Soc Indic Res (2014) 116:809–822

DOI 10.1007/s11205-013-0328-5

The Impact of Core Self-evaluations on Job Satisfaction:

The Mediator Role of Career Commitment

Jiaxi Zhang · Qing Wu · Danmin Miao · Xiaofei Yan · Jiaxi Peng

Accepted: 15 April 2013 / Published online: 23 April 2013

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract The present study investigated the impact of core self-evaluations on job sat-
isfaction, with a primary focus on confirmation of the mediator role of career commitment.
Three hundred and twelve male soldiers completed the Core Self-Evaluations Scale, the
Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire, and The Chinese Career Commitment Scale. The
results revealed that both career commitment and core self-evaluations were significantly
correlated with job satisfaction. Structural equation modeling indicated that career com-
mitment partially mediated the relationship between core self-evaluations and job
satisfaction. The final model also revealed a significant path from core self-evaluations to
job satisfaction through career commitment. The findings extended prior reports and shed
light on how core self-evaluations influence job satisfaction; this provides valuable evi-
dence on promoting job satisfaction in non-commercial organizations.

Keywords Core self-evaluations · Career commitment · Job satisfaction ·

Mediating effect

1 Introduction

With the development of positive psychology, there has been a remarkable increase in
attention to subjective well-being (SWB), an affective and cognitive evaluation of life
happiness and satisfaction (Campbell et al. 1976; Cummins and Nistico 2002). Subjective

J. Zhang · Q. Wu · D. Miao (&) · X. Yan · J. Peng (&)

Department of Psychology, Fourth Military Medical University, Chang Le Western Street No. 169,
Xi’an 710032, Shanxi, China
e-mail: miaodanmin@hotmail.com
J. Peng ·
e-mail: pengjx880124@sina.com

Q. Wu
Foreign Language Teaching and Researching Office of Basic Education Department,
Chongqing Communication Institute, Chongqing, China

123
810 J. Zhang et al.

well-being cannot be disconnected from affection and cognition in the workplace because a
person’s occupation is considered to be one of the most significant life domains, one that
predicts overall well-being and regulates emotions. Job satisfaction, which describes the
feelings or affective state an employee has concerning his/her job and a valuation of the
work or work situation, has been thought to be the most appropriate definition of workplace
well-being (Brief and Roberson 1989; Weiss and Cropanzano 1996; Wright et al. 2007).
This concept plays a very important role in the lives of adults. Many studies have docu-
mented that job satisfaction is positively related to subjective well-being (e.g., Chiu 1998;
Schmitt and Bedeian 1982), specifically, individuals with high levels of SWB will have
higher satisfaction in the workplace and show greater positive affect (Suldo and Huebner
2006).
As an important indicator of SWB in workplace, job satisfaction has been thought to
play a key role in the career and life of adults. Many studies have shown that personality
variables such as core self-evaluations, optimism, in addition to other positive emotional
experiences and attitude variables such as career commitment and organizational com-
mitment, could significantly predict a person’s level of occupational satisfaction (Bowling
et al. 2008). Accordingly, individuals with high job satisfaction reported less job stress,
more positive relationships with others, and more support from coworkers and families
(Sunal et al. 2011). Moreover those with high job satisfaction stated they had higher
emotional fulfillment and job self-efficacy than those with low job satisfaction, thus they
had less anxiety and depression, higher levels of hope, greater personal control, and overall
better mental health (Sunal et al. 2011). The positive effects of job satisfaction were mainly
concentrated in two areas: one was in the workplace itself, such as positive effects on
performance; the other was a beneficial feeling generated by job satisfaction in positive
psychology. A number of studies have documented the positive relationship between job
satisfaction and work performance, which in colloquial wisdom has been stated as “a
happy worker is a good worker.” (Chen 2011; Moret et al. 2012). Moreover, the degree to
which one’s satisfaction with a job contributes to overall life satisfaction is an important
and well-researched topic in psychological literature. Studies have indicated that job sat-
isfaction is significantly related to life satisfaction, and it has been powerfully argued that
work strongly influences the quality of life, even when researchers control covariates such
as workplace conditions (Sehlen et al. 2009; Mastekaasa 1984; Zelenski et al. 2008). Thus,
it can be concluded that the influence of work on life is pervasive and that life satisfaction
and job satisfaction are mutually reinforcing. Therefore, job satisfaction is of utmost
importance for adults and a vital indicator of individual well-being.
The concept of core self-evaluations (CSE) was initially proposed by Judge et al. (1997)
and defined as a basic assessment that a person makes about his/her ability, competence,
and overall value. It was also seen as a higher order trait comprising four related
dimensions: locus of control, neuroticism, generalized self-efficacy and self-esteem. Core
self-evaluations represented stable personality traits including an individual’s subconscious
and fundamental evaluation of him/herself, one’s own abilities and own self control.
Literature on CSE has supported a strong relationship with job satisfaction (Judge and
Bono 2001). Both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies found that people who scored
highly on core self-evaluations were more likely to be satisfied with their occupations. For
example, in a study analyzing three different samples, Judge and Bono (2001) found the
correlation coefficient between job satisfaction and core self-evaluations was significant.
Conducting a meta-analysis of 169 related studies, Judge and Bono (2001) found that the
correlation coefficient between four core dimensions and job satisfaction was 0.26 for
self-esteem, 0.32 for locus of control, 0.24 for neuroticism, and 0.45 for generalized

123
The Impact of Core Self-evaluations on Job Satisfaction 811

self-efficacy, respectively. Moreover, the correlation coefficient was 0.4 when these four
core dimensions were treated as a single, potential core self-evaluations construct. A
longitudinal study conducted by Dormann et al. (2006) also reported that core self-eval-
uations accounted for the trait variance in job satisfaction, and research on Chinese office
workers conducted by Zhang and Du (2011) suggested that core self-evaluation could
accurately predict job satisfaction and efficacy. Judge and Bono (2001) investigated rea-
sons for the high correlation between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction. Firstly,
core self-evaluation forms the basis for evaluating special circumstances, and therefore, the
higher a person’s core self-evaluations, the better his/her feelings towards these circum-
stances would be. The more actively a person engages with life and work, the higher the
job satisfaction. On the other hand, Judge and Bono (2001) suggested that internal job
characteristics play a role as an intermediary between these variables. Internal job char-
acteristics include certain attributes of the job itself, such as importance, complexity,
variance, task feedback, and task positivity, among others. That is to say, an individual
with a positive core self-evaluation has a higher assessment of occupational characteristics
and has a higher return from work, which in turn affects job satisfaction (Judge et al. 2005).
Other notable studies have investigated relationships between core self-evaluations and
variables other than job satisfaction. For example, research indicated that the correlation
coefficients were 0.1 (P \ 0.05), 0.32 (P \ 0.01), and 0.52 (P \ 0.01) between core self-
evaluations and salary, job plateau phenomenon, and career commitment, respectively
(Judge et al. 1999). In general due to the lack of relevant research, a theoretical framework
to further explain the psychological mechanism of how and why a person with a positive
core self-evaluations has better job satisfaction is needed. In this study we have focused on
career commitment.
Career commitment is a variable indicative of employees’ attitude towards a job (Blau
1985); “a person’s motivation to work in a chosen vocation” (Carson and Bedeian 1994). It
describes the willingness or desire of employees to keep their jobs and embodies the
development of personal career goals as well as identification with and involvement in
those goals. The more positive an individual’s acceptance of an occupation, the more
willingly that individual will be to take on responsibilities and accomplish workplace
objectives (Collarelli and Bishop 1990). Many studies supported the three-factor theory
described by Allen and Meyer (1990), suggesting that Career commitment should include
fondness for the job itself (affective commitment), evaluation of the cost of changing the
job (continuance commitment), and concerns about the violation of social regulations
caused by job change (normative commitment). In China, Long (2001) has suggested that
the three-factor theory is valid in the Chinese cultural background. A number of studies
have provided evidence for the positive relationship between career commitment and job
satisfaction, even when researchers control covariates such as gender, age, race etc. (e.g.,
Wiener and Vardi 1980; Duffy et al. 2011). Career commitment was considered as an
important independent variable for job satisfaction because individuals with extremely low
career commitment would rarely expend much energy or set high goals at work, and thus
would get less return from their occupations, which would significantly exacerbate their
psychological dissatisfaction (Murphy et al. 2008).
Previous studies have provided adequate evidence confirming the relationships between
two factors, for example: CSE and job satisfaction, CSE and career commitment, career
commitment and job satisfaction. However, further investigation is needed to elucidate the
trilateral relations among these factors. Firstly, it is necessary to test the concurrent effect
of core self-evaluations and career commitment on job satisfaction from a comprehensive
perspective incorporating the relationships among the three highly related variables. To our

123
812 J. Zhang et al.

knowledge, no study has examined the mediator effect of career commitment on the
relationship between CSE and job satisfaction; the present study was designed to fill this
gap. We hypothesized that career commitment would mediate the impact of core self-
evaluations on job satisfaction. Secondly, there was an important limitation in previous
studies in that, although examination of the relationships among core self-evaluations,
career commitment, and job satisfaction had been conducted in commercial organizations,
the relationship between these factors in nonprofit, non-commercial, or governmental
organizations had not been investigated. In this study, we examined the trilateral rela-
tionship among CSE, career commitment, and job satisfaction in Chinese soldiers. In
China, members of the military are not eligible to receive bonuses, and this allows us a
degree of control over extra variables related to performance. Finally, most research in this
area has been conducted in cultures that place an emphasis on individualism. In order to
examine the universality of these findings it is necessary to investigate the relationships
between the factors mentioned above in cultures, such as China, that place importance on
collectivism. In summary, the current study aimed to test the mediation effect of career
commitment between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction in a Chinese governmental
organization and to provide meaningful evidence for external validity of previous findings.

2 Method

2.1 Participants and Procedure

Participants were 312 male soldiers from two infantry units in China. The ages of soldiers
ranged from 18 to 25, with a mean of 19.84 (SD = 1.67). At the time of the study the
soldiers had served in the army for 24–60 months. Participants completed the question-
naires in a classroom environment. All participants obtained informed consent before
completing the measures. Participants were told that they were engaging in a psychological
investigation in which there were no correct or incorrect answers. We distributed 314
questionnaires, all of which were collected. Data of 2 soldiers was excluded since they
failed to finish all the questions. Participants received ¥5 in compensation.

2.2 Instruments

2.2.1 Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES)

The Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES), developed by Judge et al. (2003), is a 12-items
self-report measure of core self-evaluations. Items are rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). Examples of items include: ‘‘I am confident I get the success I deserve in
life’’; ‘‘Sometimes when I fail I feel worthless.’’ Scale scores are the sum of items with
reverse coding of relevant items. In this study, the Cronbach alpha coefficient for the CSES
was 0.738.

2.2.2 Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ)

The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (short form), developed by Weiss et al. (1967),
is a 20-item self-report measure of job satisfaction. Items are rated from 1 (strong dis-
satisfaction) to 5 (strong satisfaction). The total scores range from 20 (low level of job
satisfaction) to 100 (high level of job satisfaction). An example of an item from this form is

123
The Impact of Core Self-evaluations on Job Satisfaction 813

a ranking of ‘‘the chance to try out some of my own ideas.’’ In the present study, the
Cronbach alpha coefficient for the CSES was 0.893.

2.2.3 Chinese Career Commitment Scale (CCCS)

The Chinese Career Commitment Scale developed by Long (2001) is based on the “Three
factors theory” of Career Commitment suggested by Meyer et al. (1993). The CCCS
consists of 16 items rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Examples of
items include: ‘‘I am proud of my occupation’’, “Everyone should be loyal to his/her
workplace, so I shouldn’t take changing my job lightly.” The scale has been widely used in
Chinese populations and proven to have good validity and reliability. In this study, the
Cronbach alpha coefficient for the CCCS was 0.810.

2.3 Data Analysis

To be sure of the structural relations of the latent structured model, a two-step procedure
introduced by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) was adapted to analyses the mediation effect.
Firstly, the measurement model was tested to assess the extent to which each of the three
latent variables was represented by its indicators. If the confirmatory measurement model
can be accepted, then the maximum likelihood estimation would be used to test the
structural model in AMOS 17.0 program.
In order to control the inflated measurement errors due to multiple items for the latent
variable and to improve the reliability and normality of the resulting measures (Nasser-Abu
Alhija and Wisenbaker 2006a, b), three item parcels were created for core self-evaluations
and job satisfaction with the factorial algorithm proposed by Rogers and Schmitt (2004).
The procedure of creating the item parcels was conducted as follow: factor analysis of the
item in each variable was calculated firstly, next factor loading of each item was sorted in
descending order, then all the items were assigned to three parcels in turns according to
different factor loading. The method can get almost equal factor loading in each parcel.
The value of the parcel used as an indicator or observed variable which was the average
scores of several conceptually similar items.
The following four indices were used to evaluate the goodness of fit of the model (Hu
et al. 1999; Kline 2005): (a) Chi square statistic (χ2), χ2/df, (b) the Standardized Root
Mean Square Residual (SRMR), (c) the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA), and (d) the Comparative Fit Index (CFI). In this study, a model was considered
to have a good fit if all the path coefficients were significant at the level of 0.05, SRMR
was below 0.08, RMSEA was below 0.08, and CFI was 0.95 or more.

3 Results

3.1 Measurement Model

Confirmatory factor analysis was used to exam whether the measurement model fit the
sample data adequately or not. The measurement model included three latent constructs
(job satisfaction, core self-evaluations and career commitment) and 9 observed variables.
An initial test of the measurement model came into being a very satisfactory fit to the data:
χ2 (21, N = 310) = 59.843, P \ 0.001; RMSEA = 0.070, [0.046, 0.094]; SRMR = 0.039;
And CFI = 0.968. All the factor loadings for the indicators on the latent variables were

123
814 J. Zhang et al.

Table 1 Inter-correlations between four latent variables

M SD CSE JS CC

CSE 3.22 0.54 1

JS 3.50 0.47 0.43** 1
CC 3.47 0.54 0.16** 0.54** 1
N = 310. All correlation coefficients are significant at P \ 0.01
* P \ 0.05, ** P \ 0.01, *** P \ 0.001

significant (P \ 0.001), indicating that all the latent constructs were well represented by
their indicators. Furthermore, as shown in Table 1, intercorrelations of all the latent var-
iable, that was core self-evaluations (CSE), job satisfaction (JS) and career commitment
(CC) were significantly correlated with each other.

3.2 Structural Model

In the first step, the direct effect of the predictor variable (CSE) on the dependent variable (JS)
without mediators was tested. The directly standardized path coefficient was significantly,
β = 0.484, [0.360, 0.613], P = 0.002. Then, a partially-mediated model (model 1) which
contained mediators (career commitment) and a direct path from CSE to JS was tested. The
results showed that the model not very good fit to the data, χ2 (21, N = 310) = 59.359,
P \ 0.001; RMSEA = 0.09, [0.054, 0.116]; SRMR = 0.046; and CFI = 0.969. However,
examination of parameter estimates can be found that the standardized path coefficient from
CSE to JS, from CSE to CC, and from CC to JS were all significant. Thus, according to the
modification indices in the model 1, model 2 was created by add the correlations of residual
terms between CSE1 and JS3, CSE1 and JS2, CSE2 and COC.
After adding the correlations of the residual terms, the final meditational model, as
shown in Fig. 1, was analyzed. The final meditational model showed a very good fit to the
data according to the following indices: χ2 (20, N = 310) = 50.540, P \ 0.001;
RMSEA = 0.06, [0.046, 0.074]; SRMR = 0.029; and CFI = 0.977. Taken together, those
results showed the important role of career commitment in the relationship between CSE
and job satisfaction. CSE contributed to job satisfaction through career commitment
indicating that soldiers were more probable to put more energy and set high goal in their
job, which may increase their job satisfaction. The effect of CSE on job satisfaction
through career commitment was 48.6 %.
The mediating effect of career commitment between CSE and job satisfaction was
tested for a significance by adopted the Bootstrap estimation procedure in AMOS (a
bootstrap sample of 1,500 was specified). The reason for the boot-strapping approach is
that the indirect effect estimates which are the products of direct effects may not follow the
normal distribution. Thus, the standard error estimates and confidence intervals calculated
based on the assumption of normal distribution will usually be inaccuracy, and it will be
powerless for the statistical tests of indirect effect to be assumed on the normal distribution
assumption (Mackinnon et al. 2004). Mackinnon et al. (2004) suggested that the bootstrap
method yields the most accurate confidence intervals for indirect effects. Table 2 showed
the indirect effects and their associated 95 % confidence intervals. As shown in Table 2,
CSE had significant direct effect on JS, the direct effect of CSE on CC was significant and
the effect of CC on JS was also significant. The indirect effect of CSE on JS through CC
was also significant.

123
The Impact of Core Self-evaluations on Job Satisfaction 815

CSE1 CSE2 CSE3

0.78**
JS1

CSE

0.16** JS JS2

CC JS3

COC EC NC

Fig. 1 The final structural model (N = 310). Note: Factor loadings are standardized. CSE core self-
evaluations, CSE1–CSE3 three parcels of core self-evaluations, JS job satisfaction, JS1–JS3 three parcels
of job satisfaction, CC career commitment, COC cost commitment, EC emotional commitment, NC normal
commitment. ** P \ 0.01

Table 2 Direct and indirect effects and 95 % confidence intervals for the final model
Model pathways Estimated effect 95 % CI

Lower bonds Up bonds

Direct effect
CSE → CC 0.158a 0.038 0.272
CSE → JS 0.402a 0.319 0.488
CC → JS 0.540a 0.443 0.624
Indirect effect
CSE → CC → JS 0.032a 0.012 0.118
a
Empirical 95 % confidence interval does not overlap with zero

4 Discussion

The present study investigated the concurrent effect of core self-evaluations and career
commitment on job satisfaction, and further examined the mediator effect of career
commitment for the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction of
Chinese soldiers. This study found that there was a positive relationship between CSE and
job satisfaction in these members of the military, which suggested that Chinese soldiers
with higher CSE were more likely to have higher job satisfaction. The result is in
accordance with previous reports conducted in commercial organizations (Judge and Bono
2001; Bhargava and Baral 2009). Similar to employees or managers in other fields, soldiers
who had relatively lower core self-evaluations usually had negative primary evaluations
about their capabilities and values, which would result in low satisfaction with their jobs or
even military careers. As previously mentioned, core self-evaluations represent a higher-

123
816 J. Zhang et al.

level factor of introversion-extroversion, self-esteem, neuroticism, and locus of control

(Judge et al. 1997). A considerable amount of research has documented that extraversion,
neuroticism, self-esteem, and sense of control are powerful factors in forecasting subjective
well-being (DeNeve and Cooper 1998; Furnham and Cheng 2000; MeCrae and Costa
1991; Costa and MeCrae 1980). It was not difficult to understand that job satisfaction as
subjective well-being in workplace has a positive correlation with CSE. The importance of
this finding was that it provided meaningful evidence for external validity of the rela-
tionship between CSE and job satisfaction in non-commercial organizations in a
collectivist cultural setting. The positive relationship of the two may be independent of
exogenous rewards such as payment, bonuses, benefits, and the like.
Another finding of the present study was that the structural model supported the
mediation effect of career commitment between CSE and job satisfaction, that is to say, the
path from CSE to job satisfaction through career commitment was significant. Here, the
mediating role of career commitment provided new insight into the relationships among
CSE, career commitment, and job satisfaction. Prior research has found CSE to be posi-
tively related with employees’ salary, career commitment, and capacity to cope with
organizational changes (Judge et al. 1997; Judge and Bono 2001). Amy and Chockalingam
(2005) found that career commitment could significantly predict job satisfaction; we may
be able to demonstrate that these factors are related to each other. In the current study, we
expanded on previous research and confirmed that career commitment could mediate the
impact of CSE on job satisfaction. Investigating trilateral relations among factors at the
same time may allow a more distinct picture of the interconnections in these relationships.
From another prospective, path analyses showed that career commitment functioned as
a partial mediator between CSE and job satisfaction, which indicated that career com-
mitment was an important factor in job satisfaction. This result suggested that soldiers with
high CSE were more likely to set higher goals and make greater efforts at work, which may
bring endogenous rewards and higher job satisfaction. In other words, soldiers with higher
self-esteem, extroversion, sense of control, and less emotional stress were more likely to be
loyal to and satisfied with their jobs. That is to say, a “confident soldier” is likely to be a
“loyal soldier” and a “happy soldier.” This has very important applications in modern
career management. In order to be more satisfied with an occupation, individuals should
show high self-efficacy, locus of control, and self-esteem to strengthen core self-evalua-
tions, and individuals may put more energy and set higher goals to strengthen career
commitment. Moreover job satisfaction is not only the way to achieve greater perfor-
mance; the goals that individuals set also contribute to this function. These factors coincide
with theories of positive psychology (Seligman et al. 2005). In detail, according to the
advocates of positive psychology, it is very important for us to focus on employee career
commitment and CSE, and this means that we should adopt interventions that promote
career commitment and CSE to enhance job satisfaction among members of the Chinese
military.
Our study has limitations. It is a cross-sectional study, which would obstruct estab-
lishing any causal relationships among the variables. Interpretation of the mediation
analyses results on cross-sectional data should treated with caution. Future longitudinal or
experimental studies should facilitate more causal evaluations. Another limitation is that
the subjects are quite distinct; there were several advantages for recruiting male soldiers as
participants. Firstly, their incomes were fixed and equivalent so we could exclude con-
founding factors of bonuses, benefits, etc. Secondly, the impact of gender on CSE, career
commitment and job satisfaction can be eliminated as well. However, these factors may
decrease the external validity of the study.

123
The Impact of Core Self-evaluations on Job Satisfaction 817

Although there are some limitations, this study extends our insight into the underlying
mechanisms between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction. Additionally, through an
examination of career commitment we can see a significant path from core self-evaluations
to job satisfaction that sheds light on the complex relationships among these variables. In
conclusion, this study has provided new evidence on the trilateral relationship among CSE,
career commitment, and job satisfaction. CSE serves as a protective factor through career
commitment, which can have a beneficial effect on job satisfaction. Thus, to improve
soldiers’ job satisfaction, we should adopt interventions that primarily focus on increasing
positive self-evaluations.

Acknowledgments This work was supported by a grant from the National High Technology Research and
Development Program of China (863 Program, No. 2008AA021202).

Appendix

The Core Self-evaluations Scale (CSES)

Instructions: Below are several statements about you with which you may agree or
disagree. Indicate your agreement or disagreement with each item.

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

disagree agree

1. I am confident I get the success I deserve in life 1 2 3 4 5

2. Sometimes I feel depressed 1 2 3 4 5
3. When I try, I generally succeed 1 2 3 4 5
4. Sometimes when I fail I feel worthless 1 2 3 4 5
5. I complete tasks successfully 1 2 3 4 5
6. Sometimes, I do not feel in control of my work 1 2 3 4 5
7. Overall, I am satisfied with myself 1 2 3 4 5
8. I am filled with doubts about my competence 1 2 3 4 5
9. I determine what will happen in my life 1 2 3 4 5
10. I do not feel in control of my success in my career 1 2 3 4 5
11. I am capable of coping with most of my problems 1 2 3 4 5
12. There are times when things look pretty bleak and 1 2 3 4 5
hopeless to me

Minnesta Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ)

Ask yourself: How satisfied am I with this aspect of my job?

Very Sat. means I am very satisfied with this aspect of my job.
Sat. means I am satisfied with this aspect of my job.
N Means I can’t decide whether I am satisfied or not with this aspect of my job.
Dissat. means I am dissatisfied with this aspect of my job.
Very Dissat. means I am very dissatisfied with this aspect of my job.

123
818 J. Zhang et al.

Very dissat. Dissat. N Sat Very sat.

1. Being able to keep busy all the time 1 2 3 4 5

2. The chance to work alone on the job 1 2 3 4 5
3. The chance to do different things from time to time 1 2 3 4 5
4. The chance to be “somebody” in the community 1 2 3 4 5
5. The way my boss handles his/her workers. 1 2 3 4 5
6. The competence of my supervisor in making decisions 1 2 3 4 5
7. Being able to do things that don’t go against my conscience 1 2 3 4 5
8. The way my job provides for steady employment 1 2 3 4 5
9. The chance to do thing for other people 1 2 3 4 5
10. The chance to tell people what to do 1 2 3 4 5
11. The chance to do something that makes use of my abilities 1 2 3 4 5
12. The way my company policies are put into practice 1 2 3 4 5
13. My pay and the amount of work I do 1 2 3 4 5
14. The chances for advancement on this job 1 2 3 4 5
15. The freedom to use my own judgment 1 2 3 4 5
16. The chance to try my own methods of doing the job 1 2 3 4 5
17. The working conditions 1 2 3 4 5
18. The way my co-worker get along with each other 1 2 3 4 5
19. The praise I get for doing a good job 1 2 3 4 5
20. The feeling of accomplishment I get from the job 1 2 3 4 5

Chinese Career Commitment Scale (CCCS)

Instructions: Below are several statements about your attitude to job with which you may
agree or disagree. Indicate your agreement or disagreement with each item.

Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

disagree agree

1. Continuing with my current job, believing that everyone 1 2 3 4 5

should be committed to his/her career
2. Continuing with my current job believing everyone 1 2 3 4 5
should be committed to his/her career
3. Be passionate about my current job 1 2 3 4 5
4. One should love what one does 1 2 3 4 5
5. Though it is beneficial to quit my current job, it is still 1 2 3 4 5
not a good idea
6. Continuing with my current job environment and 1 2 3 4 5
conditions makes it easier to realize my dream
7. My current job can provide sufficient space for 1 2 3 4 5
development and better realization of self-value
8. My current job can help me improve my work capability 1 2 3 4 5
9. My current job provides an opportunity for me to do 1 2 3 4 5
what I am interested in doing

123
The Impact of Core Self-evaluations on Job Satisfaction 819

Appendix continued
Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
disagree agree

10. If quitting my current job will cause great loss of 1 2 3 4 5

welfare benefits, such as housing, advantages in
children’s schooling, and retirement insurance
11. Continuing with my current job, believing that 1 2 3 4 5
everyone should be committed to his/her career
12. Continuing with my current job believing everyone 1 2 3 4 5
should be committed to his/her career
13. Be passionate about my current job 1 2 3 4 5
14. One should love what one does 1 2 3 4 5
15. Though it is beneficial to quit my current job, it is 1 2 3 4 5
still not a good idea
16. My current job environment and conditions makes 1 2 3 4 5
it easier to realize my dream

Chinese Vision of the Core Self-evaluations Scale

请阅读以下每一个题目,在符合自己的程度的空格内划勾。
完全不同意 不同意 中立 同意 完全同意

1. 我相信我可以取得人生中应有的成就。
2. 我有时候感到沮丧。
3. 只要我努力我通常会成功。
4. 有时候失败使我自己觉得自己一无是处。
5. 我能成功完成任务。
6. 有时候,我感觉无法掌控我的学习。
7. 总体上说,我对自己感到满意。
8. 我怀疑自己的能力。
9. 我可以主宰我的人生。
10. 学业能否成功我没有把握。
11. 我能解决我碰到的大部分问题。
12. 我时常觉得一切都很暗淡切毫无希望。

Chinese Vision of Minnesta Satisfaction Questionnaire

下面你能看到一些关于你目前工作的陈述。仔细阅读这些陈述,确定你对句子中所描
述的关于你目前工作的某方面是否满意。然后圈出与你的满意程度一致的方框。
很不满意 不满意 一般 满意 十分满意

1. 能够使自己始终很忙
2. 拥有独立工作的机会
3. 时常有做不同事情的机会
4. 成为团体中的一员的机会
5. 上级对待下级的方式
6. 管理者的决策胜任力

123
820 J. Zhang et al.

Appendix continued
很不满意 不满意 一般 满意 十分满意

7. 能够做不违背自己良心的事
8. 工作所提供的稳定的就业方式
9. 为别人做事的机会
10. 叫别人做事的机会
11. 发挥自己能力的工作的机会
12. 政策付之实践的方式
13. 我的报酬与我所做的工作的量匹配
14. 提升机会
15. 使用自己判断的机会
16. 按自己的方式做工作的机会
17. 工作条件
18. 同事间相处的方式
19. 做好工作能得到赞扬
20. 从工作中所获得的成就感

Chinese Vision of Chinese Career Commitment Scale

请根据一段时间以来,您的实际情况,对下列问题进行符合度评估。

很不 不很 一般 比较 十分
同意 同意 同意 同意

1. 留在现职业,是因为人人都要忠诚于职业
2. 对于现在职业我感到很自豪
3. 对于现在职业我充满了热情
4. 干一行就得该爱一行
5. 即使对我有利,我也不认为现在职业是正确的
6. 现在职业的工作环境、条件有利于实现我的理想
7. 现在职业给我提供了发展的空间,能更好地实现自我价值
8. 现在职业能使我的工作能力得到较大的提高
9. 现在职业提供了机会让我做自己感兴趣的工作
10. 如果离开现在职业,会损失许多福利待遇,譬如住房、
孩子入学、离退休保险等
11. 如果离开现在职业会给我的家庭带来损失
12. 我觉得有责任继续从事现在职业
13. 我认为接受过某种职业教育或训练的人,应在该职业工作
一段时间,以做出相应的贡献
14. 我一旦离开现在职业,最大的问题就是很难找到别的工作
15. 改换职业我要付出的代价太高
16. 由于受所学专业限制,难以找到更好的职业

References

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and
normative commitment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.

123
The Impact of Core Self-evaluations on Job Satisfaction 821

Amy, C. H., & Chockalingam, V. (2005). The construct of work commitment: Testing an integrative
framework. Psychological Bulletin, 131(2), 241–259.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice. A review and rec-
ommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
Bhargava, S., & Baral, R. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of work-family enrichment among Indian
managers. Psychological Studies, 54(3), 213–225.
Blau, G. (1985). The measurement and prediction of career commitment. Journal of Occupational Psy-
chology, 58, 277–288.
Bowling, N., Hendricks, E., & Wagner, S. (2008). Positive and negative affectivity and facet satisfaction: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 23(3), 115–125.
Brief, A. P., & Roberson, L. (1989). Job attitude organization: An exploratory study. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 9, 717–727.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions,
evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Carson, K., & Bedeian, A. (1994). Career commitment: Construction of a measure and examination of its
psychometric properties. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 237–262.
Chen, S. (2011). A performance matrix for strategies to improve satisfaction among faculty members in
higher education. Quality and Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 45(1), 75–89.
Chiu, R. K. (1998). Relationships among role conflicts, role satisfaction and life satisfaction: Evidence from
Hong Kong. Social Behavior and Personality, 26(4), 409–414.
Collarelli, S., & Bishop, R. (1990). Career commitment: Functions, correlates, and management. Group and
Organization Studies, 15, 158–176.
Costa, P. T., & MeCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of Neurotieism on subjective well-being: Happy and
unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 668–678.
Cummins, R. A., & Nistico, H. (2002). Maintaining life satisfaction: The role of positive cognitive bias.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 37–69.
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta analysis of 137 personality traits and
subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 197–229.
Dormann, C., Fay, D., Zapf, D., & Frese, M. (2006). A state-trait analysis of job satisfaction: On the effect
of core self-evaluations. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55(1), 27–51.
Duffy, R. D., Dik, B. J., & Steger, M. F. (2011). Calling and work-related outcomes: Career commitment as
a mediator. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78(2), 210–218.
Furnham, A., & Cheng, H. (2000). Perceived parental behavior, self-esteem and happiness. Social Psy-
chiatric Epidemiology, 35, 463–470.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Con-
ventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits-self-esteem generalized self-
efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability-with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80–92.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job and life satis-
faction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2),
257–268.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998a). The power of being positive: The relation between positive
self-concept end job performance. Human Performance, 11(2), 167–187.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluations scale: Development
of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303–333.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core
evaluations approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151–188.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. K. (1998b). Dispositional effects on job and life
satisfaction: The role of Core-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 17–34.
Judge, T. A., Thoreson, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational
change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107–122.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: The
Guilford Press.
Long, L. R. (2001). The structure and relationship of career management in china. Doctoral Thesis, Institute
of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect:
Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128.
Mastekaasa, A. (1984). Multiplicative and additive models of job and life satisfaction. Social Indicators
Research, 14, 141–163.

123
822 J. Zhang et al.

Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension
and test of three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538–551.
MeCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1991). Adding liege und albeit: The full five-factor model and well being.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 227–232.
Moret, L., Anthoine, E., Paillé, C., Tricaud-Vialle, S., Gerbaud, L., Giraud-Roufast, A., et al. (2012).
Relationship between inpatient satisfaction and nurse absenteeism: An exploratory study using WHO-
PATH performance indicators in France. BMC Research Notes, 5(1), 83–92.
Nasser-Abu Alhija, F., & Wisenbaker, J. (2006a). A Monte Carlo study investigating the impact of item
parceling strategies on parameter estimates and their standard errors in CFA. Structural Equation
Modeling, 13(2), 204–228.
Nasser-Abu Alhija, F., & Wisenbaker, J. (2006b). A Monte Carlo study investigating the impact of item
parceling strategies on parameter estimates and their standard errors in CFA. Structural Equation
Modeling, 13(2), 204–228.
Rogers, W., & Schmitt, N. (2004). Parameter recovery and model fit using multidimensional composites: A
comparison of four empirical parceling algorithms. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 379–412.
Schmitt, N., & Bedeian, A. G. (1982). A comparison of LISREL and two-stage least squares analyses of a
hypothesized life-job satisfaction reciprocal relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 806–817.
Sehlen S., Fau-Vordermark, D., Vordermark, D., Fau-Schafer, C., Schafer, C. Fau-Herschbach, P., Hers-
chbach, P. Fau-Bayerl, A., Bayerl, A. Fau-Pigorsch, S., Pigorsch, S., Fau-Rittweger, J., Geinitz, H.
(2009). Job stress and job satisfaction of physicians, radiographers, nurses and physicists working in
radiotherapy: A multicenter analysis by the DEGRO. Quality of Life Work Group. (1748–717X
(Electronic)).
Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical
validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410–421.
Suldo, S. M., & Huebner, E. S. (2006). Is extremely high life satisfaction during adolescence advantageous?
Social Indicators Research, 78(2), 179–203.
Sunal, A., Sunal, O., & Yasin, F. (2011). A comparison of workers employed in hazardous jobs in terms of
job satisfaction, perceived job risk and stress: Turkish jean sandblasting workers, dock workers, factory
workers and miners. Social Indicators Research, 102(2), 265–273.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure,
causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18,
1–74.
Weiss, D. J., Dawis, R. V., England, G. W., & Lofquist, L. H.,(1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire. Minnesota studies in vacational rehabilitation, No.XII. Minneapolis: Industrial Relations
Center, University of Minnesota.
Wiener, Y., & Vardi, Y. (1980). Relationships between job, organization, and career commitments and work
outcomes-an integrative approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26(1), 81–87.
Wright, T. A., Cropanzano, R., & Bonett, D. G. (2007). The moderating effects of employee positive well
being in the relation between job satisfaction and job performance. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 12, 93–104.
Zelenski, J. M., Murphy, S. A., & Jenkins, D. A. (2008). The happy-productive worker thesis revisited.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 521–537.
Zhang, X., & Du, J. (2011). The influence of core self-evaluations on employee work attitude and job
performance. Psychological Research, 4, 44–48.

123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.