J O U R N A L OF B U S I N E S S AND PSYCHOLOGY

Volume 6, No. 1, Fall 1991

D E T E R M I N A N T S OF S A T I S F A C T I O N
WITH SPECIFIC JOB FACETS:
A TEST OF LOCKE'S MODEL
Dean B. McFarlin
Marquette University

Robert W. Rice*
State University of New York at Buffalo

ABSTRACT: Survey results supported Locke's (1969, 1976) contention that

facet job satisfaction is a function of three basic determinants: 1) facet amount;
2) wanted amount; and 3) facet importance. We found several three-way interactions that were generally consistent with Locke's model. Specifically, facet satisfaction was highest when employees wanted a large amount of the facet in question, were currently receiving a large amount, and felt that the facet was
personally important. Conversely, satisfaction was lowest when employees
wanted a large amount of the facet, were currently receiving only a small
amount, and felt that the facet was personally important. When job facets were
viewed as unimportant to employees, however, the amount of facet desired and
currently possessed had little impact on satisfaction. Implications, limitations,
and directions for research are discussed.
Locke (1969, 1974) has argued t h a t satisfaction with specific job
facets is determined by three basic components. The first two components constitute a psychological comparison process in which workers
compare the amount of a particular facet they currently receive on the
job to the a m o u n t t h a t they want to receive. According to Locke, facet
importance is a third key determinant of facet satisfaction. The role of
facet importance is to moderate the impact of the have-want comparison
process on facet satisfaction. Specifically, Locke argues t h a t workers
will only have high facet satisfaction when they perceive themselves as
experiencing a desired amount of a facet and feel t h a t the facet is import a n t to them. Conversely, workers will only feel strongly dissatisfied
when they fail to receive the desired amount for a particular facet t h a t
is important to them. In short, importance determines the range of afAll correspondence should be sent to Dean B.McFarlin, College of Business Administration, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53233.
*Bob Rice passed away recently. He will be sorely missed.
25

9 1991 HumanSciencesPress~Inc.

26

JOURNAL OF BUSINESSAND PSYCHOLOGY

fect that can be experienced for a particular job facet. Strong affective
reactions to the have-want comparison can only be experienced when
the facet in question is important to the worker. When importance is
low, little affect is generated, even by extreme have-want discrepancies.
Unfortunately, very few empirical examinations of Locke's model
exist (see reviews by Landy, 1989; Saal & Knight, 1988). Furthermore,
the few studies that do exist have generally failed to produce a clear
answer regarding the utility of Locke's approach. For example, Wanous
and Lawler's (1972) results suggest that simple models based solely on
subjective descriptions of current job conditions may do just as well predicting job satisfaction as more complex models based on the calculated
comparison between current and desired conditions. However, their negative findings may be due to the statistical and methodological difficulties inherent in using calculated difference scores to capture the comparison concept (Wall & Payne, 1973):
More recent studies are also not without important limitations. For
example, Rice, McFarlin, and Bennett (1989) examined the relationship
between Locke's have-want comparison concept and facet satisfaction
using an operationalization that avoided the problems associated with
calculated difference scores. Specifically, Rice et al. found that perceived
have-want comparison scores were highly predictive of satisfaction with
specific job facets, even after taking separate measures of "have" and
"want" into account. These results are consistent with other research
supporting the general idea that satisfaction is related to the discrepancy between current experiences and some standard of comparison (see
Michalos, 1986 for a review). The real contribution of Rice et al., however, is the notion that comparison-based measures actually improve on
subjective descriptions of the work environment as predictors of facet
satisfaction.
Another recent study by Rice, Gentile, and McFarlin (1991) examined the role of facet importance as a moderator of the relationship
between facet amount and facet satisfaction. Consistent with hypotheses
derived from Locke's model, Rice et al. found that the relationship between facet satisfaction and facet amount was generally stronger among
workers placing high importance on the job facet than among workers
placing low importance on the job facet.
Unfortunately, as an examination of the efficacy of Locke's (1976)
key concepts, both Rice et al. studies are incomplete. Their main shortcoming is that they failed to examine all three components of Locke's
basic model. Specifically, Rice, McFarlin, and Bennett (1989) did not
examine the moderating role of facet importance, whereas Rice, Gentile,
and McFarlin (1991) did not include both components of the havewant discrepancy (i.e., wanted amount was not considered). Thus, neither study was able to completely test whether facet importance moder-

DEAN B. MCFARLINAND ROBERTW. RICE

27

ates the relationship between the have-want comparison process and

facet job satisfaction in the manner predicted by Locke. Furthermore,
although both Rice et al. studies found some support for hypotheses derived from Locke's model, their results were based on relatively small
samples of undergraduates working part-time (N = 78 and 97, respectively). This choice of samples raises the question of whether the results
would generalize to older, full-time employees.
A recent study by McFarlin and Rice (1991) did, however, try to
capture all three of Locke's satisfaction components by using a "perceived discrepancy" measure in addition to assessing facet importance.
This measure asked respondents to indicate whether they wanted more
or less of a particular job facet than they were currently receiving. Such
an operationalization forces respondents to compare facet amount and
wanted a m o u n t - - a comparison that they may not ordinarily make.
Thus, while this study does yield support for Locke's model and avoids
the difficulties associated with calculating difference scores, the measures used may have artificially created a comparison process.

THE PRESENT STUDY

We tested Locke's model using a sample of full-time employees and
separate measures of all three basic determinants of facet satisfaction.
Moderated regression analyses were used to examine whether these determinants interact in the manner predicted by Locke. The moderated
regression approach allowed us to avoid the difficulties associated with
difference scores and forced have-want comparisons. We used this approach to test the hypothesis that facet satisfaction is a function of a
three-way interaction between facet amount, wanted amount, and facet
importance.
Consistent with Locke, we expect that when facet importance is
high, the slope for the high wanted amount regression line should be
steeper than the slope for the low wanted amount regression line. When
facet importance is low, however, we expected the slopes for the high
and low wanted amount regression lines to approach zero. In other
words, facet satisfaction should be highest when employees want a large
amount of the facet in question, are currently receiving a large amount,
and feel that the facet is important to them. Conversely, satisfaction
should be lowest when employees want a large amount of the facet, are
currently receiving only a small amount, and feel that the facet is important. When job facets are viewed as unimportant to employees, however, the amount of facet desired and currently possessed should have
little impact on satisfaction.
This prediction is consistent with Locke's argument that the impor-

28

JOURNAL OF BUSINESSAND PSYCHOLOGY

tance a worker attaches to a job facet moderates the form of the relationship between facet amount, wanted amount, and facet satisfaction.
Locke contends t h a t a worker will experience extreme satisfaction or
extreme dissatisfaction only when that worker feels the facet in question is important to him or her. Thus, we expect that the comparison
between facet amount and wanted amount will only impact satisfaction
when the facet in question is important to workers. When the facet in
question is unimportant to workers, satisfaction should vary little as a
function of the comparison between facet amount and wanted amount.
This would be consistent with Locke's a r g u m e n t that low facet importance creates a situation where little positive or negative affect is generated, regardless of the n a t u r e of the comparison process.
METHOD
Subjects

Subjects were employees of a large midwestern bank. Surveys were

distributed to 1,100 employees and completed on company time. Completed surveys were returned anonymously in sealed envelopes. In total,
675 employees (mostly tellers and clerks) actually completed the survey,
resulting in a response rate of 61% (mean age = 33.8 years, SD = 12.1,
m e a n tenure = 6.3 years, SD = 5.8, and 74% were females).
Measures
Job facets. The 10 facets used in this study are listed in Table 1. In
selecting these facets we tried to meet two basic criteria. First, each job
facet had to be relevant to the experiences of the bank employees in our
sample. Second, the scope of each facet had to be narrow enough to justify the use of single-item measures. For each facet, four types of information were collected:
1. Facet Satisfaction: Subjects were asked how they felt about each
job facet using Andrews and Withey's (1976) seven-point D-T (Delighted-Terrible) Scale. The anchors for each point are as follows: (7)
Delighted; (6) Pleased; (5) Mostly Satisfied; (4) Mixed (about equally
satisfied and dissatisfied); (3) Mostly Dissatisfied; (2) Unhappy; and (1)
Terrible.
2. Facet Amount: Subjects reported their current annual salary in
dollars. For all other facets, subjects used a five-point scale to indicate
how much of each job facet they currently received (1 = none, 2 = very
little, 3 = some, 4 = very much, 5 = an extraordinary amount).
3. Wanted Amount: Subjects reported their desired annual salary in
dollars. For all other facets, subjects indicated how much of each job

DEAN B. MCFARLINAND ROBERTW. RICE

29

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Four Measures-Relevant to
Each Job Facet

Mean (and Standard Deviation)

Job Facet

Facet
Satisfaction

Facet
Importance

Annual salary
Opportunity take action
Freedom to do work own way
Learning opportunities
Suggest work procedures
Promotion opportunities
Involved solve work problems
Mental effort required
Amt performance feedback
Contact with client/customer

3.7(1.3)
4.4(1.2)
4.7(1.1)
4.3(1.4)
4.5(1.2)
3.5(1.5)
4.5(1.2)
4.5(1.3)
4.1(1.4)
4.9(1.2)

5.9(1.1) 18,365(9859) 23,503(13,015)

5.5(1.1) 3.3(0.9)
3.7(0.6)
5.5(1.1)
3.2(0.9)
3.7(0.6)
6.1(1.1)
2.9(1.0)
4.1(0.7)
6.0(1.1)
3.3(0.9)
3.9(0.7)
6.0(1.3)
2.3(0.9)
4.0(0.8)
5.6(1.0)
3.2(1.0)
3.8(0.7)
5.7(1.1) 3.6(0.9)
3.8(0.7)
5.6(1.2) 2.8(0.9)
3.7(0.7)
5.1(1.6) 3.6(1.3)
3.6(0.9)

Facet
Amount

Wanted
Amount

N = 499-654
Note: Facet satisfaction scores range from 1 (terrible) to 7 (delighted). Facet importance scores range from 1 (not important) to 7 (extremely important). Except for salary,
facet amount and wanted amount scores ranged from 1 (none) to 5 (an extraordinary
amount).

facet they wanted to receive (1 =none, 2 = v e r y little, 3 = s o m e , 4 = v e r y

much, 5 = an extraordinary amount).
4. Facet Importance: Subjects used a seven-point scale to report
"how important" each job facet was to them personally. This scale had
two verbal end-anchors: "not at all important" (1) and "extremely important" (7).

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics
Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for facet satisfaction, facet amount, wanted amount, and facet importance for each of
the job facets. Table 2 presents intercorrelations useful for interpreting
our regression analyses.
To test our hypothesis, a three-step hierarchical regression analysis
was conducted for each of the 10 job facets, with facet satisfaction as the

30

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Table 2
Selected Intercorrelations Relevant to Regression Analyses

Job Facet

FS
&
FI

FS
&
FA

FS
&
WA

FA
&
FI

FA
&
WA

WA
&
FI

Annual salary
Opportunity take action
Freedom to do work own way
Learning opportunities
Suggest work procedures
Promotion opportunities
Involved solve work problems
Mental effort required
Amt performance feedback
Contact with client/customer

- 30
10
14
- 05
09
- 25
13
02
-04
20

11
52
60
67
64
58
57
48
61
35

05
07
02
-09
11
-23
08
04
02
27

-02
23
24
05
20
08
15
12
01
45

19
26
23
09
26
17
25
22
19
54

03
38
40
51
47
63
44
39
42
68

Note: W i t h m i n i m u m N = 507, r > .08 is significant at p < .05, r > .10 at p < .01, a n d
r > .14 at p < .001 (two-tailed). Decimals omitted for all correlations; F S = facet satisfaction, FI = facet i m p o r t a n c e , F A = facet a m o u n t , and WA = w a n t e d a m o u n t .

dependent measure. Facet amount, wanted amount, and facet importance were entered on the first step. On Step 2, cross-product terms representing all possible two-way interactions were entered (i.e., facet
amount x wanted amount, facet amount x facet importance, and wanted
amount x facet importance). On Step 3, the cross-product term representing the three-way interaction of facet amount, wanted amount, and
facet importance was entered. Because of the low power of moderated
regression procedures (Champoux & Peters, 1987), p < .10 was used to
identify a significant three-way interaction.

Main Effects
As shown in Table 3, the main effects for facet amount and wanted
amount were generally significant and showed a consistent direction.
When facet importance and wanted amount were held constant, higher
levels of facet amount were associated with higher levels of facet satisfaction. Conversely, when facet importance and facet amount were held
constant, higher levels of wanted amount were associated with lower
levels of facet satisfaction. Only three of the ten main effects for facet

DEAN B. MCFARLINAND ROBERTW. RICE

31

importance were significant and showed no consistency in the direction

of their effects (i.e., two were negative and one was positive).

Two-way Interactions
Table 3 also reveals that nine of the 10 facet amount x wanted
amount interactions were significant. To examine the exact nature of
these interactions, regression equations were calculated and plotted separately for subjects with high and low wanted amount on the relevant
job facet (see Cohen & Cohen, 1983). All nine interactions yielded the
same basic pattern--workers with high wants were less satisfied with
low facet amounts and more satisfied with high facet amounts than
workers with low wants.
Seven of the ten facet amount x facet importance interactions were
also significant and yielded the same basic pattern. When compared to
workers who rated the facet as low in importance, workers who rated a
facet as high in importance tended to be more satisfied with high
amounts of that facet and less satisfied with low amounts.
Finally, six of the ten wanted amount x facet importance interactions were significant. Again, these interactions yielded the same general pattern. Compared to workers who rated the facet as low in importance, workers who rated a facet as high in importance tended to be less
satisfied with high wanted amounts of that facet and more satisfied
with low wanted amounts.

Three-way Interaction Hypothesis

Consistent w~th our hypothesis, however, these two-way interactions were generally qualified by a three-way interaction between facet
amount, wanted amount, and facet importance. Table 3 reveals that
seven of the ten job facets yielded significant three-way interactions.
These interactions were plotted and yielded generally similar patterns.
Figure 1 presents a representative three-way interaction pattern--in
this case, mental effort required by the job. These three-way interactions are consistent with Locke's arguments about the operation of facet
importance. Specifically, facet satisfaction was highest when employees
wanted a large amount of the facet in question, were currently receiving
a large amount, and felt that the facet was personally important. Conversely, satisfaction was lowest when employees wanted a large amount
of the facet, were currently receiving only a small amount, and felt that
the facet was personally important. When jobs facets were viewed as
unimportant to employees, however, the regression lines for both high
and low wanted amount tended to be flatter, indicating a narrower
range of satisfaction experienced across the range of the facet amount.

.r
I I I I I I I I

, "~ ,.I~ I

6,1

III

o~i~

o~iI

~
@

~'~ ~.~
o

II II

v~#

li

DEAN B. MCFARLIN AND ROBERT W. RICE

33

Figure 1
Satisfaction with Mental Effort as a Function o f Facet
Amount, Wanted Amount, and Importance
6

High Importance-High Want

High Importance-Low Want

5-

Low Importance-Low Want

Facet
Satisfaction

Low Importance-High Want

4321

Facet Amount

DISCUSSION

Our findings provide clear support for Locke's (1969, 1976) threedeterminant model of satisfaction with specific job facets. As predicted,
facet amount, wanted amount, and facet importance all played a role in
determining satisfaction with individual job facets.
Our three-way interactions were consistent with Locke's ideas
about the moderating impact of facet importance on the relationship
between have-want comparisons and facet satisfaction. Specifically, it
appears that the have-want comparison process has its strongest impact
on satisfaction when the facet in question is important to the worker.
When a facet was viewed as having high personal importance, workers
with high wanted amounts tended to be less satisfied at low facet
amounts and more satisfied at high facet amounts than workers with
low wanted amounts. On the other hand, when facet importance was
low, wanted amount had little impact on the relationship between facet
amount and facet satisfaction. In other words, facet importance appears
to influence the range of affect that individuals can experience. Facets
with high importance were likely to produce more extreme affective reactions than facets with low importance.
By not relying on calculated difference scores, measures that force

34

JOURNAL OF BUSINESSAND PSYCHOLOGY

have-want comparisons, or student samples, the present study moved

beyond the limitations of previous research examining Locke's model.
However, one might criticize the present study because our three-way
interactions explained only a small amount of variance in facet satisfaction. The critical point, however, is not how much variance is explained
but whether the increment provided by the interaction term is statistically reliable. A significant increment in variance indicates that the
slopes of the regression lines do, in fact, vary depending on the value of
the moderator variables (see Champoux & Peters, 1987; Cohen & Cohen, 1983; Stone & Hollenbeck, 1984). Recent work by Evans (1985)
suggests that a meaningful interaction may exist even when the statistically significant increment in explained variance is 1% o r less. Regardless of how much variance is explained by an interaction, the researcher bears the responsibility for interpreting the exact nature of the
interaction effect. Stone and Hollenbeck (1984) recommend that the best
way to do this is to plot separate regression equations for different combinations of moderator variables. The researcher can then examine the
resulting pattern to determine its theoretical and practical significance.
We followed Stone and Hollenbeck's advice here and, as we have indicated above, found interaction patterns that are clearly consistent with
Locke's (1976) model of facet satisfaction.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Although our results provide strong support for Locke's model, the
present study contains several limitations that present opportunities for
future research. For example, in the present study we considered only a
limited set of job facets. One obvious question, then, is whether our results would also be observed with different job facets. Even within the
present study, we did not find total support for Locke's model. Why this
was the case is unclear. It may be that the applicability of Locke's model
varies depending on the nature of the specific job facet in question. If
this is the case, uncovering the dimensions responsible for the variation
(e.g., whether the job facet is primarily intrinsic or extrinsic) would be
an important contribution.
Another critical issue is how to best capture facet importance information from individual employees. The present study relied on a fairly
simple seven-point rating format for each job facet. While this method
proved adequate for our purposes, it is unclear whether other methods
would have proven more effective. Unfortunately, little consensus exists
in the literature regarding what is the most effective way to measure
importance. For instance, studies have used several different types of
ratings, rankings, and comparisons (cf. Blood, 1971; Ewen, 1971; Jaccard & Sheng, 1984; Rice et al., 1991). Research is clearly needed that

DEAN B. MCFARLINAND ROBERTW. RICE

35

directly compares the effectiveness of a broad set of alternative methods

for assessing facet importance in a job satisfaction context.
Research is also needed that would allow us to draw strong causal
conclusions about the efficacy of Locke's model. The cross-sectional approach used here does not permit us to draw such conclusions. We also
know little about how individuals respond to changes in job facets over
time. Work is a dynamic environment that continually changes--sometimes in fairly predictable ways (e.g., year to year merit increases). Longitudinal designs examining the applicability of Locke's model to job
facet changes over time would be a valuable addition to the literature.
On another level, it would also be useful to know whether results
similar to ours can be obtained from workers in different occupations
and industries. For example, workers in a manufacturing environment
might react quite differently than the white collar bank employees in
our sample. This could be due to differences in how people in various
occupations view the importance of specific job facets. In addition, it
may be that other than a few "core" job facets such as pay, the relevance
of the facets themselves vary dramatically as a function of a worker's
occupation or industry. Thus, research using a variety of different occupational groups is needed to help identify any occupation-specific factors
that may represent alternative explanations for our findings.
A final area for future research is whether the facet satisfaction
process outlined by Locke would help explain satisfaction with facets of
nonwork domains of life. For example, the basic have-want comparison,
weighted by importance, may be efficacious in predicting satisfaction
with specific aspects of family or leisure life. Research in this area
would allow us to conclude whether one basic psychological process can
account for satisfaction with specific elements from different life domains.

Practical Implications
Job satisfaction is an important "bottom-line" issue of concern to
managers because of its links to organizational commitment, turnover,
absenteeism, and other cost-relevant outcomes (see Mowday, Porter, &
Steers, 1982). Clearly, it is to the manager's advantage to have employees that are satisfied with their pay, opportunities for promotion,
level of autonomy, and other facets of the job. Our findings also imply
that managers have much to gain by understanding the basic psychological processes underlying facet satisfaction.
To begin with, managers need to understand that workers' evaluation of their job experiences is based on a comparison process whose
basic components are subjective in nature. This suggests that there may
be considerable room for disagreement regarding what constitutes

36

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

"high" or "low" levels of a job facet, especially those t h a t are difficult to

quantify or define precisely (e.g.,autonomy). What m a y be perceived as
a low amount of decision latitude by workers m a y be interpreted as
"loose reins" by management. In fact, job facets where the amount received can be easily agreed upon (e.g., pay level) m a y prove to be the
exception r a t h e r t h a n the rule. Even when amounts can be agreed upon,
however, the standards of comparison used by workers m a y affect satisfaction in ways not anticipated by management. For example, what a
m a n a g e r might perceive to be a "high" or "above average" wage may
still be a source of pay dissatisfaction if it falls short of what a worker
wants or desires. Conversely, what a m a n a g e r m a y feel is a "low"
amount of a particular job facet m a y actually be a source of satisfaction
for workers if their wants are minimal. All of this suggests that before
undertaking any action to enhance satisfaction, managers should first
assess workers' perceptions about the job facets that they currently experience was well as their wants and desires.
Our results further suggest, however, t h a t managers must also consider the extent to which workers feel individual job facets are important. Our results imply that closing the have-want "gap" will only improve satisfaction levels when the facet in question is important to
workers. When workers are not concerned about a particular facet, adjusting the have-want discrepancy m a y have little or no impact on satisfaction levels. This suggests that when facet importance is low, managers would be better off trying to ascertain why the facet is
unimportant to workers r a t h e r t h a n trying to adjust the have-want discrepancy. In this case, managers m a y be able to gain additional leverage in their efforts to improve satisfaction by trying to convince their
subordinates why they should value a particular job facet. If this fails or
is impractical, managers can shift their emphasis to those job facets that
are valued by workers.
All of this suggests that the value of our research lie s primarily in
clarifying and illustrating the process by which satisfaction with individual job facets is determined. We have made no effort here to identify
a "laundry list" of job facets that can be used to evaluate all jobs. In fact,
we have already implied that developing such a list m a y be problematic.
Thus, our focus here has not been on delimiting the content of overall job
satisfaction.
Of course, the general question of how managers should measure
job satisfaction remains. The answer to this question, we feel, depends
on management's goals. If the objective is to simply discover employees'
basic affective reactions to their jobs, there is no need to use a facetspecific strategy. Simple, facet-free measures that assess workers' general affective reaction to their job will suffice (e.g., Quinn & Staines,
1979). However, if management's goal is to discover why workers are

DEAN B. MCFARLIN AND ROBERT W. RICE

37

satisfied with their jobs or particular aspects of their jobs, then a facetspecific approach would be advisable.
Our research argues that such an approach should include measures that capture have-want discrepancies as well as facet importance.
This will help management pinpoint whether workers' affective reaction
to a particular job facet is a function of the amount of the facet received
relative to the amount desired, the relative importance of the facet to
the individual, or both. From our perspective, one of the weaknesses
inherent in many commonly used job satisfaction measures is that facet
importance information is not tapped. For example, the Job Descriptive
Index (JDI; Smith, Kendall, and Hulin, 1969) asks employees to evaluate several basic facets of work, but does not solicit specific information
about standards of comparison or facet importance.
Finally, management must remember that while surveys can be
used to provide aggregate data about the sources of facet satisfaction
among a group of employees, the importance of the individual cannot be
overstated. As we have indicated, job satisfaction is the result of a subjective comparison process. As such, the potential for individual variation in perceptions is great. Ultimately, then, the focus of any efforts to
improve satisfaction may have to be on the individual employee and the
work world as he or she sees it.

REFERENCES
Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: American's perception of life quality. New York: Plenum Press.
Blood, M. R. (1971). The validity of importance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55,
487-488.
Champoux, J. E., & Peters, W. S. (1987). Form, effect size and power in moderated regression analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60, 243-255.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression~correlation analysis in the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ewen, R. B. 1967. Weighting components of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 68-73.
Evans, M. G. (1985). A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in
moderated multiple regression analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 36, 305-323.
Jaccard, J., & Sheng, D. (1984). A comparison of six methods for assessing the importance
of perceived consequences in behavioral decisions: Applications from attitude research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 1-28.
Landy, F. J. (1989). Psychology of work behavior (4th Ed.). New York: Dorsey Press.
Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 309-336.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago: RandMcNally.
McFarlin, D. B., & Rice, R. W. (1991). The role of facet importance as a moderator in job
satisfaction processes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 1(}1-114.

38

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Michalos, A. C. (1986). Job satisfaction, marital satisfaction, and the quality of life: A
review and preview. In F. M. Andrews (Ed.), Research on the quality of life (pp. 57-83).
Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Quinn, R. P., & Staines, G. L. (1979). The 1977 quality of employment survey. Ann Arbor:
Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1991.
Rice., R. W., Gentile, D. A., & McFarlin, D. B. (1991). Facet importance and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 31-39.
Rice, R. W., McFarlin, D. B., & Bennett, D. (1989). Standards of comparison and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 591-598.
Saal, F. E. & Knight, P. A. (1988). Industrial~Organizational psychology: Science and practice. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in
work and retirement. Chicago, IL: Rand-McNatly.
Stone, E. F. & Hollenbeck, J. R. (1984). Some issues associated with the use of moderated
regression. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 195-213.
Wall, T. D., & Payne, R. (1973). Are deficiency scores deficient? Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 322-326.
Wanous, J. P., & Lawler, E. E. (1972). Measurement and meaning of job satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 95-105.