Professional Documents
Culture Documents
INTRODUCTION
Over the years job satisfaction has been of high interest in Industrial and
Organizational Psychology. Job satisfaction has been defined as the level of positive
affect toward one’s job or job situation. A recent approach to explaining the development
of job satisfaction is the dispositional approach (Jex, 2002). The dispositional approach is
based on internal dispositions and the idea is that employees, regardless of job or job
dispositional trait that states people with a high negative affectivity are more susceptible
to experience negative emotionality and stress (Levin & Stokes, 1989, Watson & Clark,
1984) On the other side of that continuum is optimism and positive affectivity, which can
be looked at as experiencing more positive emotionality and lower stress. These variables
have a positive relationship with job satisfaction (Jex & Spector, 1996).
1
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review is divided into three parts. The first section will focus on
how personality affects disposition and effects on job satisfaction. The next section will
discuss how personality is used to measure the predisposition for committing antisocial
behaviors. The third section will show how disposition for aggression could adversely
affect job satisfaction, and the personality factors that could have possible relationships
Since there is a relationship between dispositional traits and job satisfaction then
one would expect that personality would have an impact on an employee’s job
satisfaction. The reasoning for this is that the big five factors relate to attitudes and
behavior in the work setting (De Jong, Van Der Velde, & Jansen 2001). Since attitudes
and behavior are included in the accepted definition of job satisfaction, we could expect
the big five personality factors to have a relationship with job satisfaction. Previous
research has found that openness to experience has a positive relationship with job
satisfaction by way of job characteristics theory (De Jong, Van Der Velde, & Jansen
2001). Other research has shown several relationships of the big five personality factors
to job satisfaction and found that emotional instability had a negative relationship to job
experience all had positive relationships with job satisfaction. Emotional instability,
2
namely neuroticism, has been lamented to as the source of negative affectivity, which has
a negative relationship with job satisfaction (Judge, Heller, & Mount 2002). When
looking at the relationship between job satisfaction and personality; research has found
that validities for organizational behavior criteria are in the range between .4 and .5
(Ones, Viswesvaran, & Dilchert 2005). This substantiates that the relationship between
personality and job satisfaction is indeed worth taking a look into, and offers explanation
The reason we would want to measure job satisfaction, and the correlates thereof,
satisfaction. Past research has found that workplace deviance is a means to adjust to a
dissatisfying job, and is a way to restore control over the job. Past research has also found
that job satisfaction levels can predict workplace deviance (Ilies, Judge, & Scott 2006).
There are several examples of antisocial behavior such as gossip, theft, frequent
absenteeism, sabotage, or poor job performance. All of these behaviors have been shown
to have negative effects on organizations. Antisocial behavior has also been correlated
with personality as well, and past research findings have shown that it should be divided
purposes of this study we will use a composite of the two instead of differentiating
3
between them. The reason we will not differentiate is that individual and organizational
the personality correlates of job satisfaction. Lee Kibeom (Kibeom et al 2005) made
reference that harmful behaviors at work are anti-social behaviors. Previous research has
stated that emotional instability has a negative relationship with job satisfaction (Kibeom
expect that the same personality correlates would be found for antisocial behavior as in
job satisfaction; that being that emotional instability would be positively associated with
antisocial behavior. Lee Kibeom (Kibeom et al 2005) conducted a study to examine the
associations of the big five personality factors and anti-social behavior at work. Kibeom
(Kibeom et al 2005), as most research has done in the past, separated anti-social
Kibeom et al (2005) found that antisocial behavior had negative relationships with
2005). Similar to past research findings emotional stability has positive relationship with
antisocial behavior; however the positive relationship with extraversion was surprising.
The present study intends to pursue investigation into that relationship further.
4
Kibeom (et al., 2005) went on with their investigation and conducted multiple
regression of big five factors on antisocial behavior with some intriguing results.
According to the results extraversion does seem to have some predictability for antisocial
behavior. This association as well will be investigated further throughout this study.
Now that we have seen which personality factors are associated with job
satisfaction, and that dissatisfaction can lead to workplace deviance and aggression; is
there a way to predict for these types of behaviors? Can aggressive predisposition be a
cause of job dissatisfaction, and if so what personality factors correlate with aggression?
deviance. Employees who are low in job satisfaction tend to put less effort in their
al 2007). Also, aggressive behaviors in the workplace can include several different types
of antisocial behavior such as malicious gossip, sabotage, theft, poor work performance,
James (2004) proposed that some people are predisposed to commit these acts.
James (2004) states that people use their power of reasoning, shaped by cultural norms
and values, to make decisions on how to respond to everyday situations that define
socially adaptive (prosocial) behavior. James states that prosocial people reason to make
their decisions; likewise antisocial people also use reasoning to justify their behavior as
well. James (2004) states that aggressive people seek out hostile intent from their
5
coworkers or organization, and that it may be possible the aggression shown is
predisposed to occur in lieu of a retaliatory nature. James has identified six justification
mechanisms (JMs) aggressive people use to justify their aggressive actions. The table
Table 1
for Aggression
1. Hostile Attribution Bias: Tendency to see malevolent intent in actions of others.
Even benign or friendly acts may be seen as having hidden, hostile agendas
occurs when benign or positive acts are attributed to selfish concerns and negative
untrustworthy). Or, the positive traits of the target may be ignored, undervalued,
or depreciated.
3. Retribution Bias: Tendency to confer logical priority to reparation or retaliation
restore respect or exact restitution for a perceived wrong. Bias is also indicated by
6
cooperate, and obtain revenge rather than maintain a relationship. This bias
see self as being exploited and taken advantage of by the powerful (e.g.,
government agencies). Sets the stage for arguing that aggression is acting out
oppression.
5. Potency Bias: Tendency to frame and reason using the contrast of strength versus
weakness. For example, people with a strong potency bias tend to frame others on
or cowardly. This bias is used to justify aggression via arguments such as (a)
willing to submit.
6. Social discounting bias: Tendency to call on socially unorthodox and frequently
7
Table obtained from James (2005)
Based on these JMs James has constructed a conditional reasoning test designed
to measure propensity for aggression. James’s (2005) test is similar to existing inductive
reasoning tests, where participants are to choose a general conclusion that is most
reasonable. The idea is that to the participant the questions require intellectual analysis,
but the test is actually examining whether responses to the justification mechanisms are
rooted in prosocial ideologies and rationales (James 2004). Table 2 below gives us some
Table 2
8
1. American cars have gotten better in the last 15 years. American car makers started to build better cars
when they began to lose business to the Japanese. Many American buyers thought that foreign cars were
better made.
Which of the following is the most logical conclusion based on the above?
c. The Japanese knew more than Americans about building good cars 15 years ago.
d. American car makers built cars to wear out 15 years ago, so they could make a lot of money selling parts.
2. The old saying, "an eye for an eye," means that if someone hurts you, then you should hurt that person
back. If you are hit, then you should hit back. If someone burns your house, then you should burn that
person's house.
Which of the following is the biggest problem with the "eye for an eye" plan?
d. People have to wait until they are attacked before they can strike.
Two types of solutions exist to each problem, of which one of the solutions offers
9
justification mechanisms. To illustrate this, consider solution d. in problem 1in table 2.
The reasonability of this alternative to a participant has a positive relationship with the
was constructed to detect the participants’ level of hostile attribution bias, and
“victimization by powerful others” biases in the reasoning of the participant. The other
type of solution offered in the problem is made to appeal to prosocial individuals. Once
conditional on reasoning based on prosocial ideologies and rationales, and also shows the
harmful intent (James 2005). James also stated that there could be alternative reasons for
vehicles; however he said it most important to look at the reasoning someone uses across
Based on these proposals James (2000) constructed a 25 item test that is given to
the participants as a reasoning task. Only 22 out of the 25 items are scored, and the
reliability of the task using a Kuder-Richardson formula coefficient to be .76. James then
validated this test in 11 validity studies, and found uncorrected validities ranged from .32,
sample size was 135, to .55 on a sample of 225 undergraduates with the criterion being
student conduct violations. The uncorrected mean validity from all the studies was .44.
10
Since disposition is a component of job satisfaction, aggressive disposition should
have a negative association and relationship with job satisfaction. The current study will
examine if predisposition for aggression has a relationship with low job satisfaction. The
study will also investigate aggressive disposition and personality traits based on the big
five personality factors, and whether predisposition for aggression will have relationships
with the levels of personality factors. The hypotheses for this experiment are that
1)Disposition for aggression will negatively correlate with job satisfaction, 2) will
positively correlate with emotional instability and extraversion, and that 3) propensity for
openness.
CHAPTER III
11
METHOD
Participants
southeastern Kentucky. The participants received extra credit for their respective classes
Materials
The materials utilized in data collection were a conditional reasoning test for
aggression (James 2005). The conditional reasoning test for aggression (CRT-A) consists
of 25 conditional reasoning situations, and after reading the situation the participant is
offered four choices to draw possible conclusions from the situations. The options are
either illogical, non-aggressive, or aggressive based on one of the JMs. The CRT-A is a
copyrighted scale and will not be included in the Appendix. If a committee member
wishes to view this scale a copy will be provided for them. A scale measuring the
participants’ level of job satisfaction (Brayfield & Rothe 1951) (see appendix C), and a
measure of the big five personality factors see (Goldberg 1999) (Appendix E).
Procedure
The participants were seated in a psychology lab room or class room, and were
told that we are going to measure their reasoning ability, how they feel, and attitude
towards work. They were told they have 25 minutes to complete the CRT-A, then 10
minutes to complete the job satisfaction measure, and 15 minutes to complete the big five
12
completing all the tasks all items were collected. The instructions can be found in
appendix F. After the participants completed all survey materials they were given
debriefing information explaining the study and researcher contact information if they
had any further questions. The debriefing information can be found in appendix B.
Statistical Analysis
The CRT-A was scored as shown in appendix E with each respondent given a +1
for every AG alternative they choose, a 0 for every logically incorrect alternative they
choose, and a -1 for every NA alternative they select. The scores were summed to
produce a composite score. A high score indicates that JMs are instrumental in guiding
and shaping a respondent’s reasoning (James 2004). The job satisfaction scale was scored
by summing the number for all responses to give a composite overall score for job
satisfaction. The personality measure was scored by summing all scores for the items
associated with the appropriate factor of the big five factors being measured by the items
giving us composite scores for each of the five factors. First, descriptive statistics were
investigated to determine the reliability of the CRT-A, job satisfaction measure, and the
big five personality measure. Next, correlations between conducted to examine the
relationships between the CRT-A, job satisfaction, and the five factors of the personality
measure.
CHAPTER IV
13
RESULTS
Male=22; and 3 non reported) from southeastern colleges in Kentucky. The average age
was 24 (SD=6.87).
Reliabilities
The first analysis conducted was a reliability using Cronbach’s Alpha of the CRT-
A. According to James (2004) a KR-20 was used, however KR-20 is used for
dichotomous data. After further review of the article it was noted that the answers for the
CRT-A were coded as a 1 for aggressive answers, and 0 for all others. Since this analysis
was not dichotomous Cronbach’s Alpha was used. In addition to calculating the
reliability using the three item response method (-1, 0, 1) reliability was also calculated
using the dichotomous method (1 aggressive responses, and 0 for all others). One final
way reliability was calculated was by scoring the non aggressive responses as 1 and all
The result of calculating reliability using the three responses method was low
data, scoring 1 for aggressive responses and 0 for all others, resulted in the exact same
result (KR-20=.309). However, when reliability was calculated for non aggression,
scoring 1 for non aggressive responses and 0 for all others, the reliability seemed to raise
a bit (KR-20=.44). One possible reason for these low reliabilities could be due to range
14
restriction. For six of the items nine or less of participants chose aggressive responses to
the items. Table 3 shows items in which 9 or less chose aggressive answers.
Table 3:
As stated earlier, the reliability for the three response method (-1, 0, 1) was also
very low. Table 4 allows us to see how many participants chose aggressive responses to
Table 4: Survey items in which 9 or less responded aggressively when using three
15
Item 7 6 2 92
Item 8 8 3 89
Item 10 6 0 94
Item 18 7 7 86
Item 22 9 8 83
Table 5 shows us how many people chose non aggressive answers versus illogical
and aggressive. The coding using was non aggressive dichotomous (1 for non aggressive
Table 5:
aggressive responses.
Frequency of
Frequency of non
Item number aggressive or
aggressive response
illogical response
Item 5 95 4
Item 7 92 8
Item 8 89 11
Item 10 94 6
Item 18 96 14
Item 22 93 17
16
Another explanation for the low reliability of the CRT-A in this study could be
attributed to the small sample size when compared to the samples in James et al. (2005).
This sample consisted of 100 participants whereas James (2005) sample size consisted of
1,603 participants. Due to the difference in sample size if could be that the sample in this
study simply did not contain enough aggressive people overcome range restriction.
The second measure that reliability was measured was the job satisfaction
measured created by Brayfield and Rothe (1951). This measure is a Likert scale giving
responses from strongly agree 1 to strong disagree 5. Again Cronbach’s Alpha was used
to determine reliability. The reliability of this measure of job satisfaction was extremely
the big five personality factors. Reliability was calculated for each factor of the big five
personality factors. Overall, all reliabilities of this measure were high. Table 6 displays
Table 6:
Correlations
17
Correlations between aggression and all other variables were conducted to
examine any relationships that may exist. Job Satisfaction was also correlated with the
personality factors to investigate what relationships personality has with job satisfaction.
The first set of correlations conducted used the three response method of scoring
Table 7:
Pearson
.17 .210 .020 .114 .158 -.132
Correlation
Sig. (1-
.048 .020 .423 .131 .063 .095
tailed)
N
97 97 96 99 95 100
p=.05
agreeableness. These results partially supports that aggression would positively correlate
with extraversion; however does not support that aggression has a positive relationship
18
The hypothesis that disposition for aggression has a negative relationship with job
satisfaction did show some direction towards that investigation, however was not a
significant finding. Although weak, one could argue that it was marginally supported, and
may become more significant with a larger sample size. Aggression also did not show a
The second set of correlations conducted examined the relationship between job
satisfaction and the big five personality factors. Table 8 displays the results from that
analysis.
Table 8:
Correlations between Job Satisfaction & The Big Five Personality Factors
extra agree consc stable open
jobsat Pearson
.120 .229 .317 .156 .080
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .240 .024 .002 .124 .439
N 97 97 96 99 95
Summary
Hypothesis 1: The hypothesis that the CRT-A will negatively correlate with job
Hypothesis 2: The hypothesis that the CRT-A will positively correlate with
19
emotional instability and extraversion was partially supported by
Hypothesis 3: The hypothesis that the CRT-A would have negative relationships
20
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationships between
disposition for aggression, job satisfaction, and the big five personality factors. The main
job satisfaction. The following sections will discuss the findings in the results of the
analyses.
Hypotheses
This study hypothesized that the CRT-A would be predictive of level of job
satisfaction, have positive relationships with emotional instability and extraversion, and
have negative relationships with the rest of the big five factors. The only hypothesis
supported was that aggression does have a positive relationship with extraversion. An
example of how this finding may apply in organizations is that organizations that utilize
sales people may find this is true with their employees. It could be necessary for a sales
person to be aggressive and extraverted in order to quickly build rapport with customers.
for aggression and agreeableness. This finding is intriguing in that according to most
aggressive individuals view social contact the way they do. Ironically, aggression having
this positive relationship with agreeableness tends to bring up the idea that it is possible
the group sampled in this study could be passive aggressive, or simply are so agreeable
21
that they accept what ever criticisms they encounter. Another possible explanation of this
justification mechanism in this instance may involve employees who outwardly agree
with their criticizers to get along with coworkers, but inwardly discount the information
they received.
Although the main hypothesis that disposition for aggression was not a significant
finding it was marginally supported p=.10. This shows that even though the data were
not significant they data is going in the right direction. This lack of a significant finding
could be due to some outliers in the sample taken. With outliers removed, and a larger
Limitations
Of the several limitations in this study the major one that seemed to deny the
relationship between aggression and job satisfaction was the range restriction experienced
with scoring the CRT-A. The range restriction when scoring the items of the CRT-A
allowed for no significantly high aggressive scores. One remedy for this range restriction
would be to structure the item responses in a way where there is one non aggressive
response, and three aggressive responses varying in level of aggressiveness. This would
allow the researcher to come up with different levels of aggression in which to conduct
A second limitation of this study is that the majority of the sample consisted of
22
aggression tends to be high such police or military organizations the aggressive responses
may have been higher. A third limitation to this study was sample size. The sample in
this study consisted of 100 participants. James et al. (2004) utilized a much larger sample
than this study, thus increasing the chances of having more aggressive responses.
Due to the small sample size utilized in this study the relationship between
disposition for aggression and job satisfaction was not significant; however the
correlation value was negative and possibly with a larger sample size allowing for more
aggressive responses increasing the variability may make this finding significant. Also,
conducting this research in an actual work setting may also lend to increase the variability
of these findings. It would also be imperative that an appropriate method of scoring the
method.
In summary, only one hypothesis was partially supported, and one unexpected
finding was reported. There are numerous reasons why the other hypothesis was not
supported. Range restriction of the CRT-A lead to the reliability being rather small, and
finally the lack of variability in the small sample could have caused the hypotheses not to
be supported.
23
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION
Organizations have known for some years now that employees who are satisfied
with their jobs lead to high productivity and profits. One part of employee satisfaction is
the dispositional traits that each employee brings to work everyday. Disposition for
aggressive is a part of that disposition that may vary in everyone. Organizations need to
know ways to handle individuals who are predisposed for aggressive acts or behavior,
because studies have show that these types of acts and behaviors have devastating effects
relationship between disposition and job satisfaction. The connection between disposition
and job satisfaction is important due to the fact antisocial behavior and aggressive acts
The CRT-A has only been around for a few years, however does demonstrate the
potential to predict aggressive behaviors in employees. The CRT-A was found in this
study to have a positive relationship with extraversion and agreeableness. The CRT-A is
still relatively new, and a has a relatively low reliability due to the fact the literature does
not implicitly identify which measure of reliability should be used, thus letting us know
24
References
Berry, C.M., Ones, S.D., & Sackett, P.R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational
Brayfield, A.H., & Rothe, H.F. (1951) An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Rendel, D.J., Mandy, & E.G., Paul, G.W. (2001). Openness to experience and growth
Europe, 7, 7-28.
Hershcovis, S.M., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K.A., Durpre, K.E., & Inness, M. et al.
James, L.R., McIntyre, M.D., Glisson, C.A., Bowler, J.L., & Mitchell, T.R. (2004) The
25
James, L.R., McIntyre, M.D., Glisson, C.A., Green, P.D., Patton, T.W., Lebreton, J.M.,
Frost, B.C., Russell, S.M., Sabylynski, C.J., Mitchell, T.R., & Williams, L.J.
Methods, 8, 1, 66-99.
Jex, S.M., & Spector, P.E. (1996) The impact of negative affectivity on stressor-strain
Judge, T.A., Heller, D., & Mount, M.K. (2002) Five factor model of personality and job
Judge, T.A., Scott, B.A., & Illies, R. (2006) Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace
138.
LeBreton, J.M., Robin, J., Barksdale, C. D., & James, L. R. (2007). Measurement issues
associated with conditional reasoning tests: Indirect measurement and test faking.
Lee, K., Ashton, M.C., & Kang, H.S. (2005) Personality correlates of workplace anti-
Levin, I., & Stokes, J.P. (1989) Dispositional approach to job satisfaction: Role of
26
Ones, D.S., Viswesvaran, C., & Dilchert, S. (2005) Personality at work: Raising
Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988) Development and validation of brief
27
Appendix A
28
Consent to Participate in a Research Study
You are being invited to take part in a research study about Aggression and Job
Satisfaction. If you take part in this study, you will be one of about 120 people to do so.
The person in charge of this study is Jerry Warren at Eastern Kentucky University. He is
By doing this study, we hope to learn about the relationships between job satisfaction,
WHERE IS THE STUDY GOING TO TAKE PLACE AND HOW LONG WILL IT
LAST?
University classrooms. The study will take about 50 minutes to complete. The total
29
WHAT WILL I BE ASKED TO DO?
You will be asked to complete tasks that test your reasoning ability, tell us how you feel,
and how you feel about work. All the tasks should take no longer than 50 minutes to
complete.
ARE THERE REASONS WHY I SHOULD NOT TAKE PART IN THIS STUDY?
To the best of our knowledge, the things you will be doing have no more risk of harm
You will not get any personal benefit from taking part in this study.
If you decide to take part in the study, it should be because you really want to volunteer.
You will not lose any benefits or rights you would normally have if you choose not to
volunteer. You can stop at any time during the study and still keep the benefits and rights
CHOICES?
If you do not want to be in the study, there are no other choices except to not take part in
the study.
30
There are no costs associated with taking part in this study.
THE STUDY?
You will receive extra credit for taking part in this study. If you should have to quit
before the study is finished, the payment you receive will be based on the amount of time
This study is anonymous. That means that no one, not even members of the research
team, will know that the information you give came from you.
However, there are some circumstances in which we may have to show your information
to other people. For example, the law may require us to show your information to a court
Also, we may be required to show information that identifies you to people who need to
be sure we have done the research correctly; these would be people from such
If you decide to take part in the study, you still have the right to decide at any time that
you no longer want to participate. You will not be treated differently if you decide to
The individuals conducting the study may need end your participation in the study. They
may do this if you are not able to follow the directions they give you, if they find that
31
your being in the study is more risk than benefit to you, or if the agency funding the study
If you believe you are hurt or if you get sick because of something that is done during the
study, you should call Jerry Warren at 606-219-3787 immediately. It is important for you
to understand that Eastern Kentucky University will not pay for the cost of any care or
treatment that might be necessary because you get hurt or sick while taking part in this
study. That cost will be your responsibility. Also, Eastern Kentucky University will not
pay for any wages you may lose if you are harmed by this study.
Usually, medical costs that result from research-related harm cannot be included as
regular medical costs. Eastern Kentucky University is not allowed to bill your insurance
company, Medicare, or Medicaid for these costs without first getting permission. You
should ask your insurer if you have any questions about your insurer’s willingness to pay
under these circumstances. Therefore, the costs related to your care and treatment
because of something that is done during the study will be your responsibility.
Before you decide whether to accept this invitation to take part in the study, please ask
any questions that might come to mind now. Later, if you have questions about the
study, you can contact the investigator, Jerry Warren at mindtech2003@alltel.net. If you
have any questions about your rights as a research volunteer, contact the staff in the
32
Division of Sponsored Programs at Eastern Kentucky University at 859-622-3636. We
will give you a copy of this consent form to take with you.
You will be told if any new information is learned which may affect your condition or
____________________________________________
Signature of person agreeing to take part in the study
______________________________
Date
___________________________________________
Printed name of person taking part in the study
____________________________________________
Name of person providing information to subject
33
Appendix B
Debriefing Form
34
Explanation – Aggression and Job Satisfaction
This study was conducted to examine the relationships between disposition for
aggression, job satisfaction, and personality. The study will also examine the ability to
use disposition for aggression to predict job satisfaction and personality. The prediction
of the study is that people who are high in disposition for aggression will have low job
workplace deviance and personality, and disposition for aggression and personality.
Thank you for participation in this study. Psychological research is only possible
with your participation, and cooperation. I hope you found this study interesting. If you
want to learn more about disposition for aggression, job satisfaction, or the big five
personality theory you may contact me or consult the references listed below. The results
will be analyzed by the end of the Spring 08 semester and if you are interested in learning
Jerry Warren
Mindtech2003@alltel.net
References
De Jong, R.D., P.G., & Van Der Velde, M.E. (2001). Openness to Experience and
Growth Needs Strength as Moderators between Job Characteristics and
Satisfaction. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 4, 350-356.
James, L.R., McIntyre, M.D., Glisson, C.A., Bowler, J.L., & Mitchell, T.R. (2004). The
conditional measurement system for aggression: An overview. Human
Performance, 3, 271-295
35
Appendix C
36
Please use the rating scale below to describe how accurately each statement
describes you. Describe yourself as you honestly see yourself, not as you wish to
be in the future. Your responses will be kept confidential. Please read each
Scale:
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Undecided
Strongly Agree
5 = Strongly Agree
4 = Agree
3 = Undecided
2 = Disagree
1 = Strongly disagree
1. My job is usually interesting 5 4 3 2 1
bored.
2. Most days I am enthusiastic about 5 4 3 2 1
my work.
3. I feel my job is more interesting 5 4 3 2 1
37
than most other people.
6. I feel fairly well satisfied with my 5 4 3 2 1
present job.
7. I am satisfied with my job for the 5 4 3 2 1
time being.
8. I like my job better than the 5 4 3 2 1
promotion policy.
12. I enjoy my work more than my 5 4 3 2 1
leisure time.
Scale:
Agree
Strongly Disagree
Undecided
Strongly Agree
Disagree
5 = Strongly Agree
4 = Agree
3 = Undecided
2 = Disagree
1 = Strongly disagree
13. Most of the time I have to force 5 4 3 2 1
myself to go to work.
14. I consider my job rather 5 4 3 2 1
unpleasant.
38
15. I am disappointed that I took this 5 4 3 2 1
job.
16. My job is pretty interesting. 5 4 3 2 1
17. Each day of work seems like it will 5 4 3 2 1
never end.
18. I am adequately paid for the job I 5 4 3 2 1
do.
19. I am often bored with my job. 5 4 3 2 1
20. I definitely dislike my work. 5 4 3 2 1
39
Appendix D
Demographics Form
40
We’d like to learn about how you feel – so please don’t leave any questions blank.
Age _______________
Gender (circle): M F
How many credit hours are you taking this semester? _______________
Other
41
Appendix E
42
On the following pages, there are phrases describing people's behaviors. Please use the
rating scale below to describe how accurately each statement describes you. Describe
yourself as you generally are now, not as you wish to be in the future. Describe yourself
as you honestly see yourself, in relation to other people you know of the same sex as you
are, and roughly your same age. So that you can describe yourself in an honest manner,
your responses will be kept in absolute confidence. Please read each statement carefully,
and then fill in the bubble that corresponds to the number on the scale.
Neither Accurate
Moderately
5 = Very Accurate
4 = Moderately Accurate
Moderately Inaccurate
Very
Very Inaccurate
3 = Neither Accurate Nor
Accurate
Inaccurate
Accurate
2 = Moderately Inaccurate
Nor Inaccurate
1 = Very Inaccurate
43
6 I don’t talk a lot. 5 4 3 2 1
7 I have a soft heart. 5 4 3 2 1
8 I pay attention to details. 5 4 3 2 1
9 I worry about things. 5 4 3 2 1
10 I use difficult words. 5 4 3 2 1
I feel comfortable around
11 5 4 3 2 1
people.
12 I feel others’ emotions. 5 4 3 2 1
I leave my belongings laying
13 5 4 3 2 1
around.
14 I get upset easily. 5 4 3 2 1
15 I am full of ideas. 5 4 3 2 1
I tend to keep in the
16 5 4 3 2 1
background.
17 I insult people. 5 4 3 2 1
I get chores and tasks done
18 5 4 3 2 1
right away.
19 I often feel blue. 5 4 3 2 1
20 I am quick to understand things. 5 4 3 2 1
21 I start conversations. 5 4 3 2 1
22 I take time out for others. 5 4 3 2 1
I often forget to put things back
23 5 4 3 2 1
in their proper place.
24 I am relaxed most of the time. 5 4 3 2 1
44
Neither Accurate
Moderately
5 = Very Accurate
Moderately Inaccurate
4 = Moderately Accurate
Very
Very Inaccurate
3 = Neither Accurate Nor
Accurate
Inaccurate
Accurate
2 = Moderately Inaccurate
Nor Inaccurate
1 = Very Inaccurate
45
I don’t like to draw attention to
36 5 4 3 2 1
myself.
37 I feel little concern for others. 5 4 3 2 1
38 I make a mess of things. 5 4 3 2 1
39 I change my mood a lot. 5 4 3 2 1
I do not have a good
40 5 4 3 2 1
imagination.
I don’t mind being the center of
41 5 4 3 2 1
attention.
42 I make people feel at ease. 5 4 3 2 1
43 I like order. 5 4 3 2 1
44 I get irritated easily. 5 4 3 2 1
I have difficulty understanding
45 5 4 3 2 1
abstract ideas.
46 I am quiet around strangers. 5 4 3 2 1
I am not interested in other
47 5 4 3 2 1
people’s problems.
48 I shirk (get out of) my duties. 5 4 3 2 1
49 I seldom feel blue. 5 4 3 2 1
I spend time reflecting on
50 5 4 3 2 1
things.
46
Appendix F
Instructions
47
Instructions
Once the participants are seated in the room the researcher will say
The researcher in the room will read these instructions “You will be given some surveys
today to complete that will tell us how well you reason, how you feel, and how you feel about
work. You will have 50 minutes to complete the surveys. If you finish early that is ok, just put all
your materials in the envelope provided for you and sit quietly until everyone is finished.”
The experimenter will then debrief the participants and say “Thank you for participating
in the experiment. Feel free to email me any questions or comments you have. Once again thank
48