Life & Job Satisfaction

Running head: LIFE & JOB SATISFACTION

The Relationship of Life and Job Satisfaction to Emerging Attitudes

Andrew J. Wefald, Michael R. Smith, Neena Gopalan, & Ronald G. Downey
Kansas State University
2008
Author contact information:
Andrew J. Wefald
Visiting Assistant Professor
Leadership Studies & Programs
Kansas State University
918 N. Manhattan Ave.
Manhattan, KS 66502
785-341-3276
wefald@ksu.eud

Key words: job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and job attitudes

Life & Job Satisfaction

The Relationship of Life and Job Satisfaction to Emerging Attitudes

Research has established the relationship between job and life satisfaction as being
significant and positive (Pearson product moments ranging from 0.31 to 0.44) (De Cuyper & De
Witte, 2006; Moser & Schuler, 2004; Rode, 2004)). Three perspectives are often suggested to
explain the significant job-life satisfaction correlation (Rode, 2004). The first assumes that job
and life satisfaction are the same construct, with job satisfaction serving as an underlying
dimension of overall life satisfaction. The second approach assumes a more top-down approach
in which life satisfaction influences job satisfaction, such that those who have a disposition to be
satisfied in life also tend to find satisfaction on the job. A final approach assumes a more
bottom-down approach in which common influences generate the relationship between the two
variables. Thus this approach assumes that the significant relationship between life and job
satisfaction is the result of spurious correlation.
Despite the number of approaches that have been introduced to explain why the
relationship exist, research clearly distinguishing causality has continued to elude researchers
(Rode, 2004). In a study designed to specifically distinguish the cross-sectional and longitudinal
nature of the job-life satisfaction relationship, Judge and Watanabe (1993) supported the two
constructs as reciprocal, with life satisfaction exerting a significantly stronger effect on job
satisfaction. However, it has been suggested that future studies focus on exploring the role
additional individual and work factors (e.g., cognitive processes, workload, core-self evaluations
(CSE), etc.) play in explaining the causal nature of the job-life satisfaction relationship (Judge &
Watanabe, 1993; Moser and Schuler, 2004, Rode, 2004).
Work engagement, involvement, perceived organizational support, and vigor are
constructs that fill this function. Given that engagement, job involvement, perceived
organizational support, and job satisfaction all fall under the umbrella of job attitudes, and that
job satisfaction has a much longer history in the literature it is important to address the
previously overlooked engagement-job satisfaction relationship (Crede Chernyshenko, Stark,
Dalal, & Bashshur, in press).
Method
A casual dining food company was contacted regarding possible research opportunities.
A total of 856 surveys were returned (608 from one food chain and 248 from another food
chain). Surveys were sent directly to the store managers of fifty stores throughout the Midwest.
A total of 3,654 surveys were sent to one of the food chains with a return rate of 17%. A total of
434 surveys were distributed to another food chain through three regional managers with a return
rate of 57%. The total response rate for both food chains was 21%.
Participants
There were 532 female participants (62%) and 316 males (37%). Six participants did not
provide their gender information (1%). Most of the participants were Caucasian (87%), 3% were
African American, 5% were Hispanic, 3% were listed as Other, and 2% did not provide race
information. The average age of participants was 24 for all stores.
Materials
A questionnaire was developed with standard demographic items such as age, race, and
gender. Other demographic items were related to the type of work performed, hours worked, and
student status. Published scales were also included in the survey. Those scales were the ShiromMelamed Vigor scale (Shirom, 2003), Perceived Organizational Support (Eisenberger,
Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997), Workload (Spector & Jex, 1998), UWES Job Engagement

Life & Job Satisfaction

scale (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002), Job Involvement scale (Kanungo,
1982), and overall job satisfaction. Overall job satisfaction was measured using five items taken
from the Brayfield-Rothe (1951) scale of job satisfaction. The Stress in General (Stanton,
Blazer, Smith, Parra, & Ironson, 2001) and Life Satisfaction (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, &
Griffin, 1985) scales were also included in the survey.
Procedures
Questionnaires were mailed, with cover letters providing distribution instructions and
reasons for survey data collection, to individual store and regional mangers. The instructions
asked managers to distribute the surveys and collect and return completed surveys in the
provided return envelopes. Employees completed the surveys at work. Employees were given
individual envelopes to put the completed surveys in so their responses to the items would be
kept confidential from the supervisors. Managers were instructed to collect the surveys and mail
them back to Kansas State University. Each return envelope was coded by store number.
Analyses
The data were first examined using descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation,
minimum, maximum, skew, & kurtosis) and plots of the data. No significant missing data were
found. The means and standard deviations are presented in table 1. Hierarchical regressions
were used to determine whether the three subscales of engagement and vigor added incremental
validity above and beyond that of demographics (in step 1) and job involvement and perceived
organizational support (in step 2). Life and job satisfaction were each split at the median and a
four fold table was created. A discriminant function analysis was then conducted to determine if
the four different life satisfaction and job satisfaction groups could be predicted by demographic
and job attitudes variables. The groups were: high life/job satisfaction: low life/job satisfaction;
high life/low job satisfaction; and low life/high job satisfaction.
Results
The correlation between life satisfaction and job satisfaction was significant at .36 (p <
.01). Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that, after controlling for demographic variables,
job attitudes predicted both life satisfaction and job satisfaction; however, the relationship was
stronger for job satisfaction. The first step of the regression for job satisfaction included the
demographic variables (R = .19, R2 = .04, R2 = .04, p < .01), step two included job involvement
and perceived organizational support (R = .66, R2 = .44, R2 = .40, p < .01), and the final step
included the vigor and engagement sub-scales (R = .76, R2 = .58, R2 = .15, p < .01). For life
satisfaction, step one included the demographic variables (R = .22, R2 = .05, R2 = .05, p < .01),
step two included job involvement and perceived organizational support (R = .36, R2 = .13, R2
= .08, p < .01), and the final step included the vigor and engagement sub-scales (R = .43, R2 =
.19, R2 = .06, p < .01). To further study these relationship, life and job satisfaction were each
split at the median and a four fold table was created. A discriminant function analysis was then
conducted to determine if the four different life satisfaction and job satisfaction groups could be
predicted by demographic and job attitudes variables. The groups were: high life/job satisfaction:
low life/job satisfaction; high life/low job satisfaction; and low life/high job satisfaction. Three
significant discriminant functions were found. Age, gender, full/part time, ethnicity
(majority/minority), tenure (months), perceived organizational support, job involvement,
engagement, and vigor all had significant relationships with one or more of the functions. Group
memberships were reasonably well predicted for the high/high (75.4% correct) and low/low
(72.2% correct) groups and less well for the high/low (20.4% correct) and low/high (13.9%
correct) groups.

Life & Job Satisfaction

Discussion
Measures of emerging job attitudes such as engagement, vigor, job involvement, and
perceived organizational support along with demographic information allows for the prediction
of satisfaction or dissatisfaction in individuals life and job. Primarily due to demographic or
background factors, we can predict with limited success individuals who are happy in life, but
unhappy at work. There was real difficulty in identifying people who are unhappy with life, yet
satisfied at work. Our analysis predicted that this group would be in the high/high group. Our
speculation is that a combination of personal, life, and/or personality traits are important in fully
understanding dissatisfaction in life and satisfaction at work. Overall, it is clear that while
satisfaction with life and work are related constructs, different individual and job factors appear
to play a role in understanding the underlying dynamics of both the level of satisfaction and their
association.

Life & Job Satisfaction

References
Crede, M., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Dalal, R. S., & Bashshur, M. (in press). Job
satisfaction as mediator: An assessment of job satisfactions position within the
nomological network. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.
De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2006). Autonomy and workload among temporary workers:
Their effects on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, life satisfaction, and selfrated performance. International Journal of Stress Management, 13, 441-459.
Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75.
Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S., & Lynch, P. (1997). Perceived organizational
support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,
812-820.
Judge, T.A., Locke, E.A., Durham, C.C., & Kluger, A.N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and
life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 17-34.
Judge, T. A., & Watanabe, S. (1993). Another look at the job satisfaction-life satisfaction
relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 939-948.
Kanungo, R.N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 67, 341-349.
Moser, K., & Schuler, H. (2004). Is involvement a suppressor of the job satisfaction-life
satisfaction relationship? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2377-2388.
Rode, J. C. (2004). Job satisfaction and life satisfaction revisited: A longitudinal test of an
integrated model. Human Relations, 57, 1205 1230.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement
of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92.
Shirom, A. (2003). Feeling vigorous at work? The construct of vigor and the study of positive
affect in organizations. In D. Ganster & P. L. Perrewe (Eds.). Research in organizational
stress and well-being. (Vol. 3, pp. 135-165). Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.
Spector, P.E. & Jex, S.M. (1998). Development of four self-report measures of job stressors and
strain: Interpersonal conflict at work scale, organizational constraints scale, quantitative
workload inventory and psychical symptoms inventory. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 3, 356-367.
Stanton, J.M., Blazer, W.K., Smith, P.C., Parra, L.F., & Ironson, G. (2001). A General measure
of work stress: The Stress in general scale. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 61(5), 866-888.

Life & Job Satisfaction

Table 1
Descriptive statistics

Variable

Mean

Std. Deviation

Job satisfaction scale

Life Satisfaction
Ethnicity
Full or part time
Age
Gender
Tenure (months)
Student
Perceived Org. Support
Job Involvement
Cognitive Liveliness Vigor
Emotional Energy Vigor
Physical Strength Vigor
Engagement Absorption
Engagement Vigor
Engagement Dedication

18.22
16.44
1.11
1.51
23.61
.37
25.63
.4
28.50
25.13
16.11
22.57
25.77
21.51
33.68
23.63

3.65
4.26
.31
.50
7.34
.48
31.01
.50
6.24
7.41
3.17
4.50
4.98
5.20
7.52
6.37

870
865
870
870
870
870
870
870
870
870
870
870
870
870
870
870

Life & Job Satisfaction

Table 2
Hierarchical Regression Job Satisfaction

Variables Entered

Job Satisfaction
Beta R2
R2 Change

Student
Ethnicity
Gender
Tenure (months)
Full or part time
Age

-.03
.00
-.11**
-.12**
-.01
.19**

Student
Ethnicity
Gender
Tenure (months)
Full or part time
Age

-.00
-.05
-.10**
-.06*
-.01
.16**

Perceived Org Support

Job Involvement

.51**
.28**

Student
Ethnicity
Gender
Tenure (months)
Full or part time
Age

-.02
-.04
-.07**
-.01
-.01
.07*

Perceived Org Support

Job Involvement

.30**
.08**

Cognitive Liveliness
Emotional Energy
Physical Strength
Vigor (Eng)
Absorption (Eng)
Dedication (Eng)

-.07*
.11**
.06
.29**
.08*
.13**

* p < 0.05 level

** p < 0.01 level

.04

.04**

.44

.40**

.58

.15**

Life & Job Satisfaction

Table 3
Hierarchical Regression Life Satisfaction

Variables Entered

Life Satisfaction
Beta R2
R2 Change

Student
Ethnicity
Gender
Tenure (months)
Full or part time
Age

-.09*
.06
-.11**
.00
-.10**
-.01

Student
Ethnicity
Gender
Tenure (months)
Full or part time
Age

-.08*
.05
-.10**
.03
-.09*
-.03

Perceived Org Support

Job Involvement

.27**
.05

Student
Ethnicity
Gender
Tenure (months)
Full or part time
Age

-.08*
.05
-.06
.07
-.09*
-.09*

Perceived Org Support

Job Involvement

.13**
-.05

Cognitive Liveliness
Emotional Energy
Physical Strength
Vigor (Eng)
Absorption (Eng)
Dedication (Eng)

-.12**
.15**
.05
.16**
-.03
.12*

* p < 0.05 level

** p < 0.01 level

.05

.05**

.13

.08**

.19

.06**

Life & Job Satisfaction

Table 3
Discriminant analyses & descriptive statistics
Life & Job Satisfaction
Group

Mean

SD

High/High

Age
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure (months)
Perceived org support
Job involvement
Absorption (Eng)
Vigor (Eng)
Dedication (Eng)
Physical strength
Cognitive liveliness
Emotional energy
Full or part time

24.4068
.3051
1.1144
25.5678
32.8372
27.7654
23.8040
38.4763
27.8284
28.0381
17.1144
24.7613
1.4576

8.57531
.46142
.31898
36.30432
4.75545
7.50463
4.60816
5.40979
4.09887
4.59644
2.92015
3.61046
.49926

236
236
236
236
236
236
236
236
236
236
236
236
236

Low/Low

Age
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure (months)
Perceived org support
Job involvement
Absorption (Eng)
Vigor (Eng)
Dedication (Eng)
Physical strength
Cognitive liveliness
Emotional energy
Full or part time

23.3851
.4466
1.1100
26.1579
25.2770
23.1170
19.2265
29.6467
20.1303
23.5879
15.2298
20.5243
1.5696

6.29088
.49795
.31344
26.75590
5.54105
6.80252
5.01504
7.41213
5.87020
4.73018
3.17390
5.00518
.49594

309
309
309
309
309
309
309
309
309
309
309
309
309

High/Low

Age
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure (months)
Perceived org support
Job involvement
Absorption (Eng)
Vigor (Eng)
Dedication (Eng)
Physical strength

22.1553
.3350
1.1068
24.4612
26.9998
23.3273
20.4357
31.8595
22.2063
25.0481

5.86558
.47312
.30961
25.41157
5.36401
7.29532
4.70273
6.30837
6.47753
4.54175

206
206
206
206
206
206
206
206
206
206

Life & Job Satisfaction 10

Low/High

Cognitive liveliness
Emotional energy
Full or part time

15.5583
22.3932
1.4126

3.15363
3.82874
.49351

206
206
206

Age
Gender
Ethnicity
Tenure (months)
Perceived org support
Job involvement
Absorption (Eng)
Vigor (Eng)
Dedication (Eng)
Physical strength
Cognitive liveliness
Emotional energy
Full or part time

25.0246
.3607
1.0656
26.2316
30.7026
28.0474
24.5594
37.6571
26.7541
28.0806
17.3033
23.7787
1.6066

8.87048
.48217
.24856
37.95613
6.19396
6.27696
4.14672
5.82182
4.60024
4.11096
2.72997
3.21544
.49053

122
122
122
122
122
122
122
122
122
122
122
122
122

Classification results
Life & Job Group

Predicted Group Membership

High/High

Low/Low

High/Low

Low/High

Total

Count

High/High
Low/Low
High/Low
Low/High

178
32
45
76

25
223
115
20

21
49
42
9

12
5
4
17

236
309
206
122

High/High
Low/Low
High/Low
Low/High

75.4
10.4
21.8
62.3

10.6
72.2
55.8
16.4

8.9
15.9
20.4
7.4

5.1
1.6
1.9
13.9

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

52.7% of original grouped cases correctly classified.