Hackett 1985
Hackett 1985
Hackett 1985
the threshold, and some who are absent may be barely above it. About
the threshold may be a region of error, in which the behavior may be
thought to be random. Even with no recording error, there is some
random error variance in an attendance record used to measure tenden-
cies to approach or avoid work.
The psychometric concept of reliability is therefore not irrelevant to
the evaluation of various absenteeism measures. The common definitions
of reliability include the consistency of measurement across (a) indepen-
dent administrations of a single instrument (test-retest), (b) independent
administrations of presumably equivalent forms of the instrument (alter-
nate forms reliability), and (c) single administration of one form (internal
consistency). A common approach to estimating reliability of measures
of absenteeism combines the logic of a retest with practical problems of
equivalent forms when absences during one time period are correlated
with absences during a subsequent time period. If each time period is a
full year, and if no dramatic changes (e.g., recessions or boom periods)
occurred in one of them, then the two years may be considered essentially
equivalent in that they are subject to the same seasonal and similar
sources of variation in attendance. In contrast, the fourth quarter of one
year (October through December) ordinarily cannot be considered equiv-
alent for attendance purposes to the first quarter (January through March)
of the next year. The lack of equivalent circumstances may, therefore,
be one source of error variance in inferences drawn from records of
absences.
Whereas test-retest reliabilities provide an index of a measure’s sta-
bility over two time periods, split-half test reliabilities provide an index
of a measure’s internal consistency within one administration or, in the
case of absenteeism, within one clearly specified time. Thus, we could
consider weekly absences recorded for each exployee over a 6-month
period as individual observations contributing to a “total 6-month absen-
teeism score.” The internal consistency of the absenteeism data could
then be determined by coefficient (Y or by dividing the observations in
halves (e.g., alternate weeks). (Pearson product-moment correlations be-
tween any two halves need to be corrected by the Spearman-Brown
formula.) As with the test-retest reliabilities, internal consistency esti-
mates can be expected to be lower than those typically reported in the
test construction literature; a person is likely to change less in the time
required for two consecutive multiple choice questions than over two
consecutive weeks.
Method. A search through published and unpublished research on em-
ployee absenteeism was done and reported reliabilities of absence mea-
sures cumulated within the three main absence types-Frequency, At-
titudinal, and Time Lost. To obtain a more stable estimate of the reliability
ABSENTEEISM AND JOB SATISFACTION 345
TABLE I
RELIABILITIESFORTHE FREQUENCY INDEX
r Time interval
Test-retest
Huse and Taylor (1962) .61 Two l-year periods
Chadwick-Jones ef al. (1971) .43 Two l-year periods
Bernardin (1976) .37 (7) Three i-year periods
Nicholson and Goodge (1976) .57 Two l-year periods
Waters and Roach (1979) .62 Two l-year periods
Breaugh (1981) .62 (7))” Four l-month periods
Hammer and Landau (1981)b .58 Two IS-month periods
Clegg (1983) .54 (V) Four l-month periods
Spearman-Brown
Turner (1960) .74 (Plant 1) 12 months
.60 (Plant 2)
Farr et al. (1971) .39
Nicholson (1975)’ -.25 (Plant I) .28 52 weeks
-.20 .39
.66 .65
.46 .7s
.47 .66
.23 .oo
.51 .43
-.25 .69 (Plant 16)
---
a Average interperiod r.
b In this study absences were classified into voluntary vs involuntary and frequency
counts made within each class. The reliability estimate reported is for voluntary absences.
c In this study 16 different companies of four contrasting technologies were sampled.
346 HACKETTANDGUION
TABLE2
RELIABILITIESFORTHE A~ITUDINAL INDEX
r Time interval
Test-retest
Huse and Taylor (1962) .52
Chadwick-Jones et al. (1971) .38
Mirvis and Lawler (1977) .49 (7))” Three l-month periods
Spearman-Brown
Nicholson (1975)b .45 (Plant 1) .37 52 weeks
.08 .lO
.66 .36
.35 .75
.55 .66
.I8 - .08
.36 .69
.06 .41 (Plant 16)
a Average interperiod r.
b In this study 16 different companies of four contrasting technologies were sampled.
firm conclusions, it does appear that all three indices are quite unreliable.
Finding that the highest mean reliability to be associated with the Time
Lost Index is contrary to the generally held notion that the Frequency
Index is the most reliable measure of absenteeism currently available (cf.
Hammer & Landau, 1981; Johns, 1978; Muchinsky, 1977).
Validity
Do absence measures reflect what they are purported to measure-
namely, the underlying voluntary or involuntary nature of the absence?
If, for example, it is to be argued that the Frequency Index reflects pre-
dominantly “voluntary” absences, then this index ought to correlate
higher with other measures of voluntary absenteeism than with measures
of involuntary absence. In an earlier review of the literature, Muchinsky
(1977) remarked that “there are no known studies that directly assessed
the validity of absenteeism measures” (p. 319). Since his review, only
one such investigation has been done. Chadwick-Jones, Nicholson, and
Brown (1982) devoted a full chapter of their recent book to assessing the
convergent and discriminant validity of various indices of absence-
largely using data collected previously by Nicholson et al. (1976).
Twenty-one separate intercorrelation matrices of absence measures,
based on data collected over 52 weeks from 21 different organizations,
were examined. In general, correlations between the Attitudinal and Fre-
quency indices were found to be consistently statistically significant and
higher than those between Frequency and Time Lost which in turn tended
to be higher than the correlations between Attitudinal and Time Lost (cf.
ABSENTEEISM AND JOB SATISFACTION 347
TABLE 3
RELIABILITIESFORTHE TIME LOST INDEX
r Time interval
Test-retest
Huse and Taylor (1962) .23 Two l-year periods
Chadwick-Jones et al. (1971) .19 Two l-year periods
Nicholson and Goodge (1976) 99 Two l-year periods
Ilgen and Hollenback (1977) .17 (7) Three 6-month periods
Breaugh (1981) .42 (T)” Four l-year periods
Split-half
Terborg et al. (1982)b 55 (Store 1). .62 11 weeks
.20 .33
.40 .52 (Store 6)
Spearman-Brown
Rosensteel (1953) .88
Nicholson (1975)” .75 (Plant 1) .97 52 weeks
.68 .94
.75 .80
.17 .95
.88 .97
.86 .92
.73 .85
.89 .95 (Plant 16)
Coefficient (Y
Adler and Golan (1981) .64 12 months
a Average interperiod r.
b Data were collected from six separate retail stores of a national retail-sales organization.
c In this study 16 different companies of four contrasting technologies were sampled.
six absence measures and the yearly turnover rates of 16 companies were
also examined. The only significant correlation obtained was with the
Attitudinal Index, and this was interpreted as suggesting that short-term
absences and labor turnover may have a common cause.
Another way to determine the constructs underlying various indices of
absence would be to intercorrelate these measures and then to do ex-
ploratory factor analyses of the resulting matrices. Such a procedure is
mathematically questionable because of overlapping data among some of
the absence measures (e.g., the Attitudinal Index is wholly contained
within the Frequency Index), but factor analyses would help to generate
hypotheses about what is being “tapped” by these indices. If several
such analyses generate similar hypotheses, the greater the confidence we
can have in them. There are three studies that collected absence data
from a single sample over two consecutive years and presented separate
correlation matrices for each year (cf. Chadwick-Jones et al., 1970; Huse
& Taylor, 1962; Nicholson & Goodge, 1976). These studies therefore not
only permitted exploratory factor analyses to be done, but also allowed
for an assessment of the stability across years of the resulting factor
patterns.
A factor-analytic assessment of the validity of absence measures:
Method. Before the matrices were factored, the correlation coefficients
were corrected for the unreliability of both measures in each correlation,
using the reliability estimates reported. Analyses were also done on cor-
relations corrected for the unreliability of only the measure with the
lowest reliability. Although less clear, the factor patterns that emerged
were similar to those obtained with correlations made for the unreliability
of both measures. Corrections for unreliability were done because of the
wide variations in reliabilities for absence measures. The principal axes
procedure was used, with squared multiple correlations as communality
estimates. Since these estimates were 1.0 in all cases-not surprising in
view of the considerable overlap of data among absence measures-the
unrotated factors are identical to those that would be obtained through a
principal components analysis. The number of factors extracted from
each unrotated solution was decided upon through combined consider-
ation of the scree test (Cattell, 1966), parallel analyses (Montanelli &
Humphreys, 1976), and “interpretability” (Rummel, 1970, p. 362). Since
it would be unrealistic to expect any voluntary or involuntary absence
factors that might have emerged to be orthogonal to one another, all
unrotated solutions were rotated to oblique simple structure by the
Promax procedure (Hendrickson & White, 1964). Finally, similarity in
the pattern and magnitude of the factors across years was assessed by
using the coefficient of congruence (Harman, 1967, p. 269). This coeffr-
ABSENTEEISM AND JOB SATISFACTION 349
TABLE 4
PROMAXROTATED FACTOR PATTERN MATRICES OF FOUR ABSENCE MEASURES
(HUSE & TAYLOR, 1962)
Note. Reliabilities < communalities because correlations were corrected for attenuation
due to unreliability in measurement. Interfactor correlations: (1957) .35, (1958) .41.
(1Final communality estimates.
b Interyear reliabilities.
TABLE 5
PROMAX ROTATED FACTOR PATTERN MATRICES OF SIX ABSENCE MEASURES AND A LATENESS INDEX (CHADWICK-JONES ET AL., 1971)
first, second, and third factors across the two solutions were .99 in each
case. Factors 1 and 3 clearly separate the Time Lost Index from purported
measures of voluntary absence. It is also noteworthy that “Lateness”
defined its own factor.
Summary overview of validities. Overall, the results of these analyses,
taken together with the findings presented by Chadwick-Jones et al.
(1982), suggest that voluntary and involuntary absences can be distin-
guished empirically. Purported measures of voluntary absence loaded to-
gether on one factor, and the Time Lost Index (considered a measure of
involuntary absence) had its heaviest loading on another. This separation
was particularly evident in the Huse and Taylor (1962) and Nicholson and
Goodge (1976) solutions where the two factors demonstrated especially
high stability across years. In the two studies where both the Attitudinal
and Frequency indices were used (Huse & Taylor, 1962; Chadwick-Jones
et al., 1971), they had loadings of .90 or greater on the same factor and
may be considered measures of the same thing, corroborating the Chad-
wick-Jones et al. (1982) findings. These analyses, however, yielded little
support for considering the Worst Day Index and Blue Monday Index
useful measures of voluntary absenteeism. It is worth noting that the
separate lateness factor in the Nicholson et al. (1976) solution suggests
that absenteeism and lateness, rather than representing different levels
of the same withdrawal tendencies, measure empirically distinguishable
concepts (cf. Adler & Golan, 1981).
ABSENCE AS RELATED TO JOB SATISFACTION
Earlier reviews of the relationship of absence and job satisfaction have
typically given little attention to the size of the correlations reported or
to possible moderating effects of other “third factor” variables. We shall
consider both using meta analysis (Glass, McGaw, & Smith, 1981; Hunter
et al., 1982; Rosenthal, 1978). The method of meta-analysis chosen for
this paper is that introduced by Schmidt, Hunter, and their colleagues
under the rubric of “validity generalization” (Hunter et al., 1982;
Schmidt & Hunter, 1977; Schmidt, Hunter, Pearlman, & Shane, 1979).
Method
A major premise of the validity generalization model holds that a sub-
stantial proportion of variance in a set of correlations reported across
studies often can be explained when various statistical artifacts are con-
sidered. These sources of artifacts include (a) unreliable data becasue of
small sample sizes, (b) differences among studies in degree of range re-
striction, (c) differences among studies in the unreliability of each mea-
sure going into the correlation, (d) differences in factor structures be-
tween different tests thought to measure similar constructs, (e) differ-
ABSENTEEISM AND JOB SATISFACTION 353
sures of overall job satisfaction and the Attitudinal Index. Of the job
satisfaction facets, j? values were highest for Work (- .16 with the Fre-
quency Index) and Supervision ( - . 11 with the Frequency Index). For the
combined distribution of correlations between all measures of absence
and all measures of job satisfaction, fi was - .09. This corrected mean
was based on 707 correlations and, treating each coefficient as having
come from an independent sample, an overall N of 62,308. The Nicholson
(1975) study, wherein 16 companies were sampled using three measures
of absence and 11 measures of job satisfaction (five JDI facets plus JDI-
Total, and five facets of the Hoppock scale), contributed 528 of these
correlations.
Using the 70% criterion the situational specificity hypothesis can be
rejected for 9 of the 25 relationships considered in Table 14; 4 involving
satisfaction with supervision and 2 involving satisfaction with work (see
Table 14). Yet, the fi values are so small that in all but three of these
cases (Attitudinal Index and Co-workers, Frequency Index and Super-
vision, Attitudinal Index and Supervision) the 95% confidence interval
included zero; this was also true for all the fi values for which the situ-
ational specificity hypothesis was not rejected. The mean proportion of
variance accounted for by artifacts, computed across the 18 separate
distributions of absence-job satisfaction correlations, was -69.
The mean SD computed across the individual distributions of absen-
teeism measurement combinations (. 142) approximated the mean SD
computed over the distributions for which absence measures had been
combined (. 144). This suggests that little variation in reported correlations
between absence and satisfaction can be attributed to type of absence
measure used, whether voluntary or involuntary. In none of the combined
distributions did corrections for differences between studies in unreli-
ability of absence measure account for more than 4% of the total esti-
mated artifactual variance.
Discussion
The results of these analyses have shown that typically less than 4%
of the variance in absence measures is associated with satisfaction scores.
These findings are consistent with those reported by Terborg et al. (1982)
in their application of the validity generalization model to data they col-
lected from replications across six retail stores of one national retail-sales
organization. Their highest mean correlation between absence and job-
facet satisfaction, corrected for unreliability of both absence and job sat-
isfaction measures, was - .37 (between Time Lost Index and JDI-Pay).
Corrected mean correlations associated with the other facets of job sat-
isfaction were all reported to be - .20 or less.
While both here and in Terborg et al. (1982) all corrected mean cor-
356 HACKETT AND GUION
TABLE 7
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SATISFACTION WITH CO-WORKERS AND THE FREQUENCY,
TIME LOST, AND AITITUDINAL INDICES
Satisfaction
Study Subjects N measure r
Frequency
Hackman and Telephone repairmen 208 Single
.15*
Lawler (1971) 7-pt item
Waters and Female clerks of 131 JDI-Co”
- .18*
Roach (1971) insurance agency
Nicholson (1975) Female sewing 146 JDI-Co”; .02 - .Ol
machine operators 66 Hoppockb .06 .02
96 - .25* - .29**
103 .lO - .Ol
Male production 102 - .23* -.I5
workers 58 - .Ol .oo
62 .02 .06
20 .33 .16
Male chemical 73 .09 .15
process operators 61 .07 .18
85 - .02 -.20
80 .08 .06
Male bus drivers 76 - .08 - .04
and conductors 63 -.21 .09
58 -99 -.06
73 -.I0 -.19
Time Lost
Smith et al. Male technicians 98 JDI-Co
- .38**
(1969)
Watson (1981) Production workers 116 JDI-Co - .09
Adler and Female telephone 114 JDI-Co
- .05
Golan (1981) operators
Terborg et al. Retail-sales 23 JDI-Co .18
(1982) employees 41 -.15
(33% males) 46 - .38
42 .17
38 - .21
52 .04
Nicholson (1975) Female sewing 146 JDI-Co; .ll .03
machine operators 66 Hoppock .13 .14
96 - .24* -.20
103 - .03 -.lO
Male production 102 - .20* - .05
workers 58 - .02 .07
LIJob Descriptive Index (Smith er al., 1969). Co = co-workers.
b Self-developed Likert scales.
* p < .05.
** p -c .Ol.
ABSENTEEISM AND JOB SATISFACTION 357
TABLE I-Continued
Satisfaction
Study Subjects N measure r
62 - .07 .20
20 .08 - .Ol
Male chemical 73 .08 .I4
process operators 61 .09 .I6
85 .lO - .20
80 .I4 .I7
Male bus drivers 76 .03 .07
and conductors 63 - .46** -.20
58 - .25 - .0x
13 .03 - .20
Attitudinal
Nicholson (1975) Female sewing 146 JDI-Co; .oo - .O?
machine operators 66 Hoppock .03 - .O?
96 -.21* - .31**
103 .I0 .06
Male production 102 - .20* - .I7
workers 58 .oo - .02
62 - .03 - .09
20 .24 .09
Male chemical 73 .04 .05
process operators 61 .05 .20
85 - .04 -.I8
80 .06 .05
Male bus drivers 76 - .I0 .09
and conductors 63 -.I6 .I0
58 - .O? - .06
73 - .I0 ~ .?O
relations were negative, the best estimate of the strength of the relation-
ship is that is is very weak (Nicholson et al., 1976). Moreover, the highest
corrected means (those with overall measures of job satisfaction) were
associated with the highest standard deviations; on average, only 40% of
the variance of these distributions could be accounted for by the two
artifacts for which corrections were made. While the high residual vari-
ance might well be population variance, it may also be largely attributable
to the variety of measures of overall job satisfaction that have been used.
There has been less standardization in the measurement of overall job
satisfaction than in measuring the facets.
Chadwick-Jones et al. (1982) reported that the predictability of absence
from work attitudes varied considerably across the 16 plants they inves-
tigated; in most plants absence and attitudes were unrelated, while in
others attitudes were useful predictors. These authors, along with Johns
358 HACKETT AND GUION
TABLE 8
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SATISFACTION WITH PAY AND THE FREQUENCY, TIME LOST, AND
ATTITUDINAL INDICES
Satisfaction
Study Subjects N measure r
Frequency
Hackman and Telephone repairmen 208 JDS” item
.02
Lawler (1971)
Waters and Female clerks of 131 JDI-Pay’
-.09
Roach (1971) insurance agency
Nicholson (1975) Female sewing 146 JDI-Payb; .13 .02
machine operators 66 Hoppockc .16 .12
96 -.1.5 -.lO
103 -.14 -.ll
Male production 102 .06 - .03
workers 58 .04 .15
62 -.20 -.24
20 .33 .08
Male chemical 73 .12 .0.5
process operators 61 .19 .02
85 -.lO -.14
80 -.07 -.19
Male bus drivers 76 .30** -.lO
and conductors 63 .18 .07
58 .16 .34*
73 - .25* -.06
Time Lost
Smith et nl. Male technicians 98 JDI-Pay - .24**
(1969)
Adler and Female telephone 124 JDI-Pay
-.I0
Golan (1981) operators
Watson (1981) Production workers 116 JDI-Pay .04
Terborg et al. Retail-sales 23 JDI-Pay - .49*
(1982) employees 41 - .Ol
(33% males) 46 -.21
42 .14
38 - .42*
52 -.14
Nicholson (1975) Female sewing 146 JDI-Pay; - .Ol -.13
machine operators 66 Hoppock .21 .21
96 .02 .04
103 -.04 -.14
Male production 102 -.05 -.07
workers 58 - .06 - .04
a Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham, 1975).
* Job Descriptive Index (Smith et al., 1969).
’ Self-developed Likert scales.
*p < .05.
**p < .Ol.
ABSENTEEISM AND JOB SATISFACTION 359
TABLE %-Continued
Satisfaction
Study Subjects N measure r
62 .lO - .09
20 .45* .05
Male chemical 13 .25* .07
process operators 61 - .09 -.19
85 -.Ol .03
80 -.I5 -.I7
Male bus drivers 76 - .07 - .24*
and conductors 63 - .I9 -.I4
58 -.13 .I9
73 - .09 - .05
Attitudinal
Nicholson (1975) Female sewing 146 JDI-Pay; .15 .08
machine operators 66 Hoppock .13 .09
96 - .18 - .13
103 - .09 - .03
Male production 102 .16 .03
workers 58 .03 .16
62 - .29* - .29*
20 .06 .I2
Male chemical 73 .06 .oo
process operators 61 .24 .I1
85 - .05 -.I8
80 .06 .05
16 .33* - .06
63 .23 .I?
58 .20 .32*
73 - .23 - .02
TABLE 9
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SATISFACTION WITH PROMOTION AND THE FREQUENCY, TIME
LOST, AND ATTITUDINAL INDICES
Satisfaction
Study Subjects N measure r
Frequency
Hackman and Telephone repairmen 208 Select JDS”
.09
Lawler (1971) items
Waters and Female clerks of 131 JDI-Promb
.05
Roach (1971) insurance agency
Nicholson (1975) Female sewing 146 JDI-Prom; - .32** -.12
machine operators 66 Hoppock’ -.lO .04
96 - .07 .ll
103 -.I5 -.ll
Male production 102 -.ll - .07
workers 58 .15 .I5
62 -.12 - .33
20 .25 .22
Male chemical 73 -.12 -.12
process operators 61 .18 .09
85 .08 - .08
80 - .09 -.14
Male bus drivers 76 .07 -.16
and conductors 63 .Ol .lO
58 -.09 .25
73 -.20 - .23
Time Lost
Watson (1981) Production workers 116 JDI-Prom .03
Adler and Female telephone 116 JDI-Prom - .15
Golan (1981) operators
Terborg et al. Retail-sales 23 - .03
(1982) employees 41 -.27
(33% males) 46 -.lO
42 .22
38 - .20
52 .08
Nicholson (1975) Female sewing 146 JDI-Prom; -.18* - .08
machine operators 66 Hoppock -.16 .09
96 .lO .18
103 - .20* - .31**
Male production 102 -.18 -.16
workers 58 .04 -.06
62 -.19 - .41**
0 Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham, 1975).
b Job Descriptive Index (Smith et al., 1969). Prom = promotion.
c Self-developed Likert scales.
*p < .05.
** p < .Ol.
ABSENTEEISM AND JOB SATISFACTION 361
TABLE !9-Continued
Satisfaction
Study Subjects N measure r
20 .59*+ .36
Male chemical 73 - .Ol - .05
process operators 61 .15 .02
85 .05 .05
80 - .24* -.20
Male bus drivers 76 ~ .07 - .31**
and conductors 63 - .Ol .07
58 .I3 .29*
73 .I4 - .08
Attitudinal
Nicholson (1975) Female sewing 146 JDI-Prom; - .25** - .09
machine operators 66 Hoppock - .08 .03
96 -.13 .08
103 -.I0 - .03
Male production 102 - .Ol .Ol
workers 58 .ll .I2
62 - .09 - .21
20 - .09 .08
Male chemical 73 -.I4 -.I4
process operators 61 .17 .II
85 .12 - .03
80 .06 .03
Male bus drivers 76 - .06 - .I0
and conductors 63 .05 .I2
58 - .09 .22
13 -.19 - .24*
TABLE 10
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SATISFACTION WITH SUPERVISION AND THE FREQUENCY,
TIME LOST, AND ATTITUDINAL INDICES
Satisfaction
Study Subjects N measure r
Frequency
Hackman and Telephone repairmen 208 Select
- .07
Lawler (1971) JDS” items
Waters and Female clerks of 131 JDI-Supb
.05
Roach (1971) insurance agency
Bemardin (1976) Police officers 216 JDI-Sup -.lO
Johns (1978) Paper-products 208 JDI-Sup
plant employees -.14*
(24% females)
Breaugh (1981) Research scientists 112 Select
.oo
(42 females) JDS items
Nicholson (1975) Female sewing 146 JDI-Sup; - .08 -.14
machine operators 66 HoppockC .04 .16
96 - .05 -.I3
103 - .09 -.17
Male production 102 -.14 - .06
workers 58 .04 -.04
62 -.20 - .23
20 .oo -.12
Male chemical 73 .05 .02
process operators 61 .12 .lO
85 -.I3 - .09
80 -.lO -.I1
Male bus drivers 76 -.13 - .30**
and conductors 63 -.17 .04
58 -.18 .25
73 - .26 - .23
Time Lost
Smith er al. Male technicians 98 JDI-Sup
- .3t3**
(1969)
Adler and Female telephone 115 JDI-Sup
-.05
Golan (1981) operators
Breaugh (1981) Research scientists 112 Select
-.19*
(42 females) JDS items
Watson (1981) Production 116 JDI-Sup
employees .05
Terborg er al. Retail-sales 23 JDI-Sup .06
(1982) employees 41 - .08
(33% males) 46 - .26
(1Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham, 1975).
b Job Descriptive Index (Smith et al., 1969). Sup = supervision.
c Self-developed Likert scales.
* p < .05.
** p < .Ol.
ABSENTEEISM AND JOB SATISFACTION 363
TABLE IO-Continued
Satisfaction
Study Subjects N measure r
42 .Ol
38 .I1
52 .I2
Nicholson (1975) Female sewing 146 JDI-Sup; - .03 - .03
machine operators 66 Hoppock .I1 .I3
96 - .09 - .07
103 ~ .04 - .04
Male production 102 ~ .17 - .I4
workers 58 ~ .23 - .I3
62 -.18 -- .26*
20 .32 .I6
Male chemical 73 .08 .07
process operators 61 .I? .I5
85 -.Oi -- .o.s
80 -.I4 .02
Male bus drivers 76 .I2 -- .Ol
and conductors 63 -.I6 ~-.1x
S8 .08 .l.s
73 .02 -.lO
Attitudinal
Nicholson (1975) Female sewing 146 JDI-Sup: - .07 -.I1
machine operators 66 Hoppock .Ol .I4
96 - .03 -.15
103 -.05 - .I4
Male production 102 - .I0 - .02
workers 58 .08 - .04
62 -.I6 -.I2
20 -.31 -.31
Male chemical 73 .03 .02
process operators 61 .07 .oi
85 - .08 .03
80 - .08 ~ .09
Male bus drivers 76 -.IS -. .29*
and conductors 63 - .09 .I5
58 -.21 .?I!
73 - .27* -. .24”
body of literature questioning the posited link between absence and at-
titudes. Locke (1976), for example, said that the magnitude of the cor-
relation between job satisfaction and absenteeism seldom surpasses .40,
and is typically much lower. Vroom (1964) reported similarly weak find-
ings. In a more recent and comprehensive review of the literature,
Nicholson et al. (1976) concluded that “at best is seems that job satis-
faction and absence from work are tenuously related” (p. 734). Moreover
the relationship of attitudes to other indices of employee performance
364 HACKETT AND GUION
TABLE 11
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SATISFACTION WITH WORK AND FREQUENCY, TIME LOST, AND
ATTITUDINAL INDICES
Satisfaction
Study Subjects N measure r
Frequency
Waters and Female clerks of 131 JDI-W” - .28**
Roach (1971) insurance agency
TABLE 1 I-Continued
Satisfaction
Study Subjects N measure r
Adler and Female telephone 106 JDI-W
Golan (1981) operators
Breaugh (1981) Research Scientists 112 Select
(42 females) JDS items
Watson (1981) 116 JDI-W -.08
Terborg er al. Retail-sales 23 JDI-W -.04
(1982) employees 41 -.43*
(33% males) 46 -.20
42 .23
38 - .Ol
52 -.22
Attitudinal
Nicholson (1975) Female sewing 146 JDI-W; -.04 -.07
machine operators 66 Hoppock .06 -.05
96 -.24* -.I2
103 -.02 -.I0
Male production 102 -.21* -.23*
workers 58 .I2 .07
62 .21 .17
20 .04 -.19
Male chemical 13 .03 .06
process operators 61 -.12 .02
85 .02 -.I5
80 p.15 -- .Ol
Male bus drivers 76 -.05 -.I1
and conductors 63 .09 .I4
58 -.03 .22
73 --.18 - .0x
TABLE 12
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN OVERALL-JOB SATISFACTION AND THE FREQUENCY, TIME LOST,
AND ATTITUDINAL INDICES
Satisfaction
Study Subjects N measure r
Frequency
Vroom (1962) 489 blue-collar 489 Sum three 5-pt items -.07
workers
Hackman and Telephone repairmen 208 Select JDS items” -.lO
Lawler (1971)
Waters and Female clerks of 131 Satisf/dissatisf - .23**
Roach (1971) insurance agency (12-pt item)
Satisf (12-pt item) - .28**
Dissatisf (12-pt item) .16
Stecker (1973) Govt. munitions 459 Factor score .07
mnfg. plant
Waters and Female clerks of 80 Satisf (12-pt item) - .34*
Roach (1973) insurance agency 117 - .38*
Johns (1978) Paper-plant 208 JDI-total -.14*
production workers
Rousseau (1978) Radio station 139 GM faces (Job)b - .24*
employees
(70% females)
Waters and Female clerks of 82 Single 12-pt item -.05 (Year 1)
Roach (1979) insurance agency 83 - .28* (Year 2)
82 -.26
Jamal (1981) Nurses (97% females) 431 Sum 18 items - .12**
and blue-collar
(70% male)
Clegg (1983) Blue-collar 325 Intrinsic & extrinsic -.14
workers of satisf items
engineering plant
F’opp and Male waste 206 Single 5-pt item .23*
Belohlav (1982) collection drivers
Nicholson (1975) Female sewing 146 JDI-Total’ - .08
machine operators 66 .08
% - .24*
103 -.09
Male production 102 - .25*
workers 58 .lO
62 -.06
20 .34
Male chemical 73 .lO
process workers 61 .10
85 -.06
80 -.17
Male bus drivers 76 -.04
and conductors 63 -.07
58 -.10
73 - .27
Hammer et al. Nonsupervisory 112 GM faces (overall) .05
(1981) furniture mnfg.
(15 females)
’ Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman t Oldham, 1975)
b GM faces (Kunin, 1955).
’ Job Descriptive Index (Smith er al., 1969).
d Minnesotta Satisfaction Questionnaire (Weiss et al., 1%7).
* p < .05.
** p < .Ol.
ABSENTEEISM AND JOB SATISFACTION 367
TABLE 12-Continued
Satisfaction
Study Subjects N measure I
Time Lost
Smith et al. Male technicians 98 JDI-Total - .36**
(1969) GM faces (Job) - .22**
Ilgen and University clerical 165 MSQ-Total” - .09
Hollenback (1977) workers
Johns (1978) Paper-plant 208 JDI-Total - .03
production workers
Rousseau (1978) Radio station 139 GM faces (Job) -- .14*
employees
(70% females)
Adler and Female telephone 82 JDI-Total
Golan (1981) operators
Nicholson (1975) Female sewing 146 JDI-Total - .02
machine operators 66 .12
96 -.ll
103 p.10
Male production 102 -.21*
workers 58 -.12
62 -- .05
20 .62**
Male chemical 73 .16
process operators 61 .09
85 .OS
80 - .21
Male bus drivers 76 .03
and conductors 63 - .21*
58 .08
73 .Ol
Attitudinal
Nicholson (1975) Female sewing 146 JDI-Total - .05
machine operators 66 .05
% - .22f
103 -.04
Male production 102 -.16
workers 58 .I0
62 -.08
20 - .03
Male chemical 73 .02
process operators 61 .09
85 .02
80 - .04
Male bus drivers 76 - .06
and conductors 63 .oo
58 - .OR
73 - .27*
hY
Frequency 2783 34 .ooo .141 .lll 62 .087 .ooo .I26 - .24 s p s .24
Attitudinal 2444 32 .030 .153 .llS 56 .lOl .049 ,165 - .27 s p s .37
Time Lost 3024 41 - .055 ,136 ,117 74* .069 - .069 .086 -.24 s p s .lO
All 9510 117 - .018 .141 .106 57 .093 - .025 .129 - .28 s p s .23
Work
Frequency 3469 40 -.112 .154 .llO 51 .108 -.162 .155 -.47 sp c .14
Attitudinal 2444 32 - $43 .119 .115 93* .031 - .069 .OSl -.17sps .03
Time Lost 3118 42 - ,054 .126 .116 m* ,049 - ,068 .062 -.19cp s .05
All 10254 124 - ,091 ,144 ,112 61 ,090 -.127 .053 - .23 s p =G- .02
Supervision
Frequency 3319 37 - ,074 ,106 ,106 100* .ooo -.107
Attitudinal 2444 32 - .062 ,113 ,113 loo* .ooo - .I01
Time Lost 3127 42 -.044 ,128 ,116 82* ,054 - .055 .067 -.19~~~.08
All 10131 121 - ,059 ,112 ,105 88% .038 - .082 .053 -.18 s p s .02
OveralP is
Frequency 4636 33 - .093 ,138 .087 40 .108 -.134 ,156 -.44sp=s .17
i4
Attitudinal 1382 17 - .143 ,258 ,117 21 ,230 - ,233 ,374 - .96 =Sp c .50
Time Lost 2012 22 - .076 .138 .106 59 *OS8 - ,096 ,111 -.31 <p =z .12 3
A11 9440 84 -.I02 .I59 ,098 37 .I26 -.141 ,175 - .48 s p c .20 i-4
G
All x All $
62308 707 - .067 .140 ,107 57 ,093 - ,093 .I26 -.33 s p =z .15
5
n When squared, this represents the estimated variance attributable to the two artifacts for which corrections were made (i.e., sampling error
and unreliability of absence measure). $
b Sample-size weighted mean corrected for unreliability of absence measure.
c 95% confidence interval. 5
d Includes JDI-Total, GM faces (Job), Sum of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Satisfaction scores, and Overall Likert items. t;
* Situational-specificity hypothesis rejected using 70% criterion. 2
2
374 HACKETT AND GUION
attention, yet only four studies providing partial tests of it have appeared
in the literature (cf. Frechette, 1981; Hammer et al., 1981; Terborg et al.,
1982; Watson, 1981); the implications that the results of these studies had
for various aspects of the model are discussed by Mowday et al. (1982,
pp. 99-103). Miller (1981) compared and assessed four models of with-
drawal behavior: (a) that absence and turnover ought to be modeled sep-
arately (i.e., Steers & Rhodes, 1978); (b) that absence represents an early
form of withdrawal behavior leading to final separation from the work
role via turnover (i.e., Herzberg et al., 1957; Hill & Trist, 1955); (c) that
absence and/or turnover behavior may result from negative job attitudes,
depending on the relative ease of engaging in these behaviors (i.e., March
& Simon, 1958); and (d) that absence behavior serves primarily to help
market-testing for alternative employment prospects (i.e., Mobley, Grif-
feth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979). According to Miller (1981) the first two of
these were not supported by the data, the third was “marginally sup-
ported,” and the fourth was found to be the most consistent with the
data. Further comprehensive model testing of this sort is badly needed.
However, models based on the assumption that dissatisfaction is a pri-
mary cause of absence do not seem the appropriate ones to test further.
Attitudes versus Values
There is a body of theoretical literature that suggests attitudes may be
less potent predictors of absence than the personal value systems of
workers (cf. Rokeach, 1973). In contrast to attitudes, which are consid-
ered to reflect a level of affect toward a specific object or situation, values
are thought to transcend objects and situations and be connected with
the satisfaction of higher order personal needs (Rokeach, 1973). Ac-
cording to Rokeach (1973), then, values are fewer in number and occupy
a more central position in an individual’s personality makeup and cog-
nitive system.
The two most consistent findings from absenteeism research show that
absences tend to be greater among females and negatively related to age
(cf. Porwoll, 1980). Both findings are consistent with the notions that (a)
a young mother’s primary values lie in the home and family and (b) for
females more than for males, work outside the home assumes a secondary
role. Moreover, higher absences among younger married men might be
attributable to a desire of young fathers to spend more time with their
families (Dekar, 1969). Morgan and Herman (1976) have shown that work
and nonwork values often conflict; that many employees can be drawn
away from their jobs on any given day by the anticipation of satisfaction
with off the job alternatives. Thus, any two persons reporting an equal
level of job satisfaction may experience different opportunities for ex-
ternal satisfactions on a day off from work. Too little research has sought
ABSENTEEISM AND JOB SATISFACTION 375
Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E., III (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics.
Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 55, 2.59-286.
Hammer, T. H., & Landau, J. (1981). Methodological issues in the use of absence data.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 574-581.
Hammer, T. H., Landau, J. C., & Stem, R. N. (1981). Absenteeism when workers have a
voice: The case of employee ownership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 561-573.
Huse, E. F., & Taylor, D. K. (1%2). Reliability of absence measures. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 46, 159-160.
Ilgen, D. R., & Hollenback, J. H. (1977). The role of satisfaction in absence behavior.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 148-161.
Jamal, M. (1981). Shift work related to job attitudes, social participation and withdrawal
behavior: A study of nurses and industrial workers. Personnel Psychology, 34, 535-
547.
Johns, G. (1978). Attitudinal and nonattitudinal predictors of two forms of absence from
work. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 22, 431-444.
Latham, G. P., & Purse& E. D. (1975). Measuring absenteeism from the opposite side of
the coin. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 369-371.
Miller, H. E. (1981). Withdrawal behaviors among hospital employees (Doctoral Disserta-
tion, University of Illinois, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42 (6-B), 2586-
2587.
Mirvis, P. H., & Lawler, E. E. (1977). Measuring financial impact of employee attitudes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, l-8.
Newman, J. D. (1974). Predicting absenteeism and turnover: A field comparison of Fish-
bein’s model and traditional job attitude measures. Journal of Applied Psychology. 59,
610-615.
Nicholson, N. (1975). Industrial absence as an indicant of employee motivation and job
satisfaction: A study of contrasting technologies in the North of England and South
Wales. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wales.
Nicholson, N., Brown, C. A., & Chadwick-Jones, J. K. (1976). Absence from work and
job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61 (6) 728-737.
Nicholson, N., & Goodge, P. M. (1976). The influence of social, organizational and bio-
graphical factors on female absence. The Journal of Management Studies, 13, 234-
254.
Nicholson, N., Wall, T., & Lischeron, J. (1977). The predictability of absence and pro-
pensity to leave from employees’ job satisfaction and attitudes toward influence in
decision-making. Human Relations, 30, 499-514.
Noland, E. W. (1945). Foreman and absenteeism. Personnel Journal, 45, 73-77.
Popp, P. O., & Belohlav, J. A. (1982). Absenteeism in a low status work environment.
Academy of Management Journal, 25 (3), 677-683.
Rosensteel, R. K. (1953). A validation of a test-battery and biographical data for machine
operators. Unpublished master’s thesis, Bowling Green State University, Ohio.
Rousseau, E. M. (1978). Relationship of work to nonwork. Journal of Applied Psychology.
63, 513-517.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, C., & Hulin, C. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work
and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Stecker, A. L. (1973). A two-factor behavioral theory of industrial absenteeism (Doctoral
dissertation, Indiana University School of Business, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts Zn-
ternational, 34 (3-A), 95 1.
Terborg, .I. R., Lee, T. W., Smith, F. J., Davis, G. A., & Ilnbin, M. S. (1982). Extension
of the Schmidt and Hunter validity generalization procedure to the prediction of ab-
senteeism behavior from knowledge ofjob satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 67 (4). 440-449.
378 HACKETT AND GUION
REFERENCES
Adler, S., & Golan, J. (1981). Lateness as a withdrawal behavior. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology,
66, 544-554.
Argyle, M. (1972). The social psychology of work. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin.
Arglye, M., Gardner, G., & Ciofft, E (1958). Supervisory methods related to productivity,
absenteeism, and labour turnover. Human Relations, 11, 23-40.
Bakan, D. (1967). On method. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Behrend, H. (1959). Voluntary absence from work. International Labour Review. 79, 109-
140.
Bemardin, H. J. (1976). The influence of reinforcement orientation on the relationship be-
tween supervisory style and effectiveness criteria (Doctoral dissertation, Bowling
Green State University, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts International, 37 (2-B), 1018.
Bernberg, R. E. (1952). Socio-psychological factors in industrial morale: I. The prediction
of specific indicators. The Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 73-82.
Brayfield, A. H., & Crockett, W. H. (1955). Employee attitudes and employee performance.
Psychology Bulletin, 52, 396-424.
Breaugh, J. A. (1981). Predicting absenteeism from prior absenteeism and work attitudes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 555-560.
Bnmswik, E. (1952). The conceptual framework of psychology. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago
Press.
Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psy-
chology. Psychological Review, 62, 193-217.
Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of experiments. Berkeley:
Univ. of California Press.
Carroll, J. B. (1961). The nature of the data, or how to choose a correlation coefficient.
Psychometrica, 26, 347-372.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The Scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 1, 245-276.
Chadwick-Jones, J. K., Brown, C. A., Nicholson, N., & Sheppard, C. (1971). Absene mea-
sures: Their reliability and stability in an industrial setting. Personnel Psychology, 24,
463-470.
Chadwick-Jones, J. K., Nicholson, N., & Brown, C. (1982). Social psychology of absen-
teeism. New York: Praeger.
Cheloha, R. S., & Farr, L. J. (1980). Absenteeism, job involvement, and job satisfaction in
an organizational setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 467-473.
Clegg, C. W. (1983). Psychology of employee lateness, absence, and turnover: A method-
ABSENTEEISM AND JOB SATISFACTION 379
Johns, G. (1978). Attitudinal and nonattitudinal predictors of two forms of absence from
work. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 431-444.
Johns, G., & Nicholson, N. (1982). The meanings of absence: New strategies for theory
and research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 4, 127-172.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1980). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York:
Wiley.
Kunin, T. (1955). The construction of a new type of attitude measure. Personnel Psy-
chology, 8, 65-78.
Latham, G. P, & Pursell, E. D. (1975). Measuring absenteeism from the opposite side of
the coin. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 369-371.
Latham, G. P., & Purse& E. D. (1977). Measuring attendance: A reply to Ilgen. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 62 (2), 234-236.
Lawler, E. E. (1973). Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and cause of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Lyons, T. E (1972). Turnover and absenteeism: A review of relationships and shared cor-
relates. Personnel Psychology, 25, 271-281.
Maier, N. R. E (1955). Psychology in industry. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
March, J., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
McNemar, Q. (1960). At random: Sense and nonsense. American Psychologist, 15, 295-
300.
Meehl, P E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the
slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46
(No. 4), 806-834.
Miller, H. E. (1981). Withdrawal behaviors among hospital employees (Doctoral disserta-
tion, University of Illinois, 1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42 (6-B), 2586-
2587.
Mirvis, P. H., & Lawler, E. E. (1977). Measuring financial impact of employee attitudes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, l-8.
Mobley, W., Griffeth, R., Hand, H., & Meglino, B. (1979). Review and conceptual analysis
of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 493-522.
Montanelli, R. G., & Humphrey% L. G. (1976). Latent roots of random data correlation
matrices with squared multiple correlations in the diagonal: A Monte Carlo study.
Psychometrika, 41 (3), 341-348.
Morgan, L., & Herman, J. (1976). Perceived consequences of absenteeism. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 61, 738-742.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. Y., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages:
The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic
Press.
Muchinsky, P. (1977). Employee absenteeism: A review of the literature. Journal of Vo-
cational Behavior, 10, 316-334.
Nadler, D. A., Hackman, R. J., & Lawler, E. E. (1979). Managing organizational behavior.
Boston: Little, Brown.
Nicholson, N. (1975). Industrial absence as an indicant of employee motivation and job
satisfaction: A study of contrasting technologies in the North of England and South
Wales. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wales.
Nicholson, N. (1977). Absence behaviour and attendance motrivation: A conceptual syn-
thesis. Journal of Management Studies, 14, 23l-252.
Nicholson, N., Brown, C. A., & Chadwick-Jones, J. K. (1976). Absence from work and
job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61 (6), 728-737.
Nicholson, N., & Goodge, P. M. (1976). The influence of social, organizational and bio-
graphical factors on female absence. The Journal of Management Studies, 13, 234-
254.
ABSENTEEISM AND JOB SATISFACTION 381
Osbum, H. G., Callendar, J. C., Greener, J. M., & Asbworth (1983). Statistical power of
tests of the situational specificity hypothesis in validity generalization studies: A cau-
tionary note. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 115-122.
Pearlman, K., Schmidt, E L., & Hunter, J. E. (1980). Validity generalization results for
tests used to predict job proficiency and training success in clerical occupations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 373-406.
Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1973). Organizational, work and personal factors in em-
ployee turnover and absenteeism. Psychology Bulletin, 80, 151- 156.
Porwoll, F! J. (1980). Employee absenteeism: A summary of research. Arlington, VA: Re-
search Brief, Educational Research Service.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Rosensteel, R. K. (1953). A validation ofa test-battery and biographical data for machine
operators. Unpublished master’s thesis, Bowling Green State University, Ohio.
Rosenthal, R. (1978). Combining results of independent studies. Psychological Bulletin, 85,
185-193.
Rosenthal, R., & Gaito, J. (1963). The interpretation of levels of significance by psycho-
logical researchers. Journal OfPsychology, 55, 33-38.
Rummel, R. J. (1970). Appliedfactor analysis. Evanston: Northwestern Univ. Press.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1977). Development of a general solution to the problem
of validity generalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 529-540.
Schmidt, E L., Hunter, J. E., Pearlman, K., & Shane, G. S. (1979). Further tests of the
Schmidt-Hunter Bayesian validity generalization procedure. Personnel Psychology,
32, 257-281.
Slavic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1971). Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches
to the study of information processing judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 6, 649-744.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, C., & Hulin, C. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in Mjork
and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Stagner, R., & Rosen, H. (1%5). The psychology of union-management relations. Bel-
mont, Calif.: Wadsworth.
Steers, M. R., &Rhodes, S. R. (1978). Major influences on employee attendance: A process
model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 391-407.
Sterling, T. D. (1959). Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn
from tests of significance-or vice versa. Journal of the American Statistical Associ-
ation, 54, 30-34.
Terborg, J. R., Lee, T. W., Smith, F. J., Davis, G. A., & Turbin, M. S. (1982). Extension
of the Schmidt and Hunter validity generalization procedure to the prediction of ab-
senteeism behavior from knowledge of job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 67 (4), 440-449.
Turner, W. W. (1960). Dimensions of foremen performance: A factor analysis of criterion
measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44, 216-223.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Walker, K. (1947). The application of the J-curve hypothesis of conforming behavior to
industrial absenteeism. Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 207-216.
Waters, L. K., & Roach, D. (1979). Job satisfaction, behavioral intension, and absenteeism
as predictors of turnover. Personnel Psychology, 32, 393-397.
Watson, C. J. (1981). An evaluation of some aspects of the Steers and Rhodes model of
employee attendance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 385-389.
Weiss, D., Dawis, R., England, G., & Lofquist, L. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota
Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press.
Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes vs actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavior
responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 41-78.
RECEIVED: October 26, 1983