is counterproductive
to the organism regardless of whether the
source is thought to be pleasant or unpleasant
on a normative basis.
The third postulate is that, at least initially,
both the primary response to the stimulus
(primary process) and the mechanism attempt-
ing to control this primary process (the
opponent process) are automatic rather than
learned.
The fourth postulate is that the process of
stimulus reduction begins at the point at
which some hedonic threshold is exceeded.
This stimulus reduction or opponent process
might be thought of as a negative feedback
loop or dampening mechanism. Further, it is
assumed that the opponent process is somewhat
sluggish in decay. Thus, while the primary
affective response system decays quickly after
external stimulation is terminated, the oppo-
nent process disappears more slowly.
The final postulate is, by far, the most
crucial. It is assumed that the opponent
process is strengthened with use and weakened
with disuse. It is this final assumption that
lays the groundwork for explaining systematic
change in hedonic response levels to constant
stimuli. A corollary of this proposition is
that the primary process or response to
stimulation never changes in intensity or
reactivity. It is only the opponent process
537
that changes as a function of stimulus presenta-
tion.
It is important to note that the two processes
are inextricably bound when some threshold
level of stimulation is exceeded. In this case,
the opponent process is referred to as a " slave"
process. Although the opponent process as-
sumptions do not deny the propositions of
arousal theorists, the theory does imply that
once some critical level of arousal is attained,
monotonicity of hedonic responsiveness dis-
appears.
Although Solomon suggests that the oppo-
nent process mechanism operates identically
for both positive and negative primary
stimulation, there is one basic difference
between the positive and negative primary
process with respect to the behavior of
individuals. A negative primary process is
produced by an aversive stimulus. At least
initially, individuals are unlikely to engage
in actions voluntarily that would lead to
aversive stimulus onset. This would continue
to be true until the opponent process (opposite
in sign, thus, positive) grew in strength
sufficient to suppress the aversive effects of
the primary stimulus and produce a pleasant
decay period following stimulus termination.
This is not true with primary positive states.
Individuals will engage in activities necessary
to produce the positive primary states vol-
untarily. As the opponent process grows in
strength (a negative opponent process, in
this case), individuals will increasingly engage
in activities that will cause the reoccurrence
of the pleasant primary state and the termina-
tion of the unpleasant opponent state. Thus,
there is some asymmetry to the positive and
negative primary and opponent states. This
asymmetry will be important in applying the
opponent process theory to the concept of
job satisfaction.
Even though the focus of the present article
is not on the content aspects of job satisfaction
(i.e., exactly which factors "cause" satisfaction
or dissatisfaction) but rather on the process
aspects (i.e., the operations which govern the
emergence, maintenance, and decay of job-
related emotional states), some attention
should be given to how job-related stimuli
might be categorized as positive or negative on
an a priori basis. Such a categorization is
538 FRANK J. LANDY
Primary Process
Hedonic
Neutrality
Opponent Process
[STIMULUS!
onset
termination
Figure 3. Underlying opponent processes after many
stimulus presentations.
important in avoiding tautologies similar to
those that hindered the behaviorists in their
attempts to define reinforcement. There are
several alternatives that might be chosen for
an initial attempt at categorization. One might
choose the operant paradigm by defining
positive stimuli as those that increase the
probability of a class of responses when the
presentation of these stimuli is made contingent
upon a response of that class. Most content
theories of satisfaction presume such para-
metric information (e.g., two-factor theory;
the Cornell studies) or ignore the implied
circularity (e.g., pleasant working conditions
are satisfying). The asymmetry of primary
hedonic states under conditions of pleasurable
and aversive initial stimulation demands
rigorous and independent definitions of the
properties of these stimuli. The operant para-
digm peresents one avenue for resolution.
It was indicated above that the theory
proposes that the opponent process grows in
strength with use and decreases in strength
with disuse. This implies that the manifest
hedonic response of an individual after
few stimulations will be different than that
for the same individual after many stimula-
tions. Figure 2 depicted the manifest hedonic
response level after few stimulations. In
Figure 3, hypothetical primary and opponent
processes are shown after many stimulations.
Notice the increase in strength of the opponent
process compared to the strength of the process
in Figure 1. Figure 4 presents the manifest
hedonic response after many stimulus presenta-
tions. Once again, notice the dramatic dif-
ference between the two manifest hedonic
responses represented by Figures 2 and 4.
Notice particularly the effect of the termination
or weakening of stimulation after many
stimulus presentations. If the original stimulus
would be considered "positive," the aftereffect
would be negative. If the original stimulus
were aversive, the aftereffect would be positive.
Based on the assumption that the opponent
process grows in strength and that speed of
initiation is directly proportional to its use,
we would predict that after many stimulations,
an individual has a much more modest hedonic
response to stimulus presentation but a much
more dramatic and opposite response to
stimulus termination.
Since his original statement of the theory,
Solomon (Star & Solomon, Note 1) has
investigated conditions surrounding the de-
velopment and decay of opponent processes.
Of major importance was a recent finding
that the opponent process seemed to increase
in strength only when the interstimulus-
interval period was less than the decay period
for the opponent hedonic response. This
suggests the operation of classically conditioned
mechanisms in opponent process operation.
There is a good deal of work to be done on
the basic propositions of the model. For
example, Solomon suggests that there may be
primary processes that have no correspond-
ing opponent processes (Solomon & Corbit,
1974). It is more likely that the speed with
which opponent processes develop, and their
ultimate strength, is related to the degree to
which stimulus termination can be identified
Hedonic L
Neutrality
ISTIMULUSl
onset termination
Figure 4. Manifest hedonic response after many
stimulus presentations.
 OPPONENT PROCESS
by the organism. Consequently, we are more
likely to find well-developed opponent proc-
esses in situations in which stimulus presenta-
tion follows cyclic parameters closely. Examples
of such situations would be invariant task-
specific cycle time, fixed reward intervals,
and other consistent temporal parameters
governing individual-environment interactions.
It will be necessary to conduct basic investiga-
tions in the area of contexts that are more
or less conducive to the development of
opponent processes. In addition, basic research
must be conducted to determine the properties
of several parameters of the model, for example,
initiation time, response intensity, and decay
time for primary and opponent processes.
Nevertheless, the model provides some ex-
planatory mechanisms that are crucial for
understanding the role of hedonic states in
theories of satisfaction. In particular, the
theory provides an excellent framework for
understanding the affective responses of
workers to work-related stimuli as well as a
description of how those responses change as a
function of repeated stimulus presentation.
Opponent process theory describes a manifest
emotional state (e.g., job satisfaction-dissatis-
faction) as the resolution of two opposing
hedonic processes. Further, it suggests a
mechanism for understanding how stimuli in
the work environment lose their value.
The theory is not particularly parsimonious
compared to other process theories such as
Schaffer's (1953) or Lawler's (1973). Never-
theless, when the simpler theories attempt to
explain why two individuals respond differently
to the same job conditions, their arguments
often become circular (e.g., "individual dif-
ferences in the salience of various rewards
must be taken into account as well . . .")•
In such cases, parsimony is a vice not a virtue.
We are asked to accept individual differences
as an explanation rather than an admission of
ignorance. In the area of job satisfaction, the
opponent process theory implies the opposite
of parsimony, reductionism. It implies that
previous process theories have stopped short
of efficient explanation. To be sure, there
will be individual difference parameters in
the opponent process model as well. Some of
these will be introduced in a later section.
Nevertheless, it should be clear that the
539
opponent process theory has both methodolog-
ical and theoretical implications for the area
of job satisfaction. In the next section, some
of these implications will be introduced.
Measurement Implications
If the opponent process theory is a reason-
able process structure for understanding an
individual's response to work-related stimuli,
there are a number of serious implications for
the ways in which that hedonic response is
measured. The most serious of these implica-
tions is the role of temporal variables in the
measurement of satisfaction. From an inspec-
tion of Figure 4, it should be clear that a
response to a satisfaction question will vary
depending upon whether the question is asked
prior to stimulus onset, prior to stimulus
termination, or after stimulus termination.
Further, the intensity of the response will
depend on whether the stimulus has been
encountered often or seldom. Finally, the
direction of the satisfaction response (posi-
tive-negative) will depend on the interaction
between the direction of the primary state
(positive-negative) and the point on the
hedonic continuum when the response is
provided (stimulus on-stimulus off).
A second major measurement implication is
that correlational within-subject designs pur-
porting to address stability of satisfaction are
inappropriate. The opponent process model
would suggest that while correlatons between
responses on two separate occasions may be
high, absolute levels of satisfaction can vary
dramatically as a function of the number of
stimulus presentations between the first and
second measurements. In addition, low correla-
tions over time may be a result of unequal
numbers of stimulus presentations across
individuals rather than inherent structural
flaws in the instrument used to measure
satisfaction.
A third measurement implication has to do
with the role of reward salience, valence, or
importance. It is common in satisfaction
studies to ask a subject how important or
salient a particular reward is. A number
representing the degree of that importance is
then used as a multiplier of some kind in a
"need strength-need satisfaction" paradigm
540 FRANK J. LANDY
(e.g., Schaffer, 1953; Vroom, 1964). The
opponent process theory suggests that the
importance an individual attaches to a
potential reward will be affected by both the
decay period of the last presentation of that
reward and the number of previous presenta-
tions of that reward. An examination of Figure
4 might make this point clearer. If relative
importance of a particular reward is assessed
by means of self-report measures prior to
stimulus termination, it is likely to be con-
sidered less important than after the individual
returns to base or prereward level; if impor-
tance is measured after stimulus termination
but prior to return to base or prereward level,
the factor will likely be considered very
important. In fact, reported satisfaction
with the element should be identical to
reported importance of the element. This
is exactly what has been demonstrated in
previous research (Ewen, 1967; Locke, 1976).
In a similar manner, individuals who have
experienced many previous stimulus presenta-
tions should assign relatively less importance
to stimuli prior to stimulus termination than
individuals with fewer previous stimulus
presentations. Such a mechanism was suggested
originally by Maslow (1943) in an attempt
to build in individual differences parameters to
his concept of a need hierarchy.
There are certainly many other measurement
implications. Those mentioned above rep-
resent a sample of a larger domain. Neverthe-
less, even this small sample suggests that
(a) satisfaction reponses should be gathered
within individuals across occasions, (b) analyses
of change over time should include both level
and shape changes, and (c) verbal report of
satisfaction and/or importance responses must
be examined for systematic temporal hedonic
effects. A corollary to this third suggestion is
that physiological, psychophysiological, and
behavioral indicators of hedonic level or
state be examined for estimates of satisfaction.
While the physiological and psychophysiolog-
ical effects of satisfaction and dissatisfaction
have been considered by researchers in the
recent past (Frankenhauser, 1974; Kahn,
1973), few researchers have considered anchor-
ing satisfaction-dissatisfaction in physiolog-
ical or psycholophysiological networks.
Theoretical Implications
In a recent examination of the current
state of work motivation theory, Campbell
and Pritchard (1976) identify the role of
reinforcement as crucial in experimentally
grounded theories of work motivation. This
would be particularly true for unadorned
associationist and reinforcement positions but
would also have implications for need and
drive theorists as well. The basic question is
"What makes a reinforcer reinforcing?" While
opponent process theory does not purport to
answer the content question implied, it does
deal more effectively with a corollary to that
question than other theories, that is, Under
what conditions will reinforcers increase and
decrease in strength. Campbell and Pritchard
suggest that the mechanism of reinforcement
might be found in the central nervous system,
citing the work of Miller (1957) and Olds
(1962), among others. They also imply that the
work of the "activation" and arousal-level
theorists leads to an examination of physio-
logical changes as reinforcements in and of
themselves. If that were to be the case, the
opponent process theory would assume content
aspects as well. If one assumes (a) that job
satisfaction (regardless of how it is operational-
ized) represents a point on a hedonic con-
tinuum, (b) that hedonic level covaries with
reinforcement, and (c) that reinforcement has
implications for directed energy, then the
opponent process theory would seem to repre-
sent a move in the direction suggested by
Campbell and Prichard.
The relationship between the opponent
process theory and the construct of arousal is
hard to ignore. Both imply some optimal level
of stimulation, and both imply that beyond
that level both "positive" and "negative"
stimulation are equally counterproductive.
Nevertheless, opponent process theory is
able to extend the construct of arousal or
activation by suggesting a mechanism for
understanding shifting base arousal levels.
Berlyne (1967) has suggested that progress
in understanding the impact of arousal on
manifest behavior can be made by considering
the interaction of arousal and reinforcement.
These mechanisms and interaction processes
are well represented in the primary and
 OPPONENT PROCESS
opposing processes suggested by Solomon. In
this light, arousal occupies the role of a hypo-
thetical construct while opponent process
theory helps to define that construct operation-
ally and to suggest theoretical postulates and
their concomitant corollaries.
Campbell and Pritchard (1976) suggest that
there is sufficient evidence available to
conclude that the "overall judgment about the
job (job satisfaction) is made up of two,
sub-general factors corresponding roughly
to the intrinsic vs. extrinsic breakdown
originally indentified by Herzberg" (p. 103).
Thus, independent of Herzberg's propositions,
a review of the available literature suggests
that there are at least two distinct classes of
job-related factors that have the capacity to
effect manifest behavioral patterns of workers.
Several researchers have suggested that
these two classes of factors have differential
main effects as well as interactive effects on
manifest behavior (deCharms, 1968; Deci, 1972,
1975; Herzberg et al., 1959). Opponent process
theory would also suggest differential main
effects, although interactive effects would not
be as clear. Let us assume that the presentation
of extrinsic factors generally results in a
positive primary state. The presentation of
money, the opportunity to interact with
co-workers, a promotion, etc., are much more
likely to result in positive hedonic states than
negative ones in a random sample of subjects.
That is not to say that every individual will
be equally pleased with the every extrinsic
element, but that in a normative sense, the
presentation of stimulus elements comprising
the class "extrinsic" will most likely yield
pleasant hedonic states.
Intrinsic factors are represented by such
terms as responsibility, challenge, demand, etc.
A number of theories (Herzberg et al., 1959;
Locke," 1965; McClelland, 1961) suggest that
it is not the challenge itself that produces a
pleasurable state, but successfully meeting
that challenge. In a recent consideration of the
relationship of challenge or increased respon-
sibility to job satisfaction, Locke (1976)
proposed that "these challenges must be
successfully overcome for the individual to
experience pleasure" (p. 1320). If one were
to invoke the propositions of the opponent
process theory to describe the phenomenon, one
541
would deduce that the challenge represents a
"stimulus on" condition and meeting the
challenge or overcoming the obstacle represents
stimulus termination. Further, if the "stimulus
off" condition produces a pleasurable state,
then the stimulus on state must be opposite in
sign or unpleasant. If this were the case, one
should be able to demonstrate that individuals
initially require some urging to accept increased
challenge and responsibility since the primary
state is negative and the opponent state is
initially weak. This further suggests that
individuals will initially attempt to avoid
challenge when possible rather than meeting
it and overcoming obstacles to success. After
repeated presentations of challenge or in-
creased responsibility followed by successful
strategies for meeting that challenge, the
challenge itself should become less aversive
and the hedonic state following successful
meeting of that challenge should become more
pleasurable. These predictions would follow
directly from the proposition that the opponent
process grows in strength with use.
If we were to return briefly to a consideration
of the effect of repeated presentations of
extrinsic factors on hedonic state, we would
observe the converse of the effect of intrinsic
factors such as challenge. The repeated
presentation of the extrinsic factor should
result in diminishing levels of pleasure. The pre-
sentation of these factors would be considered
the stimulus on condition. The absence of these
factors would be considered the stimulus off
condition, and the theory would predict that
increasing levels of displeasure would be
associated with these stimulus elements in
direct proportion to the number of stimulus
presentations. Thus, after extended periods
of time, elements that originally had power
over behavioral choice by virtue of their
presence now have control only by virtue of
their actual or threatened absence.
In summary, opponent process theory
predicts the affective reactions among experi-
enced workers to intrinsic and extrinsic factors
on the job; intrinsic factors have the capacity
to yield neutral hedonic states in their presence
and positive hedonic aftereffects; extrinsic
factors produce neutral hedonic states in
their presence and negative hedonic aftereffects.
A simpler way of stating this relationship
542 FRANK J. LANDY
might be that extrinsic factors can produce
dissatisfaction after their termination and
intrinsic factors can produce satisfaction after
their termination. If an experienced worker
were asked to recall pleasant work-related
situations, these situations would involve
intrinsic factors (e.g., having overcome a
difficult challenge); if the same worker were
asked to recall unpleasant work-related situa-
tions, these situations would involve extrinsic
factors (e.g., the withdrawal of environmental
attributes normally seen as pleasurable). Thus,
opponent process theory would lead one to
deduce the principles that form the basis of
Herzberg's inductive theory of job satsifaction.
If one considers that challenge produces a
negative hedonic state that is replaced with
a positive hedonic state when the challenge is
met, the implications for feedback in the work
setting are rather dramatic. In most work
settings, individuals require outside confirma-
tion that a challenge has been met. The most
obvious source for this feedback is the super-
visor. Thus, if individuals are provided with
challenge yet never or seldom told when they
have successfully met the challenge (or made
progress toward meeting it), one would expect
constant levels of negative tension. Feedback
indicating that a challenge has been met is
necessary for the " termination" of the stimulus
represented by the challenge. In this frame-
work, feedback is a necessary but not sufficient
condition for producing positive hedonic
states. The sufficient condition is controlled
by the number of previous presentations of
challenge.
Mechanisms such as those described above
might also help account for the effects of job
enrichment. If the enriched job represents
increased levels of challenge, initial reactions
of workers should be negative to varying
degrees (depending on the degree of perceived
change between the old levels of challenge and
the new levels). As the "new" job is learned
and the challenges successfully met, resistance
and negative responses should decrease and
satisfaction with mastery of the new job
should increase. The degree to which the job
is enriched should have implications for
resulting hedonic states. If the enriched job
represents dramatically increased levels of
challenge, the potential for dissatisfaction with
the new job is high and prompt performance
feedback imperative.
An extension of the consideration of job
enrichment is an examination of the mirror
image, that is, boring tasks. Boredom and
dissatisfaction with the work itself are treated
synonymously, and both are thought to be a
result of lack of mental challenge (Locke,
1976). In spite of the importance of the
phenomenon of boredom for understanding
workers' reactions to jobs, there are few
theories that provide any insights into how
tasks become boring. Activation and arousal
theory (Duffy, 1962; Scott, 1966) suggest
that the particular stimulus element falls
below some optimal level, which results in
underarousal, a negative hedonic state. Never-
theless, it is commonplace to note that these
stimulus elements become "boring" over time.
Helson (1964) has suggested that this increas-
ing impotence of stimuli to arouse the orga-
nism is a result of some neural mechanism
represented by the hypothetical construct of
"adaptation level." The operations of hedonic
excitation, maintenance, and decay are con-
siderably clearer in the opponent process
theory than in the adaptation or arousal
level frameworks. This is due in part to the
fact that both arousal and adaptation proposi-
tions are more directly concerned with action
than emotion.
Opponent process theory requires one to
view the issue of boredom as a more general
phenomenon than currently implied by extant
literature. The issue becomes one of the
habituation level of an organism relative to
various classes of stimuli. Thus, one can be
just as easily "bored" with levels of pay as
one can with tasks required by a particular
job. In this framework, job enrichment might
be thought of as an instance of stimulus
sensitization; boring tasks would be an
instance of habituation. In this framework, the
adjective boring might be applied to any one
of a number of stimulus elements that char-
acterize the job, not just the tasks that define
that job.
When the concept of boredom is extended
in this way, there are few theories of job
satisfaction capable of explaining the phenom-
enon. Groves and Thompson (1970) have
suggested that a model of habituation must
 OPPONENT PROCESS
include at least the following parameters:
time course and recovery, effect of repeated
series, effect of stimulus frequency, effect of
stimulus intensity, and stimulus generalization
gradients. With the exception of the final
parameter, opponent process theory meets the
requirements. In their consideration of habit-
uation, Groves and Thompson suggest that
habituation and stimulus frequency are expo-
nentially related. Thus, opponent process
theory would seem uniquely suited for a
detailed decomposition of the phenomenon
of boredom and an extension of the concept
to cover stimulus elements other than job
tasks.
There are some clear differences between
the approach that activation theorists (Scott,
1966) take to decompose the hedonic phenom-
enon accompanying boredom and that pro-
posed by opponent process theory. The
activation position would be that all departures
from some idiographic "normal" level would
be noxious to the organism and that the
organism would attempt to escape from that
state and ultimately avoid that state by
controlling levels of stimulation. Opponent
process theory would separate manifest hedonic
behavior from latent states represented by the
primary and opponent processes. Thus, individ-
uals would be capable of both positive and
negative affective reactions toward stimuli
that exceed some threshold. A good deal of
recent physiological research (Frankenhauser,
1974) on stress suggests that there are "hidden"
costs to the organism for overarousal. This
research suggests that individuals are not
always capable of recognizing the harmful
effects or costs of manifestly pleasant ex-
periences. This line of research clearly implies
that not all suprathreshold arousal is con-
sidered noxious by the organism, contrary to
the propositions of activation theory.
Finally, the propositions of opponent process
theory suggest some modifications of Locke's
goal-setting theory of work motivation and job
satisfaction (Locke & Bryan, 1969; Locke,
Cartledge, & Knerr, 1970). A major proposition
of Locke's approach is that individuals who
accept hard goals expend greater energy and
have the capacity to experience greater
satisfaction than individuals who accept
easier goals or no goals at all. As indicated
543
earlier, Locke (1976) implies that achieving
goals produces pleasure, and opponent process
theory would imply that setting goals may
have negative hedonic effects. Thus, early in
a goal-setting "career," individuals will ac-
tively resist goal setting and receive minimal
amounts of pleasure from achieving those
goals. As experience with goal setting and
goal attainment increases, resistance should
decrease (since the primary state is reduced by
the increasingly powerful opponent state)
and derived pleasure from goal attainment
should increase (since the aftereffect rep-
resented by the opponent state becomes
increasingly stronger and decays more slowly).
Thus, opponent process theory provides
goal-setting propositions with a mechanism
for describing some affective history. This
affective history, in turn, represents an in-
dividual differences parameter affecting the
likelihood that an individual will accept a
hard goal and be satisfied with its achievement.
Parametric Investigations
It should be obvious that the first major
obstacle to be overcome in the application of
opponent process theory to the study of
job statisfaction is a specification of the
parameters of the model. An examination of
Figures 1-4 is sufficient to identify most of
them.
The first major question concerns the
definition of a "stimulus." The work environ-
ment is rich with stimuli, and one must be
able to decompose that environment into
main effects and interactions. Opponent proc-
ess theory demands such dec&mposition to
a greater degree than other approaches to
satisfaction. The content theories of job satis-
faction ask us to accept a limited number of
homogeneous stimulus elements. Neverthe-
less, both the opponent process theory and
alternative approaches face this obstable
equally. A reasonable strategy for an examina-
tion of this question might be borrowed from
the experimentalists. The concept of stimulus
control (Terrace, 1966) might be a useful
strategy for addressing this issue. In such a
paradigm, the organism's ability to dis-
criminate among stimuli is of central concern.
544 FRANK J. LANDY
The experimental designs resemble those
associated with constructing generalization
gradients for various stimulus elements. Opera-
tionally, one might attempt to determine
the independence of stimulus elements in terms
of the response characteristics of the organism.
If the response levels to various stimulus
elements is relatively flat, we might conclude
that the stimulus elements are not distinct
from the point of view of the respondent. On
the other hand, if the generalization gradients
are steep, we would conclude that the stimulus
elements are perceived as independent by the
individual. Historically, researchers in the
area of the job satisfaction have proposed
stimulus groupings on the basis of the verbal
responses across individuals. These responses
have traditionally been factor or cluster
analyzed and functional generalization gra-
dients assumed. This is an imprecise paradigm
for determining stimulus properties. The
stimulus generalization or stimulus control
paradigm is an alternative approach to the
problem that may be of some value.
A second question relates to the "acceptable"
levels of neural stimulation. Opponent process
theory proposes that when some threshold is
exceeded, the opponent process is activated.
The definition of this acceptable-unacceptable
excursion from neutrality must be considerably
tightened. Once again, this is not a problem
peculiar to industrial and organizational
psychologists. In some senses, this parameter
is tied to the question of when a stimulus is
"present." Experimental psychology has dealt
with variations of this question in the just
noticeable differences paradigm. To some
extent, we are describing a process whereby
the organism "notices" that stimulus intensity
has changed. The question becomes one of
identifying the level of stimulus change
necessary for the perception of change by
the organism. Weber's law and Steven's power
functions (Stevens, 1957) are operational
definitions of such changes for various modal-
ities. The concept of just noticeable differences
is at the heart of equity theory (Adams, 1965;
Jaques, 1961). In addition, there have been
sporadic attempts to use classic psychophysical
operations to plot the effect of increased
stimulus intensity against satisfaction in the
work setting (Zedeck & Smith, 1968). These
strategies might be easily extended to plot the
"power" of various work-related stimuli. This
would provide a preliminary specification of
the threshold parameter of the model.
A third parameter of importance is the
decay functions of both the primary and
opponent states. When the stimulus is ter-
minated, it is unlikely that the primary state
disappears simultaneously. There is bound to
be some latency or decay. The same is true,
and to a greater extent, of the opponent
state. In the simplest terms, the question is
"How long does a stimulus last?" The experi-
mental paradigm for studying such a question
is one of extinction. Since longitudinal studies
of satisfaction have been so infrequent, we
know little or nothing about the decay func-
tions of stimulation as a molar concept, let
alone the decay of two separate functions such
as those represented by the primary and
opponent states in opponent process theory.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to propose that
a decay parameter interacts with stimulus
frequency and intensity.
A fourth parameter is suggested by some
recent work done by Solomon (Starr &
Solomon, Note 1). He suggests that the
interstimulus interval is the key to the increas-
ing strength and decreasing latency of the
opponent process. Specifically, in laboratory
studies it has been found that if the stimulus
of interest is presented before the opponent
state of the previous stimulus presentation
disappears or decays, the opponent state will
grow in strength and decrease in latency.
Conversely, if the next stimulus presentation
conies after the decay or disappearance of the
previous opponent state, the opponent state
will decrease in strength. This suggests a
classical conditioning mechanism connecting
the primary and opponent states. This condi-
tioning paradigm might be useful for examining
the effect of interstimulus intervals. Intui-
tively, the concept of interstimulus intervals
is an appealing one for work-related phenomena
such as reward periods, job cycles, etc., but
there has been little or no systematic investiga-
tion of this parameter.
Although there are other, less obvious,
parameters that might be suggested by theory,
the major ones have been presented above.
These parameters should be important for
 OPPONENT PROCESS
any theory of job satisfaction, yet they have
not been directly addressed by those consider-
ing the question of job satisfaction. The
advantage of opponent process theory is that
it provides a reason to investigate those
parameters as well as a model for placing them
in coherent relationships with each other.
These conceptual applications of opponent
process theory to satisfaction and motivation
in work settings are intended to demonstrate
the value of considering a new paradigm in
the study of job satisfaction. The kinds of
questions that opponent process theory raises
concerning the phenomenon of job satisfaction
have not often been asked in published
research. Nevertheless, they are appropriate
and even crucial questions if we accept the
proposition that the concept of job satisfaction
is intended to represent some hedonic state.
Most current approaches to job satisfaction
(Lawler, 1973) imply that it is a cognitive
outcome with simple hedonic consequences.
Opponent process theory requires one to
consider the nature and consequences of that
hedonic state in a more direct and complex
manner.
To be sure, the opponent process approach
is problematic in any setting, but even more
so in attempting to explain the field behavior
of humans rather than the laboratory behavior
in infrahumans. As mentioned earlier, one of
the most difficult problems in the application
of the theory to the concept of job satisfaction
is the notion of stimulus onset and stimulus
termination. Since humans have the well-
developed capacity to abstract, form concepts,
and deal with the real world symbolically, one
cannot easily control, or even measure,
temporal stimulus properties. In addition,
there are multiple primary and opponent
processes operating simultaneously in the real
world. The manner in which these multiple
hedonic systems interact becomes a central
question for the researcher. The intricacy and
complexity of opponent process theory suggests
that it is not terribly parsimonious when
compared to more compact approaches. Never-
theless, the parsimony of past approaches
to job satisfaction has not proven useful in
incorporating the concept of satisfaction into
the broader question of motivation. Parsimony
in theory building is only desirable to the
545
degree that it improves our understanding or
prediction.
Suggested Research
The immediate research questions suggested
by the opponent process theory are parametric
in nature. As such, research generated by these
questions should prove useful to all theory
building in the area of job satisfaction. Below,
several of these questions have been formally
stated as general hypotheses with specific
corollaries:
1. There is a systematic recruitment, main-
tenance, and decay function that can be
used to describe the hedonic response of an
individual over time to the presentation of a
particular stimulus element, (a) After the
presentation of a reward, an individual's
satisfaction with that reward will systemat-
ically change over time, eventually returning
to prereward levels of satisfaction with that
reward, (b) Individuals will report both
satisfaction and dissatisfaction with constant
levels of a particular reward at differing
points in time.
2. Repeated stimulus presentation affects
the manifest response of an individual to a
particular stimulus element, (a) The greater
the number of times that a particular reward
or punishment has been presented, the longer
it will take for an individual to return to
prereward or punishment level, (b) The
greater the number of times a reward has been
presented, the less the satisfaction of the
individual with each succeeding presentation,
(c) The greater the number of times a reward
or punishment has been presented, the greater
will be the effect of terminating that reward or
punishment on job satisfaction of individuals.
3. The shorter the interval between succes-
sive presentations of stimulus elements, the
stronger the opposing response to the primary
state generated by those stimulus elements,
(a) Rewards or punishments that are presented
frequently will have smaller immediate effects
on job satisfaction than those presented
infrequently.
4. Goal-directed activity produces negative
primary states and positive opponent states,
(a) Individuals will report less satisfaction
with a particular task before meeting a goal
546 FRANK J. LANDY
than after meeting a goal, (b) Individuals
will report less satisfaction with difficult
tasks than with easy tasks prior to meeting
a task goal, (c) Individuals will report greater
satisfaction with difficult tasks than with easy
tasks after meeting a task goal, (d) Individuals
with a history of goal setting will report less
dissatisfaction during goal-seeking periods
than individuals with no history of goal setting.
These are just a few of the hypotheses that
might be posed on the basis of the opponent
process theory and its application to the
phenomenon of job satisfaction. There are
many other, less obvious, implications of the
theory. For example, stimulus intensity seems
less critical than stimulus frequency in
understanding hedonic response level; it may
make little difference for hedonic states if
rewards are contingent or noncontingent upon
some particular behavior; avoidance and
escape mechanisms are as crucial for under-
standing in industrial behavior as are approach
mechanisms.
In summary, the questions posed by a
consideration of opponent process theory and
its applicability to job satisfaction are ques-
tions that are crucial for any reasonable
theory of job satisfaction. Opponent process
theory represents the most well-developed
deductive research currently available. As
such, it might be efficiently interlaced with
current content theories of job satisfaction to
yield a more reasonable decomposition of the
satisfaction phenomenon.
Reference Note
1. Starr, M. D., & Solomon, R. L. Imprinting with
brief exposures: Factors affecting the development of
separation distress in ducklings. Paper presented
at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Associa-
tion, New York, April 1976.
References
Adams, J. S. Injustice in social exchange. In L. Berko-
witz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press, 1965.
Alderfer, C. P. An empirical test of a new theory of
human needs. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 1969, 4, 142-175.
Berlyne, D. E. Arousal and reinforcement. In D. Levine
(Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 15).
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1967.
Campbell, J. P., & Pritchard, R. D. Motivation theory
in industrial and organizational psychology. In
M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally,
1976.
deCharms, R. Personal causation: The internal affective
determinants of behavior. New York: Academic
Press, 1968.
Deci, E. L. The effects of contingent and non-contingent
rewards and controls on intrinsic motivation.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
1972, 8, 217-229.
Deci, E. L. Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum,
1975.
Duffy, E. Activation and behavior. New York: Wiley,
1962.
Dunnette, M. Handbook of industrial and organizational
Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976.
Ewen, R. B. Weighting components of job satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967, 51, 68-73.
Frankenhauser, M. Overstimulation: a threat to the
quality of life. In, Man in the communications system
of the future. Stockholm: Swedish Cabinet Office,
Secretariat for Future Studies, 1974.
Groves, P. M., & Thompson, R. F. Habituation: A
dual process theory. Psychological Review, 1970,
77, 419-450.
Kelson, H. Adaptation level theory: An experimental and
systematic approach to behavior. New York: Harper
& Row, 1964.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. The
motivation to work. New York: Wiley, 1959.
Hoffman, H. S., & Solomon, R. L. The opponent
process theory of motivation: III. Some affective
dynamics in imprinting. Learning and Motivation,
1974, 5, 149-164.
Jaques, E. Equitable payment. New York: Wiley, 1961.
Kahn, R. L. Conflict, ambiguity, and overload: Three
elements in job stress. Occupational Mental Health,
1973, 3, 2-9.
Katzell, R. Personal values, job satisfaction, and job
behavior. In H. Borow (Ed.), Man in a world at work.
Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1964.
Lawler, E. E. Motivation in work organizations.
Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1973.
Likert, R. New patterns in management. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1961.
Locke, E. The relationship of task success to task
liking and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology,
1965, 49, 379-385.
Locke, E. A. The nature and causes of job satisfaction.
In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally,
1976.
Locke, E. A., & Bryan, J. F. The directing function of
goals in task performance. Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, 1969, 4, 35-42.
Locke, E. A., Cartledge, N., & Knerr, C. S. Studies of
the relationship between goal setting, satisfaction,
and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 1970, 5, 135-139.
Maslow, A. A theory of human motivation. Psycholog-
' ical Review, 1943, 50, 370-396.
 OPPONENT PROCESS
McClelland, D. C. The achieving society. Princeton,
N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1961.
McGrath, J. Social and psychological factors in stress.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970,
Miller, N. E. Experiments on motivation: Studies
combining psychological, physiological, and phar-
macological techniques. Science, 19S7, 126', 1271-
1278.
Morse, N. C. Satisfactions in the white collar job. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Survey Research
Center, 1953.
Olds, J. Hypothalamic substrates of reward. Physiolog-
ical Review, 1962, 42, 554-604.
Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. Managerial attitudes and
performance. Homewood, 111.: Irwin-Dorsey, 1968.
Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dixon, W. J. Management and
the worker. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1939.
Schaffer, R. H. Job satisfaction as related to need
satisfaction in work. Psychological Monographs,
1953, <J7(14, Whole No. 304).
Scott, W. E. Activation theory and task design.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
1966, ;, 3-30.
547
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. The
measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement.
Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969.
Solomon, R. L., & Corbit, J. D. An opponent process
theory of motivation: II. Cigarette addiction.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1973, 81, 158-171.
Solomon, R. L., & Corbit, J. D. An opponent process
theory of motivation: I. Temporal dynamics of affect.
Psychological Review, 1974,81, 119-145.
Stevens, S. S. On the psychophysical law. Psychological
Review, 1957, 64, 153-181.
Taylor, F. W. Principles of scientific management.
New York: Harper & Row, 1947.
Terrace, H. S. Stimulus control. In W. H. Honig (Ed.),
Operant behavior: areas of research and application.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966.
Vroom, V. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley,
1964.
Zedeck, S., & Smith, P. C. A psychophysical determina-
tion of equitable payment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1968, 52, 343-347.
Received November 28, 1977 •