You are on page 1of 14

Soc Indic Res DOI 10.


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 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract The present study investigated the impact of core self-evaluations on job satisfaction, with a primary focus on conrmation 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 signicantly correlated with job satisfaction. Structural equation modeling indicated that career commitment partially mediated the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction. The nal model also revealed a signicant path from core self-evaluations to job satisfaction through career commitment. The ndings extended prior reports and shed light on how core self-evaluations inuence job satisfaction; this provides valuable evidence 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, Xian 710032, Shanxi, China e-mail: J. Peng e-mail: Q. Wu Foreign Language Teaching and Researching Ofce of Basic Education Department, Chongqing Communication Institute, Chongqing, China


J. Zhang et al.

well-being cannot be disconnected from affection and cognition in the workplace because a persons occupation is considered to be one of the most signicant 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 denition 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 documented that job satisfaction is positively related to subjective well-being (e.g., Chiu 1998; Schmitt and Bedeian 1982), specically, 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 commitment, could signicantly predict a persons 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 fulllment and job self-efcacy 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 benecial 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 ones satisfaction with a job contributes to overall life satisfaction is an important and well-researched topic in psychological literature. Studies have indicated that job satisfaction is signicantly related to life satisfaction, and it has been powerfully argued that work strongly inuences 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 inuence 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 dened 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-efcacy and self-esteem. Core self-evaluations represented stable personality traits including an individuals subconscious and fundamental evaluation of him/herself, ones 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 satised with their occupations. For example, in a study analyzing three different samples, Judge and Bono (2001) found the correlation coefcient between job satisfaction and core self-evaluations was signicant. Conducting a meta-analysis of 169 related studies, Judge and Bono (2001) found that the correlation coefcient 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


The Impact of Core Self-evaluations on Job Satisfaction

self-efcacy, respectively. Moreover, the correlation coefcient 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-evaluations accounted for the trait variance in job satisfaction, and research on Chinese ofce workers conducted by Zhang and Du (2011) suggested that core self-evaluation could accurately predict job satisfaction and efcacy. Judge and Bono (2001) investigated reasons 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 persons core self-evaluations, the better his/her feelings towards these circumstances 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 characteristics 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 coefcients were 0.1 (P \ 0.05), 0.32 (P \ 0.01), and 0.52 (P \ 0.01) between core selfevaluations 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 persons 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 identication with and involvement in those goals. The more positive an individuals 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 signicantly exacerbate their psychological dissatisfaction (Murphy et al. 2008). Previous studies have provided adequate evidence conrming 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


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 ll this gap. We hypothesized that career commitment would mediate the impact of core selfevaluations 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 nonprot, non-commercial, or governmental organizations had not been investigated. In this study, we examined the trilateral relationship 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 ndings 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 ndings. 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 2460 months. Participants completed the questionnaires 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 nish 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 condent 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 coefcient 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 dissatisfaction) 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


The Impact of Core Self-evaluations on Job Satisfaction

a ranking of the chance to try out some of my own ideas. In the present study, the Cronbach alpha coefcient 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 shouldnt 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 coefcient 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 conrmatory 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 inated 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 rstly, 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 t of the model (Hu et al. 1999; Kline 2005): (a) Chi square statistic (2), 2/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 t if all the path coefcients were signicant 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 Conrmatory factor analysis was used to exam whether the measurement model t 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 t to the data: 2 (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


J. Zhang et al. Table 1 Inter-correlations between four latent variables M CSE JS CC 3.22 3.50 3.47 SD 0.54 0.47 0.54 CSE 1 0.43** 0.16** 1 0.54** 1 JS CC

N = 310. All correlation coefcients are signicant at P \ 0.01 * P \ 0.05, ** P \ 0.01, *** P \ 0.001

signicant (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 variable, that was core self-evaluations (CSE), job satisfaction (JS) and career commitment (CC) were signicantly correlated with each other. 3.2 Structural Model In the rst step, the direct effect of the predictor variable (CSE) on the dependent variable (JS) without mediators was tested. The directly standardized path coefcient was signicantly, = 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 t to the data, 2 (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 coefcient from CSE to JS, from CSE to CC, and from CC to JS were all signicant. Thus, according to the modication 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 nal meditational model, as shown in Fig. 1, was analyzed. The nal meditational model showed a very good t to the data according to the following indices: 2 (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 signicance by adopted the Bootstrap estimation procedure in AMOS (a bootstrap sample of 1,500 was specied). 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 condence 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 condence intervals for indirect effects. Table 2 showed the indirect effects and their associated 95 % condence intervals. As shown in Table 2, CSE had signicant direct effect on JS, the direct effect of CSE on CC was signicant and the effect of CC on JS was also signicant. The indirect effect of CSE on JS through CC was also signicant.


The Impact of Core Self-evaluations on Job Satisfaction













Fig. 1 The nal structural model (N = 310). Note: Factor loadings are standardized. CSE core selfevaluations, CSE1CSE3 three parcels of core self-evaluations, JS job satisfaction, JS1JS3 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 % condence intervals for the nal model Model pathways Estimated effect 95 % CI Lower bonds Direct effect CSE CC CSE JS CC JS Indirect effect CSE CC JS

Up bonds

0.158a 0.402a 0.540a 0.032a

0.038 0.319 0.443 0.012

0.272 0.488 0.624 0.118

Empirical 95 % condence 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 elds, 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-


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 difcult to understand that job satisfaction as subjective well-being in workplace has a positive correlation with CSE. The importance of this nding was that it provided meaningful evidence for external validity of the relationship 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, benets, and the like. Another nding 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 signicant. 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 positively 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 signicantly 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 conrmed 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 commitment 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 satised with their jobs. That is to say, a condent 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 satised with an occupation, individuals should show high self-efcacy, locus of control, and self-esteem to strengthen core self-evaluations, 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 performance; 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 establishing 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 xed and equivalent so we could exclude confounding factors of bonuses, benets, 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.


The Impact of Core Self-evaluations on Job Satisfaction

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

Minnesta Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) Ask yourself: How satised am I with this aspect of my job? Very Sat. means I am very satised with this aspect of my job. Sat. means I am satised with this aspect of my job. N Means I cant decide whether I am satised or not with this aspect of my job. Dissat. means I am dissatised with this aspect of my job. Very Dissat. means I am very dissatised with this aspect of my job.


J. Zhang et al.

Very dissat. Dissat. N Sat Very sat. 1. Being able to keep busy all the time 2. The chance to work alone on the job 3. The chance to do different things from time to time 4. The chance to be somebody in the community 5. The way my boss handles his/her workers. 6. The competence of my supervisor in making decisions 8. The way my job provides for steady employment 9. The chance to do thing for other people 10. The chance to tell people what to do 12. The way my company policies are put into practice 13. My pay and the amount of work I do 14. The chances for advancement on this job 15. The freedom to use my own judgment 16. The chance to try my own methods of doing the job 17. The working conditions 18. The way my co-worker get along with each other 19. The praise I get for doing a good job 20. The feeling of accomplishment I get from the job 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

7. Being able to do things that dont go against my conscience 1

11. The chance to do something that makes use of my abilities 1

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 1. Continuing with my current job, believing that everyone 1 should be committed to his/her career 2. Continuing with my current job believing everyone should be committed to his/her career 3. Be passionate about my current job 4. One should love what one does 1 1 1 Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

5. Though it is benecial to quit my current job, it is still 1 not a good idea 6. Continuing with my current job environment and conditions makes it easier to realize my dream 7. My current job can provide sufcient space for development and better realization of self-value 9. My current job provides an opportunity for me to do what I am interested in doing 1 1

8. My current job can help me improve my work capability 1 1


The Impact of Core Self-evaluations on Job Satisfaction

Appendix continued
Strongly disagree 10. If quitting my current job will cause great loss of welfare benets, such as housing, advantages in childrens schooling, and retirement insurance 11. Continuing with my current job, believing that everyone should be committed to his/her career 12. Continuing with my current job believing everyone should be committed to his/her career 13. Be passionate about my current job 14. One should love what one does 15. Though it is benecial to quit my current job, it is still not a good idea 16. My current job environment and conditions makes it easier to realize my dream 1 Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree 2 3 4 5

1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 4 4

5 5 5 5 5 5

Chinese Vision of the Core Self-evaluations Scale ,

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. , 7. , 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Chinese Vision of Minnesta Satisfaction Questionnaire ,

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.


J. Zhang et al.

Appendix continued
7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

Chinese Vision of Chinese Career Commitment Scale ,,

1. , 2. 3. 4. 5. , 6. 7. , 8. 9. 10. ,, 11. 12. 13. , , 14. , 15. 16. ,

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 118.


The Impact of Core Self-evaluations on Job Satisfaction Amy, C. H., & Chockalingam, V. (2005). The construct of work commitment: Testing an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 131(2), 241259. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice. A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411423. Bhargava, S., & Baral, R. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of work-family enrichment among Indian managers. Psychological Studies, 54(3), 213225. Blau, G. (1985). The measurement and prediction of career commitment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58, 277288. Bowling, N., Hendricks, E., & Wagner, S. (2008). Positive and negative affectivity and facet satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 23(3), 115125. Brief, A. P., & Roberson, L. (1989). Job attitude organization: An exploratory study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 717727. 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, 237262. 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), 7589. Chiu, R. K. (1998). Relationships among role conicts, role satisfaction and life satisfaction: Evidence from Hong Kong. Social Behavior and Personality, 26(4), 409414. Collarelli, S., & Bishop, R. (1990). Career commitment: Functions, correlates, and management. Group and Organization Studies, 15, 158176. Costa, P. T., & MeCrae, R. R. (1980). Inuence of Neurotieism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 668678. Cummins, R. A., & Nistico, H. (2002). Maintaining life satisfaction: The role of positive cognitive bias. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 3769. DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 197229. 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), 2751. 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), 210218. Furnham, A., & Cheng, H. (2000). Perceived parental behavior, self-esteem and happiness. Social Psychiatric Epidemiology, 35, 463470. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for t indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 155. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits-self-esteem generalized selfefcacy, locus of control, and emotional stability-with job satisfaction and job performance: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 8092. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 257268. 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), 167187. Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303333. 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, 151188. 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, 1734. 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, 107122. 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). Condence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99128. Mastekaasa, A. (1984). Multiplicative and additive models of job and life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 14, 141163.


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), 538551. MeCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1991). Adding liege und albeit: The full ve-factor model and well being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 227232. , C., Tricaud-Vialle, S., Gerbaud, L., Giraud-Roufast, A., et al. (2012). Moret, L., Anthoine, E., Paille Relationship between inpatient satisfaction and nurse absenteeism: An exploratory study using WHOPATH performance indicators in France. BMC Research Notes, 5(1), 8392. 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), 204228. 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), 204228. Rogers, W., & Schmitt, N. (2004). Parameter recovery and model t using multidimensional composites: A comparison of four empirical parceling algorithms. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 379412. 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, 806817. Sehlen S., Fau-Vordermark, D., Vordermark, D., Fau-Schafer, C., Schafer, C. Fau-Herschbach, P., Herschbach, 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. (1748717X (Electronic)). Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410421. Suldo, S. M., & Huebner, E. S. (2006). Is extremely high life satisfaction during adolescence advantageous? Social Indicators Research, 78(2), 179203. 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), 265273. 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, 174. 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), 8187. 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, 93104. Zelenski, J. M., Murphy, S. A., & Jenkins, D. A. (2008). The happy-productive worker thesis revisited. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 521537. Zhang, X., & Du, J. (2011). The inuence of core self-evaluations on employee work attitude and job performance. Psychological Research, 4, 4448.