ENC 1102NoonanSpring 2018RESEARCH PAPER PACKETContents.docx

ENC 1102Noonan Spring 2018 RESEARCH
PAPER PACKET
Contents:
Assignment Page #s
1. Research Paper Outline2-4
2. Main Article Selection 5
3. Summary of Main Article 6
4. Requirements for Sources 7
5. Research Plan 8
6. Annotated Bibliography 9
7. Quote Sandwich 10
8. Works Cited 11
9. Introduction 12
10. Ethos, Pathos, Logos examples 13
11. Effectiveness discussion 14
12. Conclusions 15
13. Rough Draft directions 15
14. Rough Draft checklist 16
15. Final Paper directions 17-18
16. Final Paper checklist 19
1. Research Paper Outline
Use this outline to guide you through the development of your
paper. This outline is meant to show the ideal structure of your
paper. You do not need to complete this outline as an
assignment.
I. Introduction
a. Hook – Attention Grabber
b. Background Information - what is the issue discussed in the
main article? Describe at least 2 different

positions on the issue (ex: pro and con).
c. Why is this topic important for the audience to understand?
II. Summary
a. Cut and paste the (Main Article) Article Summary you
previously submitted; revise as needed
III. Analysis:
Paragraph 1: Ethos/Pathos/Logos example
a. Find one example in your Main Article where the author uses
ethos, pathos, or logos to persuade the reader. Give a quote
from the main article, cite the quote, then explain how it shows
use of ethos, pathos, or logos.
Paragraph 2: Point 1, compared to research
a. Select first point from main article
i. Introduce the point from main article
ii. Give quote from main article and in-text citation
iii. Explain the quote (What does it mean? How does it fit
into rest of your paper?)
b. Select correlating point from Source 1
i. Introduce the correlating point from Source 1
ii. Give quote from Source 1 and in-text citation
iii. Explain the quote (What does it mean?)
iv. Describe how this point relates to Point 1 from the
main article- does it support, contradict, or give
more info on that point?
a. Select second point from main article

i. Introduce the correlating point from Source 2
a. Select third point from main article
i. Introduce the point from Source 3
Paragraph 5: Point 4 (optional), compared to research
a. Select first point from main article
i. Introduce the point from Source 4

Paragraph 6: Discuss overall effectiveness of argument in main
article
a. Discuss strong and weak points of argument presented in
Main Article.
b. Discuss whether author of Main Article left out any
important information.
c. Discuss what author of Main Article could do to improve
his/her argument, or whether the
argument presented was sufficient.
IV. Conclusions – Illustrate to your instructor you have though
critically and analytically about the issue. Do not introduce new
evidence that may need additional support.
a. Restate/paraphrase the argument of the main article
b. Summarize/Emphasize main points from your research
c. Climax of your paper – Use your strongest analytical points
to describe where argument of main article was
effective/ineffective
d. If your research raised any questions you weren't able to find
answers for, describe those questions here.
Tips:
· Make the introductory paragraph interesting. How can you
draw the reader in?
· State the evidence. Give reasons, examples, facts, quotations
to support/explain your analysis.
· Concluding sentences should reassert how the topic sentence
of the paragraph helps better understand and/or prove your
paper’s overall claim about the effectiveness of the argument

you are analyzing.
· Introduce evidence in body paragraphs in a few words. (As
Dr. White states “…”) or (To understand this issue we first need
to look at statistics/research/evidence, such as ...).
· See the Sample Paper by a previous student, which will be
posted for you in Blackboard
[outline adapted from Prof. Carmen Bucher]
2. Main Article Selection - directions for selecting the main
article for the research paper
The object of our research paper is to use research to help you
analyze the argument presented in your main article (which
must be a persuasive article by an informed, reliable source).
We are performing a rhetorical analysis, similar to our analysis
of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "Letter from Birmingham Jail",
where we looked at how Dr. King used ethos, pathos, and logos
to make his argument, and where we examined several points of

his overall argument.
1) You must choose one article as the subject article (main
article) for your research paper. You may choose a text (essay
or article) from the MDC Library databases. Recommended
databases for our paper include: Opposing Viewpoints in
Context, Issues and Controversies, and the SIRS Researcher,
because they all contain persuasive articles from appropriate
sources. If you plan to pick a main article from somewhere
other than the MDC Library databases, you must get my
approval on the source for the article.
2) For this assignment, you need a text where an author presents
a clear viewpoint on a controversial issue. Good examples:
opinion essays, letters to the editor; Bad examples: biographies,
news reports (these are usually too neutral and objective for this
assignment).
3) The persuasive article you select as your main article must be
appropriate as the subject for our research paper. The main
article does not necessarily have to come from a peer-reviewed
journal, but there must be an author (individual, agency, or
organization) who is credible, qualified to speak on the topic,
and reasonably well-informed about the topic. An author's
qualifications may be based on academic degrees related to the
topic, work/career experience with the topic, or in some cases,
extensive personal experience with the topic. An author's
credibility is based on his/her reputation for honesty in the past,
whether he/she presents the information clearly (not
oversimplifying complex issues, not overcomplicating basic
issues), his/her accuracy in reporting facts, whether he/she has
something to gain from making the argument (such as power,
property, or money). If in doubt, please ask your instructor to
approve your author before submitting your article summary.
4) It may be better to pick an article/essay where the author
disagrees with your viewpoint on the issue. It is normally
easier to criticize the argument of someone you disagree with,
because you will naturally be more skeptical of the argument,
making it is easier to see any holes in the logic.

5) Please note, you will not be graded on whether you
agree/disagree with the author's opinion in your text. You will
be graded on how well you analyze the argument which the
author used to support his/her opinion.
6) Pick something you are interested in, because you will be
working on that topic all semester. By the same token, do not
pick a topic you feel so strongly about that you are not willing
to listen to other points of view on the topic.
7) You must select your article by (see Blackboard Calendar).
8) The summary of your article is due by (see Blackboard
Calendar).
3. Summary of Main Article (for final research paper)
Value: 2 points
Due Date: TBD
Length: 1-2 paragraphs (not an entire essay)
Format: Typed (submit to Blackboard dropbox)
Requirements:
1) You must mention the name of the author and the article in
the first sentence of your summary.
2) Explain the author's main argument: what is the claim, and
what does the author write to support it (what are the major
details)? (Don't worry about ethos/logos/pathos at this point.)
3) Be neutral. In the Summary section of your paper, you are
presenting the author's argument 'as is', so the readers can
decide for themselves what they think about it. This allows the
readers to compare your analysis to theirs. It also makes your
analysis more credible if you are neutral here and just reporting
the argument found in the text, instead of inserting your
viewpoint or analysis here. (This is the type of summary we did
for "The Culture of Thin Bites Fiji" earlier this semester.)
4) Make sure you include any points that you will analyze or
discuss in your Analysis section. (Tip: after you write your
Analysis section later on, you will go back and double check

your summary to make sure it includes the details that you refer
to elsewhere in your paper.)
5) Do not use quotations in your summary. You should
paraphrase all information. We will go back later and add
citations as needed.
6) Refer to Chapter 3 ("The Art of Summarizing") from They
Say/I Say, which is posted in Blackboard (Week ___ folder), for
examples and advice on writing your summary.
7) Upload summary as an attachment to the Article Summary
assignment in Blackboard.
4. Requirements for sources for research paper
For the research paper, you will have to document your use of at
least 4 academically appropriate sources (in addition to the
article you are analyzing). All sources need to be academically
appropriate, that is, there is an author (individual, agency, or
organization) who is credible, qualified to speak on the topic,
and reasonably well-informed about the topic. Two of your
sources must come from the MDC Library resources - for
example, a database article, a book/chapter of a book, an
academic journal article, etc. Sources may have a bias on an
issue, but must back up their opinion with facts. Examples of
appropriate sources would include articles from books,
encyclopedias, magazines, and newspapers. Websites are also
acceptable if they are official websites of a news organization,
research center, or organization which has information on your
topic.
For example, if your topic were “Global Warming”, you could
use information from sources such as the BBC (news
organization), the Stanford Solar Center (research center),

Greenpeace (organization), and the Encyclopedia Britannica.
You will need to have at least one source that disagrees with the
viewpoint in your article. You also need to have at least one
source you found in the library databases. It is suggested you
find a second source that agrees with your article, and third and
fourth sources with background information, and/or hard
evidence (statistics, facts, interviews, etc.)
Suggestions of the type of information you may want to look for
include:
· the author's background/motivation/inspiration
· events contemporary to when text was written/published
(context)criticism (literary or other) of text/author, if available
· current perspective of the text, or events in the text, or of
issues addressed in the text (if the article was written a while
ago)
Advice from former student:
"I suggest you to read your article several times. Becoming
familiar with your article helps you remember important points
you want to research and where in the article that point is. Now
to pick what you want to research from your article. Looking at
the main ideas in your article can give you at least 3 topics to
research. If the main ideas in your article are not clear some
other good topics to research are: statistics mentioned in the
article and things you thought were unclear as you read your
article. Write your three topics on separate sheets of paper. This
way as you do your research you have plenty of room to write
down what you found with your topic (if your research is messy
you might confuse your data). "
5. Research Plan Worksheet Directions:
Name: ___________________________________________
You must complete this worksheet to get points for the Research

Plan assignment. Check Blackboard for directions about how to
submit the assignment.
Identify 3-4 points (from your main article) that you would like
to do research on. Identify the type of info you plan to look for.
Identify any sources you plan to use (including specific
databases, books, journals, etc.) If you already have a
source/sources, please include names of those sources.
Remember, you need to find at least one source who disagrees,
and one source who agrees, with the viewpoint in your main
article.
point to researchtype of info to gather(please possible
sources
circle all that apply)
example:
Fijian's attitude towards weight background
MDC Library databases
before 1995 news
sociological studies
1) background
statistics
opinion
news articles
other(must describe)
2) background
statistics
opinion
news articles

3) background
statistics
opinion
news articles
4) background
statistics
opinion
news articles
6. Directions for writing an annotated bibliography
Write an annotated bibliography for each source you plan to use
for your research paper. Your annotated bibliography for each
source will start with a full citation for that source in MLA
format; this will be followed by your original description of the
source in 3-7 sentences. Your description must describe the
information in the source and tell how this source relates to
your other research (for example, does this source contradict
information from your main article?) Make sure you save your
annotated bibliographies in an MLA format document, with
your name in the upper left-hand corner of the document.
You will need to refer to section 52f in The Bedford Handbook
(9th ed.) "Construct an Annotated Bibliography" for the format,

directions, and Writing Guide on how to prepare your annotated
bibliography.
The annotated bibliography is a record of your research-in-
progress, so it should contain the sources you have found so far
for your final research paper. This is one of the few
assignments that does not involve writing part of the research
paper itself. It is crucial to your research process, nonetheless,
because it helps you (and your instructor) see how the research
you have found so far all fits together, and makes it easier to
see what other research may be useful for your paper.
Sample annotated bibliography entry:
Research Paper Packet ENC 1102 Noonan 19
Kate Noonan
ENC 1102
13 February 2013
Full citation for source in MLA format; this citation will
become the works cited entry for this source later on your
Works Cited page
Summary of this source - main argument, important points; give
your evaluation of the source
Last 1-2 sentences describes how this source fits in with your
other research
7. Quote Sandwich Directions:
Please note: the 'Quote Sandwich' is a model of how to set up
the 'research comparison' section which will be part of the final
research paper's Analysis section. (Please refer to the Research

Paper Outline.)
Set-up a comparison of one point from your main article to a
related point in your research. (You will have to do this for 3-4
points from your article, using at least 4 sources, but this
example is meant to be a model for you to follow in your
paper.) You will need: a) the passage you are quoting or
paraphrasing from your article, b) the passage you are quoting
or paraphrasing from one of your research sources. Here's what
this comparison section should look like in the Analysis section
of your research paper --
1) Introduce Point 1 from your article (give us some context-
who is the author, and what is he/she discussing in this
passage?)
2) Give Quote 1 or Paraphrase 1 from your main article and cite
it in MLA format
3) Explain Quote/Paraphrase 1 - how does this fit into your
paper?
4) Write a connecting sentence to connect this first sandwich
(1-3) to the next sandwich (5-7) for a quote from one of your
sources
5) Introduce to Point 1 from your source (give us some context-
who is the author, and what is he/she discussing in this
passage?)
6) Give Quote 1 or Paraphrase 1 from your source and cite it in
MLA format
7) Explain Quote/Paraphrase 1 from the source- how does this
fit into your paper?
8) Now explain how the Quote/Paraphrase from your source
relates to the Quote/Paraphrase from your main article (does it
make the argument in your article sound strong or weak? is it
just giving some additional info?)
This combination of two quote sandwiches is the model for
setting up each point of comparison between your main article

and your other sources.
You are responsible for reading the Quote Sandwich explanation
and examples found in They Say/I Say Chapter 3 "The Art of
Quoting", which is posted in the Quote Sandwich folder in
Blackboard. Please refer to the reading, especially the template
patterns at the end of the chapter, for help writing your quote
sandwiches. You are also responsible for reading the
explanation and rules for MLA format in-text citations, found in
section 56 in The Bedford Handbook (9th ed.). Also refer to
section 55 on "Integrating Sources."
8. Works Cited Draft: Assignment directions
Your Works Cited draft is due (date TBD). This assignment is
worth 2 points. You will need to list the main article you
analyzed in your paper, and any sources from your research
paper. Remember, all sources that you used for your paper must
be cited (they must have an in-text citation, and they must be
listed on your Works Cited page), and all sources listed on your
Works Cited page must be cited somewhere in your paper. The
Works Cited page for the Final Paper will be the last page of
your research paper.
You must follow MLA format:
that is, if you have a book, follow the MLA format for the
works cited entry for a book; if you have an article from a
website, follow the MLA format for 'short work from a website'
1) Please see pp. 601-602 "General Guidelines for the Works
Cited List" in the Bedford Handbook (9th edition) for the
general format of the Works Cited page itself.
2) see section 56b for a directory of Works Cited models; this is
based on the type of source you have, and is divided into:
Listing Authors, rules for Books, rules for articles from

Periodicals (newspapers, magazines, journals), rules for Online
Sources (websites, databases), rules for Audio/Visual Sources
(including podcasts, dvds), rules for Other Sources. You need
to identify the type of source you used, then apply the
corresponding formatting rule for that type of source.
Basic rules for the Works Cited page are: (see BH, section 56b)
a) alphabetize the list of sources by last name of author
or editor (if no author),
or if no author or editor, by first word of title (except A, An,
The)
b) don't indent first line of each entry, but you must indent any
additional lines by half an inch = 'hanging indent'
2)Also see the sample Works Cited page on p. 661 (at the end of
the "Sample MLA research paper", section 57b of TheBedford
Handbook (10th ed.).
I recommend using EasyBib, at www.easybib.com , to create
your Works Cited page. If you give EasyBib the info for each
source, it will format the Works Cited page and alphabetize the
list of works for you. Just make sure you keep the 'hanging
indent' format for the WC page.
9. Introduction section directions
Your introduction should give a general overview of the issue
being debated in your paper, and should include "background
information" on the issue (anything that is important for your
reader to understand about the issue). For example, what is
controversial about the issue discussed in the main article?
What are some important aspects to consider about this issue?
You must describe at least 2 different positions on the issue (ex:
pro and con). You may want to describe some of the history of
the debate about this topic. You should also describe why this
issue should matter to your readers. To find background

information on the issue you will address in your paper, you
may want to try the 'topic overview' sections in the MDC
Library databases (such as Opposing Viewpoints in Context).
Here is a sample from a student paper. The controversial issue
being discussed is whether Plan B (a type of emergency
contraception) should be available over the counter.
Introduction:
The United States' teen birth rate is higher than that of any
other developed country, including the birth rates of Canada,
Germany and France. The United States also leads all other
developed countries in the rates of many STIs (sexually
transmitted infections). Presently it is being debated whether
emergency contraceptives should be available over the counter
(without a prescription) to younger adolescents under the age of
eighteen. Supporters state that emergency contraceptives should
be easily available to anyone sexually active regardless of age,
but those that are against it state that young adolescents lack the
maturity and ability to make proper decisions and should not
have easy access to emergency contraception. Given the
staggering evidence that teenagers in the USA are having
unprotected sex, this is a very relevant topic to us all. The
common factor in this situation is that teens are having
unprotected sex which is leading to unwanted pregnancies and a
rise in STIs. Making emergency contraception, or as it is
commonly called “Plan B,” available over the counter to teens
may reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions
but it will have no effect on the rise of STI’s.
10. Ethos, Pathos, Logos example directions :
Please note -- this assignment will be the first paragraph in the
Analysis section for the Final Research Paper (please refer to

the Research Paper Outline).
Discuss at least one example of where the author of your main
article uses ethos (the author's credibility or reputation), pathos
(emotion), or logos (logic, reasoning, or hard evidence like
statistics, facts, or data). This can be one or two sentences per
example. You just need to demonstrate that you can recognize
where your author used one of these approaches (ethos, pathos,
or logos).
For example:
Eleanor Smith uses a logos approach when she gives statistics
to back up her second point about the media influencing
women's body image (324).
Here are two examples adapted from previous students' papers:
Ex. 1:
Solomon Katz uses a logos approach when it comes to his point
on "global warming's influence on agricultural productivity"
(795). He gives information about "carbon monoxide released
into the atmosphere by the consumption of fossil fuels" (Katz
795), which is a fact to support his argument.
Ex. 2:
In the essay "Mother Tongue," the author uses pathos to
get the reader's attention. For example, in the article Tan
stated, "I am someone who has always loved language" and "I
am fascinated by language in daily life" (763). Those two
sentences at the beginning of the article make a person want to
read further because Tan used emotion by expressing her
enthusiasm for language.

11. Effectiveness discussion directions:
Please refer to the Research Paper Outline, Analysis section.
For paragraph 6, discuss the effectiveness of the argument in
your main article. Answer the following -- Was the argument in
the Main Article effective ? Is the argument missing anything
critical (like evidence/support) that would help make it
stronger? Are there any flaws in the logic of the Main Article's
argument? Do you have suggestions to improve this argument?
Below are two examples from previous students' papers.
ex 1: (discussing an article by Solomon Katz)
When it comes to Katz’s information about climate change
being an influence on agricultural productivity, his argument is
effective to an extent: he does explain what causes climate
change, such as the burning of fossil fuels, and he mentions that
it adversely affects agriculture productivity, but he could have
mentioned more to give a better example of how these changes
occur, in a way similar to Walthall’s explanations. Katz’s could
have mentioned the role of human beings in climate change,
such as through “deforestation, overgrazing of livestock, fires,
and urban development” (Walthall). Adding statistics about
how climate change has affected agriculture, such as the amount
of crops that are being lost due to drought, would also give
greater support to his point.
ex. 2: (discussing "Mother Tongue" by Amy Tan)
The author's arguments are effective because anyone who
speaks English as their second language, or even their first

language, but who has immigrants parents, would agree with
Tan on her view in “Mother Tongue”. The author used many
examples to prove her point of view in the article. She did not
leave out any important information; basically, I think she
incorporated all she wanted to say in her article. For example, I
think she succeeded because she gave the message that she
wanted to give, which was how people looked at those who do
not speak English perfectly. However, I think Tan could have
made her argument a little stronger. Maybe she could have
interviewed a couple of other people who were in the same
situation as her because that would have given her more
credibility and proved that what she was experiencing was not
only her own experience, but other people's experience as well.
Overall, a lot of people can relate to what Tan talked about in
her article and she explained what she had to say thoroughly.
12. Conclusions section directions:
For the Conclusions section of your research paper, discuss
whether you thought the argument in the main article was
effective/not effective overall, and why you think that; you just
gave detailed examples in the Analysis section, so here you can
summarize what you said in the Analysis;
optional - you can also give your opinion about the issue, give
suggestions for what you want readers to do about the issue, or
give suggestions for areas of the topic that still need to be
researched

13. Rough Draft directions:
For the Rough Draft, you will submit the work you have
completed so far for the Final Research Paper, including
previous assignments such as the Main Article Summary,
Introduction, Quote Sandwich. Use the Rough Draft Checklist
and the Research Paper Outline to help you prepare your Rough
Draft.
The Rough Draft will be uploaded to the TurnItIn dropbox in
Blackboard (in the Rough Draft folder - see Blackboard for
more specifics and deadline). We will discuss how to use
TurnItIn in class, but you are responsible for reading the
information on "How TurnItIn Works" and additional info on
TurnItIn, which can be found in the Quote Sandwich folder and
the Rough Draft folder in Blackboard.
Please note: If you do not submit your Rough Draft by the
deadline posted in Blackboard, I cannot guarantee that you will
get feedback in time to revise for the Final Research Paper.
14. ROUGH DRAFT CHECKLIST
Directions: please check off the completed areas of your rough
draft and submit this checklist with your rough draft
I. INTRODUCTION: (see Introduction assignment for
directions)

__context: Does intro explain necessary background
info on the topic (such as history, terminology,
etc.)?
__ debate: Does intro explain at least two sides of the
issue discussed in the paper?
II. SUMMARY: (See Summmary assignment for directions)
__ Does summary give title, author, main argument,
and major details of main article analyzed in this
paper?
III. ANALYSIS: Does the paper do the following?
__ discuss how ethos/pathos/logos are used in the
main article? (See How to Write Up
Ethos/Pathos/Logos Example assignment)
__ discuss at least 3 points from the main article in
depth, comparing research to what the author
claims? (see Quote Sandwich assignment)
(Note: see Effectiveness assignment for next 3 questions):
__ describe whether the main article's argument is effective or
ineffective and why?
__ describe whether the author of the main article
left out any important info or didn't answer critical
questions about the topic?
__ give any suggestions to make the author's
argument in the main article stronger?
IV. Other: __ are at least 4 sources (in addition to the main
article) cited somewhere in this paper?
V. MLA: Does the paper follow MLA format? (see Bedford
Handbook sections 56, 56a, 56b)
__ name/page # each page __ in-text citation __ Works
Cited page
__ do the in-text citations match up to the Works Cited entries,
and vice-versa?(if not, final paper will fail for plagiarism)
Extra Credit reminder for Final Paper: ** maximum of 5 pts
extra credit **

early submission = 3 pts; 6th or 7th source = 1 pt each;
15a. Final Research Paper Deadlines:
**FINAL PAPERS ARE DUE (see Blackboard Calendar) BY
END OF CLASS. YOU CAN RECEIVE 3 EXTRA CREDIT
POINTS IF YOU TURN IN THE PAPER EARLY (see
Blackboard Calendar for dates).
**RULES FOR SUBMITTING FINAL PAPER, EARLY OR
REGULAR SUBMISSION:
1) RESEARCH PAPERS ARE DUE BY END OF CLASS ON
______________
2) PAPERS TURNED IN AFTER CLASS BUT BEFORE 11:59
P.M. ON THE DUE DATE WILL HAVE 5 POINTS
DEDUCTED.
3) PAPERS TURNED IN AFTER 11:59 PM ON THE DUE
DATE WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. ANY CHANGES TO THE
DUE DATE/SYLLABUS WILL BE ANNOUNCED IN CLASS.
4) FINAL RESEARCH PAPERS MAY ONLY BE SUBMITTED
BY UPLOADING PAPER TO THE BLACKBOARD "FINAL
PAPER" TURN-IT-IN DROPBOX. A HARDCOPY OF THE
FINAL PAPER MUST ALSO BE SUBMITTED BY END OF
CLASS ON DUE DATE - EITHER BRING THE HARD COPY
TO CLASS, OR LEAVE IT AT MY MAIL FOLDER, OUTSIDE
OFFICE 7320.
15b. Final Research Paper Directions (see Blackboard "Final
Paper" folder for additional directions; subject to change; any
changes will be announced in class)
Please note: The final research paper is 35% of your grade for
this course.
For the Final Research Paper, you must submit your original
documented research paper in which you provide your rhetorical
analysis of a text of your own choice (previously approved by
instructor).

The Final Research Paper must be in MLA format; it should be
5-8 pp double-spaced and must include the references (Works
Cited) page; it must be in a regular 12 point font.
Plagiarism policy: plagiarizing any part of an assignment,
including the final research paper, will earn you an ‘F’ for the
course. Not including a Works Cited page is a form of
plagiarism. You are responsible for familiarizing yourself with
the rules for avoiding plagiarism and using MLA format for
documenting research. These rules can be found in The Bedford
Handbook's MLA section, especially sections 53-56, highlights
of which were covered this semester in class.
Your paper must have the following sections -- (Please refer to
the Research Paper Outline for more details, and to the separate
assignments for the introduction, summary, ethos/pathos/logos
section, quote sandwich directions, effectiveness discussion,
works cited page, and conclusions)
1) Introduction (background of topic of text);
2) Summary of text (main article), including the author's
argument (statement and proof offered to support that
statement);
3) Analysis of the text (main article):
how did the author use ethos, logos, and/or pathos in his/her
argument?;
did the author give adequate support for his/her claim?;
would you add anything to make his/her argument stronger?
did the author leave out any important information that
contradicts his/her argument?
Analysis section must also include comparison of 3-4 points
from your text to at least 4 research sources;
4) Conclusion - what was your overall evaluation of the author's
argument? was it effective or ineffective, and why?; any final
thoughts or comments you have on the text
5) Works Cited page - all sources used in your paper must have
proper MLA in-text citations and must have full citations on
your Works Cited page; all sources on your Works Cited page
must be cited somewhere in your paper

Make sure you use Turn It In (as we discussed in class) to help
you avoid plagiarism in your Final Paper. Please use the Final
Paper checklist and the Turn It In rubric & other feedback on
your Rough Draft (peer review, comments in Grade Report or
Blackboard email from instructor) to help you write your Final
Paper. Please check your Blackboard email daily until your
Final Paper grade is posted, in case I need to contact you about
your paper.
16. FINAL PAPER CHECKLIST
Directions: Check off the completed items and turn this
checklist in with your Final Paper on ______________
Overall requirements for paper:
__ Do the in-text citations match up to the Works Cited entries,
and vice-versa? (if not, paper will fail for plagiarism)
__ Are at least 4 sources (in addition to the main article) cited

somewhere in this paper? (see Requirements for Research Paper
Sources)
Final Paper by section:
The Final Paper is worth 35 points total. See point breakdown
below.
___(2.5 pts) I. INTRODUCTION: Does intro explain
necessary background info on the topic? Are at least two sides
of the issue discussed in the paper explained here?
___(5 pts) II. SUMMARY: (See Summmary assignment for
directions)
Does summary give title, author, main argument, and
major details of main article analyzed in this paper?
___(20 pts) III. ANALYSIS: Does the paper do the
following?:
__(3 pts) discuss how ethos/pathos/logos are used in
the main article? (See How to Write Up Ethos/Pathos/Logos
Example assignment)
__(12 pts) discuss at least 3 points from the main
article in depth, comparing research to what the author claims?
(see Quote Sandwich assignment)
(Note: see Effectiveness assignment for next 3 questions):
__(3 pts) describe whether the main article's
argument is effective or ineffective and why?
__(1 pt) describe whether the author of the main
article left out any important info or didn't answer critical
questions about the topic?
__(1 pt) give any suggestions to make the author's

argument in the main article stronger?
____(2.5 pts) IV. CONCLUSION: Does the draft include an
overall evaluation of the argument in the main article?
____ (5 pts) V. MLA: Does the paper follow MLA format? (see
Bedford Handbook sections 56, 56a, 56b) ** note: this section
is for whether MLA format was used correctly, not whether
paper is plagiarized or not **
__(1) name/page # each page __(2) in-text citation
__(2) Works Cited page
Extra Credit: ** max of 5 pts extra credit ** early submission =
3 pts; 6th or 7th source = 1 pt each
The Causal Relation Between Job Attitudes and Performance:
A Meta-Analysis of Panel Studies
Michael Riketta
Aston University
Do job attitudes cause performance, or is it the other way
around? To answer this perennial question, the
author conducted meta-analytic regression analyses on 16
studies that had repeatedly measured perfor-
mance and job attitudes (i.e., job satisfaction or organizational
commitment). The effect of job attitudes
on subsequent performance, with baseline performance
controlled, was weak but statistically significant
(� � .06). The effect was slightly stronger for commitment than
for satisfaction and depended negatively
on time lag. Effects of performance on subsequent job attitudes
were elusive (� � .00 across all studies),

which suggests that job attitudes are more likely to influence
performance than vice versa.
Keywords: job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
performance, organizational citizenship behav-
ior, meta-analysis
Few topics in industrial and organizational psychology have
received as much attention as has the relation between job
attitudes
and performance (e.g., Brief & Weiss, 2002; Judge, Thoresen,
Bono, & Patton, 2001; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Mowday, Porter,
&
Steers, 1982; Staw, Sutton, & Pelled, 1994). Numerous meta-
analyses (e.g., Cooper-Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005; Harrison,
Newman, & Roth, 2006; Judge et al., 2001; Meyer, Stanley,
Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002; Riketta, 2002) have demon-
strated that positive job attitudes, such as commitment and
satis-
faction, are accompanied by better work outcomes. Although the
existence of positive correlations is well established, the causal
relationship between job attitudes and performance is still
unclear.
Do job attitudes increase performance? Is it the other way
around?
Or are the frequently observed correlations between job
attitudes
and performance spurious (e.g., due to common causes)? The
vast
majority of empirical studies on job attitudes and performance
are
mute on these issues because of their cross-sectional designs.
The
same is true of the aforementioned meta-analyses. Thus, the
long-
standing debate about the causal relationship between job

attitudes
and individual performance (e.g., Harrison et al., 2006; Judge et
al., 2001; March & Sutton, 1997; Organ, 1977; Schwab & Cum-
mings, 1970) is far from being resolved.
The goal in this article is to contribute to this debate by provid-
ing the most controlled (to date) meta-analytic test of causal
links
between job attitudes and performance. This article is built
around
a meta-analysis of panel studies on these two constructs. These
studies permit the extent to which job attitudes predict perfor-
mance to be disentangled from the extent to which performance
predicts job attitudes. In this article, meta-analytic regression
anal-
ysis is applied to the aggregated correlations to estimate the
unique
effect of job attitudes on performance (with baseline
performance
controlled) and the unique effect of performance on job
attitudes
(with baseline job attitudes controlled). Differences between
forms
of job attitudes (organizational commitment and job
satisfaction)
and performance (in-role and extra-role), as well as the
moderating
role of measurement interval, are explored.
This article provides the first meta-analysis that estimates lon-
gitudinal effects between job attitudes and performance while
controlling for baseline scores (for similar methods that
examine
team cohesion instead of job attitudes, see the meta-analysis by
Mullen & Copper, 1994; for a meta-analysis of zero-order longi-

tudinal correlations between job attitudes and performance, see
Harrison et al., 2006). The present meta-analysis therefore
extends
previous meta-analyses of the job attitude–performance
relation-
ship by way of a more rigorous test of causal hypotheses.
Definitions and Theoretical Models
Throughout this article, the term job attitude refers to the eval-
uation or personal importance of job-related targets (e.g.,
organi-
zation, work group, job as a whole). The two most frequently
investigated job attitudes probably are job satisfaction, defined
as
a cognitive and/or affective evaluation of one’s job as more or
less
positive or negative (Brief & Weiss, 2002), and attitudinal or
affective organizational commitment, defined as “the relative
strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement
in
a particular organization” (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979, p.
226; see also Allen & Meyer, 1990). The following arguments
and
empirical analyses refer to these job attitudes only. Other forms
of
job attitudes include organizational identification (see Riketta,
2005); job involvement (see Brown, 1996); continuance and
nor-
mative commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990); and satisfaction
and
(affective) commitment with reference to targets other than job
or
organization, such as work group, career, or occupation (see,
e.g.,
Becker, 1992; Cohen, 2003; Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993).

These
I wish to thank Paula Brough, Ann Davis, Rolf Van Dick,
Xiaojing Yan,
and René Ziegler for helpful comments; Claudia Sacramento for
assistance
with coding; and Frank Bond, Jeremy Dawson, Günter Maier,
and Mike
West for making unpublished results available.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Michael
Riketta, Work & Organisational Psychology Group, Aston
Business
School, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, United
Kingdom. E-mail:
[email protected]
Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2008 by the American
Psychological Association
2008, Vol. 93, No. 2, 472– 481 0021-9010/08/$12.00 DOI:
10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.472
472
forms of job attitudes are not considered within this article, due
to
a lack of published investigations that contain these
constructs.1
In the literature, performance is usually divided into in-role
performance (similar to task performance), defined as
fulfillment
of tasks that are required by the formal job description, and
extra-role performance (similar to organizational citizenship be-

havior or contextual performance), defined as behavior that is
beneficial to the organization and goes beyond formal job
require-
ments (e.g., helping colleagues at work, working extra hours,
making suggestions for improvement; Borman & Moto-
widlo, 1997; Organ, 1988). This meta-analysis considers both
forms of performance.
At least four interpretations of positive correlations between job
attitudes and performance are possible. Because these
viewpoints
have been laid down many times (e.g., Brief & Weiss, 2002;
Brown & Peterson, 1993; Harrison et al., 2006; Judge et al.,
2001;
Meyer & Allen, 1997; Mowday et al., 1982; Staw et al., 1994),
only a brief summary is given below. This meta-analysis tests
all
four cases by estimating the unique effects of job attitudes on
later
performance (with baseline performance controlled) and of per-
formance on later job attitudes (with baseline job attitudes con-
trolled).
Case 1: Job attitudes cause performance. Arguments that sup-
port this view usually refer to the functions of attitudes as
guide-
lines and facilitators of behavior (e.g., Eagly & Chaiken, 1993;
Fishbein & Ajzen, 1974; see Judge et al., 2001); the energizing
and
facilitative effects of positive affect (as one component of satis-
faction) at the workplace (e.g., Staw et al., 1994); or the
motiva-
tional effects of the personal importance or identification with
the
job or organization (e.g., as a component or consequence of
commitment; see, e.g., Meyer, Becker, & Vandenberghe, 2004).

In
this meta-analysis, this view would receive support if job
attitudes
predicted later performance.
Case 2: Performance causes job attitudes. Two common argu-
ments that support this view are (a) that performance often
leads to
internal and external rewards (e.g., pay, recognition, feeling
good
at work), which in turn may foster positive job attitudes (e.g.,
Lawler & Porter, 1967), and (b) that people adjust their
attitudes to
their behavior, due to strivings for cognitive consistency or as a
rationalization for their actions (e.g., as assumed by
psychological
theories of cognitive dissonance and of self-perception,
Festinger,
1957, and Bem, 1972, respectively; see, e.g., Staw, 1975). This
view would receive support if performance predicted later job
attitudes.
Case 3: Performance and job attitudes cause each other. This
case results from the combination of Cases 1 and 2.
Case 4: Performance and job attitudes are causally unrelated. In
this case, the positive concurrent correlations between them
would
be due to research artifacts (e.g., common source bias) or to
third
variables that influenced both constructs (see, e.g., Brown &
Peterson, 1993; Judge et al., 2001). Although it is virtually
impos-
sible to rule out Case 4 with correlational data, this meta-
analysis
tests one possible implication of this case: that job attitudes and

performance do not predict each other over time.
This study explores the moderating roles of type of job attitude
(satisfaction vs. commitment), performance type (in-role and
extra-role performance), and timing (shorter vs. longer intervals
between measurement waves). In theory, panel designs require
that
the time between two measurement waves matches the time that
the effects under investigation presumably take to unfold. How-
ever, little is known about this process (e.g., how long it takes
for
satisfaction to influence performance or vice versa). Because of
this lack of knowledge and the common constraints of field
studies
(e.g., the organization may provide access only at certain inter-
vals), the time lags in most studies seem to be set independently
of
theoretical considerations, as reviews of panel studies have ad-
monished (e.g., Williams & Podsakoff, 1989). Through its com-
parison of attitude–performance effects between different time
lags, this meta-analysis may inform decisions on timing issues
in
future panel studies.
Method
Study Search and Coding
Studies had to meet the following criteria to be included in the
meta-analysis:
1. Participants were employees in an organization. Thus,
studies in other contexts, such as classrooms, sports
teams, or artificial environments (e.g., laboratory, sce-
nario), were excluded (e.g., Dorfman & Stephan, 1984;

Grieve, Whelan, & Meyers, 2000).
2. The study examined job satisfaction or organizational
commitment (attitudinal or affective).
3. The study examined job performance.
4. Job attitudes and performance were measured at each of
at least two measurement waves. That is, the study had a
panel design.
5. No major changes in the work environment, such as an
organizational merger or a change in the task of the
participants, occurred between the measurement waves
(e.g., Jetten, O’Brien, & Trindall, 2002).
6. Data were analyzed at the individual level rather than at
the group level. This criterion was included because most
theoretical accounts of the job attitude–performance re-
lation refer to individual processes and because
individual-level correlations are not comparable with
group-level correlations.
7. The complete matrix of the zero-order correlations for
job attitude and performance was available for at least
two measurement waves. Thus, the report of the study
had to contain the two synchronous correlations, the two
cross-lagged correlations, and the two stabilities for job
1 The literature search for this meta-analysis did refer to studies
on all of
the mentioned job attitudes. After the search, all job attitudes
were to be
excluded for which fewer than five independent studies were
available.
This step would reduce the heterogeneity of the data set for the

meta-
analysis and would ensure that the meta-analytic results for
single job
attitudes were generalizable to some extent. Only job
satisfaction and
organizational commitment met this criterion (and the other
inclusion
criteria described in the Method section). For ease of
presentation, the
excluded constructs are not mentioned further.
473RESEARCH REPORTS
attitude and performance. Only studies that reported the
complete set of correlations were considered in the meta-
analysis. This criterion ensured that the attitude–perfor-
mance and the performance–attitude paths within an
analysis were from the same studies and thus ruled out
differences between studies as confounds of the observed
effects. In other words, studies with missing correlations
were excluded listwise.
This study used several strategies for identification of published
and unpublished studies that met these criteria. A range of elec-
tronic databases was searched, including ABI/Inform (covering
published articles and unpublished dissertations, some of them
in
full text); Business Source Premier (covering published
articles);
PsycINFO (covering published articles, chapters, and books and
unpublished dissertations); and Web of Science (the former
Social
Sciences Citation Index; covering published articles). The
follow-

ing search terms, decomposed into smaller search terms as
neces-
sary, were used: (satisfaction or commitment) and (work or job
or
organization) and (cross-lagged or longitudinal) and ( perfor-
mance, in-role, or extra-role; or citizenship or effort or
productiv-
ity or work motivation). Moreover, the lists of studies included
in
previous meta-analyses and qualitative reviews on satisfaction,
commitment, and performance were checked, as were the refer-
ences of several papers on cross-lagged panel analysis (most
notably, Clegg, Jackson, & Wall, 1977; Williams & Podsakoff,
1989). Further, colleagues who research actively in the area of
job
attitudes were asked if they knew of relevant research; a request
for unpublished data was sent via the mailing list of the German
association of industrial and organizational psychologists (in
Sep-
tember 2006); a request for unpublished data was posted on the
web page of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychol-
ogy (in September 2006); the abstracts of recent annual confer-
ences of that society (2005–2007) and of the Academy of Man-
agement (2000 –2007) were searched, and several papers were
requested; and authors of published studies that met all but the
last
inclusion criterion (i.e., that failed to report the complete
correla-
tion matrix) were contacted and asked for the missing
correlations.
The references of each relevant paper retrieved were scanned
for
additional studies. Study search was completed in June 2007.
All usable studies were coded by Michael Riketta and a doctoral

student into two categories according to the nature of
performance
the studies measured (in-role and extra-role). When a
performance
measure included items that referred to both performance types,
it
was coded into the category to which most of its items referred.
Intercoder agreement was 100%, and each study could be unam-
biguously assigned to one of the two categories. Because all
other
data to be coded did not require subjective judgments, they were
coded by Michael Riketta.
As is common in meta-analyses, the moderator effects were
explored by repeating the analyses for discrete values of the
moderator (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). Thus, the moderator vari-
able time lag was categorized into 1– 6 months, 7–12 months,
and
13� months. These categories were chosen as a compromise
between the two conflicting demands of (a) having a reasonable
number of studies in each category (which could be best
fulfilled
by a small number of categories) and (b) having a category
system
differentiated enough for detection of nonmonotonic moderator
effects (which could be best fulfilled by a large number of cate-
gories). Given the small number of available studies, a larger
number of time lag categories did not seem meaningful. (None-
theless, a more differentiated analysis for the total sample is
reported in Footnote 3.)
Features of the Analyzed Studies
The literature search yielded 16 usable studies (see Table 1).
The average sample size of these studies was 192, with a range

from 35 to 526. Mean time lag between the coded waves of
measurement averaged 9.2 months, with a range from 1 month
to
18 months. Mean organizational tenure of participants at the be-
ginning of data collection was 4.5 years (k � 10). Mean
proportion
of women was 55% (k � 11). The majority of the studies were
conducted in English-speaking countries (10 in the United
States,
2 in the United Kingdom, 1 in Australia). Two studies were
conducted in Germany; for another study, the country was not
stated. Eight studies were conducted in service organizations, 3
were conducted in manufacturing organizations, and 4 examined
participants from multiple organizations and industries (e.g.,
alumni of the study authors’ institutions). One study was con-
ducted in an organization within an unspecified industry.
Of the studies, 14 examined job satisfaction with a variety of
measures. The most frequent measure was the Job Descriptive
Index (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969), which was used in 3
studies. Five studies examined organizational commitment,
mea-
sured with the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire
(Mow-
day et al., 1982). In-role and extra-role performance were mea-
sured by 11 and 5 studies, respectively. Extra-role performance
was measured with self-reports in 4 studies and with both self-
reports and peer ratings in the remaining study. In-role perfor-
mance was measured with supervisor ratings in 6 studies, with
objective indicators in 3 studies, with both supervisor ratings
and
objective indicators in 1 study, and with self-reports in another
study. No single performance measure was used more than
twice.
Data Aggregation

One requirement of a meta-analysis is independence of the
aggregated data points (here, correlations). Thus, a study must
not
contribute more than one correlation to each aggregated correla-
tion. When a study provided correlations for (a) more than one
job
attitude or performance form or (b) more than one measure for
the
same job attitude or performance form, the correlations were
averaged, such that the study contributed no more than one set
of
correlations (two stabilities, two synchronous correlations, two
cross-lagged correlations) to each of the following analyses. For
example, when a study provided correlations for commitment
and
satisfaction that had the same outcome, these correlations were
averaged for the overall analyses. The single correlations for
commitment and satisfaction were used, however, in the
separate
analyses for commitment and satisfaction.
The issue of independent correlations is also relevant to studies
with more than two waves of measurement (here, three studies
with three waves). To ensure independence of data points, this
analysis used only the data from the first two measurement
waves,
except in the analyses that compared different time lags. In this
latter case, if a study reported correlations for more than one
time-lag category (i.e., �7, 7–12, and 13� months), these corre-
474 RESEARCH REPORTS
lations were included in the analyses for the respective

categories.
Again, when a study reported more than one set of correlations
relevant to the same time-lag category, only the set of
correlations
for the two earliest measurement waves was considered.
In longitudinal studies, changes in reliability between the mea-
surement waves can bias estimates of cross-lagged effects
(Kenny,
1975; Williams & Podsakoff, 1989). To correct for this, the cor-
relations were disattenuated. The study-specific reliability esti-
mates for the relevant measurement waves were used if
available.
These reliability estimates were internal consistencies in all
cases.
When reliability information was lacking, imputed estimates
made
the analysis for these studies more comparable with those for
the
other studies. Specifically, when reliability information was
avail-
able for only one measurement wave (as was the case in one
study), this value was imputed as the reliability estimate for the
second measurement wave. Reliabilities of single-item rating
scales were set at .70 (Wanous & Hudy, 2001). In all other
cases,
missing reliabilities for job satisfaction, organizational commit-
ment, and (in- or extra-role) performance were set at .83, .83,
and
.85, respectively. These values were the average reliabilities
(mostly internal consistencies) from a recent, extraordinarily
large
meta-analysis on these constructs (Cooper-Hakim &
Viswesvaran,
2005; these estimates were based on 949, 311, and 159 studies,
respectively).2

The next step consisted of averaging the disattenuated correla-
tions across studies, after weighting them with the product of
sample size (to correct for sampling error) and the squared
disat-
tenuation factor (i.e., the square of the ratio of uncorrected to
corrected correlation; Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). The resulting
weighted correlation was an estimate of the mean population
correlation. Its standard error was computed as the standard
devi-
ation of the corrected correlations divided by the square root of
the
number of studies. Thus, as recommended by Hunter and
Schmidt
(1990), this meta-analysis used a random effects model. The
variance of the population correlations was computed as the dif-
2 Schmidt and Hunter (1996) and Viswesvaran, Ones, and
Schmidt
(1996) argued that interrater reliabilities are better estimates of
measure-
ment error than are internal consistencies. In a meta-analysis,
Viswesvaran
et al. estimated the interrater reliability of supervisor ratings of
perfor-
mance at .52 and suggested that this estimate be used for
disattenuation in
meta-analyses. When their estimate (rather than the internal
consistencies
from the original studies) was used in this study for supervisory
perfor-
mance ratings, the paths between job attitudes and performance
tended to
be slightly weaker but showed patterns largely similar to those
in the

present analysis. In particular, the job attitudes–performance
and perfor-
mance–job attitudes effects were, respectively, � � .04 and .00
overall; .02
and .00 for satisfaction; .07 and .02 for commitment; .4 and .01
for in-role
performance; .05 and �.02 for extra-role performance; .11 and
.03 for a
time lag of 1– 6 months; .01 and �.08 for 7–12 months; and .01
and .05 for
13� months. A limitation of this method is that it does not
consider
changes in reliability within studies, although this is advisable
for the
analysis of panel data (Kenny, 1975). Moreover, several authors
have
argued that the use of interrater reliabilities in disattenuation
may bias
correlations (Murphy & De Shon, 2000; Sackett, Laczo, &
Arvey, 2002).
Hence, only the analysis that used internal consistencies is
reported in the
text.
Table 1
Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis
Study N Participants Country Lag Variables
Coded correlations
A1A2 P1P2 A1P1 A2P2 A1P2 P1A2
Ashforth & Saks (1996) 222 University graduates U.S. 6 JS, IP
.64 .69 .11 .21 .14 .20
Bateman & Organ (1983) 77 Nonacademic university staff U.S.

1.5 JS, EP .71 .80 .41 .41 .43 .39
Bechtold et al. (1981) 64 Medical center employees U.S. 18 JS,
IP .53 .57 .15 .21 .17 .19
Bond & Bunce (2003) 412 Call-center employees U.K. 12 JS, IP
.66 .21 .26 .17 .05 .66
Borrill et al. (2003) 370 Hospital employees U.K. 12 JS, EP .67
.48 .28 .25 .20 .17
Crampon et al. (1978) 46 Management trainees U.S. 2 OC, IP
.72 .78 .16 .16 .36 .00
Donaldson et al. (2000) 157 Nonprofessionals U.S. 6 OC, EP
.71 .25 .20 .25 .14 .71
Griffin (1991)a 526 Bank tellers U.S. 18 JS, IP .61 .53 .04 .06
�.02 .06
OC, IP .74 .53 �.03 .05 .05 .03
Maier & Rosenstiel
(2006)
185 University graduates Germany 14 JS, EP .57 .57 .11 .195
.09 .17
OC, EP .75 .57 .18 .185 .24 .18
Maier & Rosenstiel
(2006)
216 University graduates Germany 14 JS, EP .64 .65 .16 .16 .14
.14
OC, EP .84 .65 .18 .14 .12 .13
Nathan et al. (1991) 300 Managers and professionals Not stated
3.5 JS, IP .56 .23 .06 .17 .14 �.02
Sheridan & Slocum
(1975)
59 Machine operators U.S. 11 JS, IP .45 .50 �.03 .15 �.08 �.06

Sheridan & Slocum
(1975)
35 Managers U.S. 12 JS, IP .68 .49 .20 .21 .21 .24
Szilagyi (1980) 128 Controllers and accountants U.S. 3 JS, IP
.62 .65 .09 .05 .09 .09
Tharenou (1993) 200 Electrical apprentices Australia 12 JS, IP
.48 .64 .19 .08 .11 .08
Wanous (1974) 80 Telephone operators U.S. 2 JS, IP .73 .44 .09
.15 .18 .24
Note. Lag � time lag between the coded measurement waves in
months; A1 and A2 � job attitude at first and second coded
wave, respectively; P1 and
P2 � performance at first and second coded wave, respectively;
JS � job satisfaction; IP � in-role performance; EP � extra-
role performance; OC �
organizational commitment.
a Only Time 2 and Time 3 were coded because of an
intervention between Time 1 and Time 2.
475RESEARCH REPORTS
ference between the variance of the corrected correlation coeffi-
cients and their average squared standard errors (Hunter &
Schmidt, 1990). Heterogeneity of population correlation was
tested with Hunter and Schmidt’s chi-square test (Q test). A
significant result would indicate that there was more than one
population correlation.
Meta-Analytic Regression Analysis
For the causal analyses, the matrix of the corrected mean cor-

relations served as input into a meta-analytic regression
analysis
(Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995). The soft-
ware MPlus 4.2, using maximum likelihood estimation, was
used
for these computations. To increase the sensitivity of
significance
tests, the sum of the sample sizes of the relevant studies (rather
than, e.g., the average) was used to compute the standard errors
for
the regression coefficients (see Cheung & Chan, 2005). Specifi-
cally, across all studies, performance or job attitude at the
second
coded measurement wave was regressed on both performance
and
job attitudes at the first coded measurement wave. The
standard-
ized regression coefficients provided by this analysis estimated
how well job attitudes and performance predicted each other,
with
baseline scores of the criterion variable being controlled. These
analyses were conducted across all job attitudes and
performance
forms, irrespective of time lags (called overall analysis
hereafter),
for each combination of satisfaction or commitment with in-role
or
extra-role performance and with each time-lag category.
Results
Table 2 shows the mean corrected correlations (as estimates of
the mean population correlations; symbolized by r in the
following
text); their standard errors (as indicators of the precision with
which the mean population correlations were estimated); and the

estimated standard deviations of the population correlations (as
estimates of the extent to which the population correlations vary
around the mean population correlation). Data are shown for the
overall analysis and for each category of each moderator (job
attitude, performance type, time lag, and all possible
combinations
thereof).
The mean cross-sectional correlations between job satisfaction
and organizational commitment with performance were weakly
positive and statistically significant (rs between .10 and .21, ps
�
.05). These findings are consistent with those of previous meta-
analyses (e.g., Cooper-Hakim & Visweswaran, 2005; Judge et
al.,
2001; Meyer et al., 2002; Riketta, 2002). The stabilities of job
attitudes and performance were remarkably high (rs � .52
across
all time lags, i.e., for an average time lag of 9 months).
Table 3 shows the results of the meta-analytic regression anal-
yses conducted on the correlations from Table 2. The upper
panel
of Table 3 shows general analyses, which averaged across at
least
one of the moderator variables. Overall, job attitudes were weak
predictors of performance (� � .06, p � .001). This effect
tended
to be stronger for commitment than for satisfaction (� � .08 vs.
.03, ps � .05) and stronger for shorter than for longer time lags
(� � .12, p � .001, for 1– 6 months; � � .02, ns, for 7–12
months;
� � .03, ns, for more than 12 months). It did not differ between
in-role and extra-role performance (�s � .05, ps � .05).
Effects of performance on job attitudes in the general analyses

were more elusive. The only significant effect was a negative
effect for moderate time lag (� � �.08, p � .001, 7–12
months).
Because no studies of organizational commitment were
available
for this time-lag category, this effect was entirely due to
satisfac-
tion. All other effects of performance on job attitudes in the
general analyses were nonsignificant (�s � .04).3
Table 3, lower panel, shows more specific analyses, which
examined all possible combinations of job attitude, performance
type, and time lag. Because most of these analyses were
conducted
on three samples or fewer, they have to be interpreted with
great
caution. The most remarkable finding may be that the tendency
for
higher effects of job attitudes on performance for shorter time
lags
was replicated for all four job attitude–performance type combi-
nations.
Discussion
With its use of meta-analytic regression analysis and its exclu-
sive focus on studies with repeated measurements, this meta-
analysis accomplished a more rigorous test of causal relations
between job attitudes and performance than did previous meta-
analyses on these relations. The results provide some support
for
the common assumption that job attitudes influence
performance.
Across job attitudes and performance forms, the effect was
weak
but significant (� � .06). The effect was significant for both

satisfaction and commitment and for both in- and extra-role per-
formance. The effect tended to be stronger for shorter time lags
between measurement waves and for commitment rather than for
satisfaction. Almost no statistically significant evidence for the
reverse causal direction emerged, with the effect size in the
overall
analysis being � � .00. This finding suggests that job attitudes
are
more likely to influence performance than vice versa.
Limitations
Before the implications of the findings for research and practice
are discussed, several limitations of this meta-analysis should
be
noted. First of all, the number of studies was small, especially
for
commitment and extra-role performance (only five studies each)
and for the moderator analysis for time lag (fewer than eight
studies in each category).
Moreover, almost all studies on extra-role performance mea-
sured this construct with self-reports only. Common source bias
and socially desirable self-presentation may have distorted the
3 Additional analyses explored the effects of time lag in more
detail by
repeating the computations (across job attitudes and
performance types) for
every available time lag (rounded to months). The job attitudes–
perfor-
mance and performance–job attitudes effects were, respectively,
� � .18
and .06 for a time lag of 2 months (k � 3, n � 203); .03 and .03
for 3
months (k � 1, n � 128); .20 and �.12 for 4 months (k � 1, n �

300); .06
and .08 for 6 months (k � 2, n � 379); �.03 and .01 for 9
months (k �
1, n � 64); �.08 and �.05 for 11 months (k � 1, n � 59); .02
and �.08
for 12 months (k � 4, n � 1017); .01 and .03 for 14 months (k
� 2, n �
401); and .02 and .06 for 18 months (k � 2, n � 590). Weighted
linear
regression analyses on these data (with the inverse of n as
weights)
revealed that time lag related strongly and negatively to the job
attitudes–
performance effects (� � �.69, p � .04) but not to the
performance–job
attitudes effects (� � .13, p � .73).
Table 2
Aggregated Zero-Order Correlations
Analysis k n A1A2 P1P2 A1P1 A2P2 A1P2 P1A2
Overall 16 3,077 .77
(.02, .06)
.67
(.04, .15)
.17
(.03, .09)
.21

(.03, .06)
.17
(.03, .07)
.13
(.03, .05)
37.66** 114.21*** 33.12** 23.33 26.90 22.25
JS 14 2,874 .75
(.02, .06)
.63
(.04, .14)
.17
(.03, .08)
.21
(.03, .06)
.14
(.03, .08)
.13
(.03, .06)
31.59** 97.24*** 25.98* 22.24 27.07* 20.56
OC 5 1,130 .84
(.03, .05)
.70
(.06, .13)
.10

(.06, .12)
.13
(.04, .01)
.15
(.05, .09)
.10
(.04, .01)
15.47* 38.32*** 16.27* 5.07 11.87* 5.14
In-role 11 2,072 .75
(.03, .07)
.65
(.04, .14)
.12
(.03, .05)
.18
(.03, .05)
.13
(.03, .05)
.09
(.03, .01)
26.24** 68.03*** 14.59 15.34 14.7 11.17
Extra-role 5 1,005 .80
(.02, .03)
.71

(.07, .16)
.29
(.03, .00)
.27
(.03, .00)
.25
(.04, .02)
.21
(.03, .00)
7.21 44.38*** 4.42 3.78 5.29 4.03
Lag, 1–6 7 1,010 .79
(.04, .09)
.70
(.08, .21)
.18
(.04, .06)
.23
(.04, .00)
.24
(.04, .05)
.17
(.05, .09)
19.59** 65.52*** 9.06 6.71 8.65 11.98
Lag, 7–12 6 1,140 .74

(.03, .03)
.67
(.05, .11)
.26
(.03, .00)
.26
(.03, .00)
.19
(.03, .00)
.12
(.03, .00)
7.68 29.64 5.3 5.13 4.67 5.27
Lag, 13� 4 991 .79
(.03, .04)
.66
(.06, .12)
.07a
(.05, .06)
.13
(.04, .02)
.09
(.04, .04)
.11
(.04, .02)

8.36* 24.94*** 7.15 4.42 5.17 4.22
JS, extra-role 4 848 .80
(.02, .00)
.68
(.08, .16)
.28
(.05, .04)
.28
(.00, .03)
.23
(.05, .05)
.22
(.00, .04)
1.70 35.01*** 5.11 3.09 5.72 3.70
Lag, 1–6 1 77 .86 .86 .47 .46 .49 .45
Lag, 7–12 1 370 .79 .53 .32 .28 .23 .19
Lag, 13� 2 401 .79 .86 .19 .23 .16 .20
(.03, .00) (.03, .00) (.02, .00) (.02, .00) (.03, .00) (.02, .00)
0.99 0.99 0.25 0.22 0.28 0.20
JS, in-role 10 2,026 .73
(0.03, 0.07)
.64
(0.05, 0.13)
.13
(0.03, 0.03)

.18
(0.03, 0.06)
.11
(0.03, 0.06)
.10
(0.03, 0.02)
23.68* 61.06*** 11.09 14.71 15.66 10.46
Lag, 1–6 4 730 .79
(0.06, 0.1)
.62
(0.11, 0.21)
.11
(0.01, 0.00)
.20
(0.04, 0.00)
.17
(0.02, 0.00)
.14
(0.06, 0.07)
15.74** 37.22*** 0.10 2.71 0.90 6.10
Lag, 7–12 5 770 .71
(.00, .03)
.67
(.04, .06)

.21
(.00, .03)
.23
(.00, .04)
.15
(.00, .04)
.08
(.00, .04)
4.49 13.86* 3.46 3.94 3.77 3.23
Lag, 13� 2 590 .69
(.00, .02)
.58
(.00, .01)
.06
(.00, .03)
.09
(.00, .04)
.01
(.00, .05)
.09
(.00, .04)
0.43 0.07 0.72 1.27 1.91 0.97
OC, extra-role 3 558 .84
(.05, .08)

.86
(.02, .00)
.25
(.02, .00)
.21
(.02, .00)
.24
(.04, .00)
.18
(.02, .00)
15.37*** 1.14 0.53 0.45 2.19 0.35
Lag, 1–6 1 157 .70 .87 .30 .24 .31 .17
Lag, 13� 2 401 .88
(.03, .04)
.86
(.00, .03)
.22
(.00, .04)
.20
(.00, .02)
.22
(.00, .05)
.19
(.00, .02)

5.65* 0.99 0.01 0.28 1.51 0.33
OC, in-role 2 572 .85
(.00, .00)
.60
(.06, .07)
�.02a
(.04, .00)
.07
(.02, .00)
.08a
(.07, .07)
.03
(.00, .00)
0.07 7.27* 1.51 0.54 4.23* 0.01
Lag, 1–6 1 46 .87 .92 .19a .19a .43 .01a
Lag, 13� 1 526 .85 .58 �.03a .06a .06a .03a
Note. Sample-size weighted and disattenuated zero-order
correlations. The standard errors of these mean correlations and
the standard deviations of the
population correlations are given in parentheses. The chi-square
values (from the test of heterogeneity of the individual
correlations, df � k �1) are given
below them. All correlations shown are significant at p � .05,
except where indicated. A1 and A2 � job attitude at first and
second coded wave, respectively;
P1 and P2 � performance at first and second coded wave,

respectively; JS � job satisfaction; OC � organizational
commitment; Lag � time lag between
the coded measurement waves in months.
a Nonsignificant correlation ( p � .05).
* p � .05. ** p � .01. *** p � .001.
477RESEARCH REPORTS
scores on these measures and may have inflated their
correlations
with job attitudes in particular, thereby introducing bias in the
regression analyses. This possibility, together with the small
num-
ber of studies available, renders the present findings on extra-
role
performance particularly tentative. Future research on the
causal
link between job attitudes and extra-role performance should
use
observer ratings or objective indicators as alternative or
additional
measures.
One limit to the generalizability of the data is that the majority
of the studies were from English-speaking countries, primarily
the
United States. Thus, the generalizability to other countries is
unclear. Moreover, due to the small number of studies, it was
not
possible to include studies that measured performance at the
firm,
rather than individual, level. It is still possible that job attitudes
and
performance show stronger, or different, relations at aggregated

than at individual levels (see Koys, 2001, and Schneider,
Hanges,
Smith, & Salvaggio, 2003, for examples of firm-level analyses).
Finally, because the present analysis is based on correlational
rather than experimental data, it allows for only tentative causal
conclusions and cannot rule out some alternative causal
explana-
tions (e.g., that third variables inflated the cross-lagged paths;
see,
e.g., Cherrington, Reitz, & Scott, 1971; Brown & Peterson,
1993).
Although the present analysis accomplished a more rigorous test
for causality than did previous meta-analyses in this domain, it
still
suffers from the usual weakness of correlational designs.
Experi-
ments are required to provide compelling evidence of causal
relations.
Implications for Research
Notwithstanding the limitations mentioned above, this is the
first meta-analysis to predict later performance by job attitudes
over and above initial performance and vice versa. The findings,
obtained using a comprehensive database, support the common
view that job attitudes increase performance. They provide
weaker
support for the alternative view that performance shapes job
atti-
tudes. Effects of this latter type remain elusive.
At first glance, this conclusion seems to be at odds with Judge
et al.’s (2001) assertion that there is evidence for effects in both
directions, which led them to propose a model of reciprocal
satisfaction–performance relationships (p. 390). Several points

are
worth mentioning in this regard. For one, the present findings
represent average trends across studies and do not rule out
recip-
rocal or mere performance–attitude effects in specific contexts.
Further, many studies that claim to test causal relations between
job attitudes and performance are cross-sectional and thus are
able
to provide only weak evidence of causality. In fact, Judge et
al.’s
conclusion is based on a qualitative review of 4 longitudinal
and
12 cross-sectional studies (pp. 377–379). Finally, even
longitudi-
nal studies, especially those published in the 1970s and 1980s,
often use inappropriate methods to test for causality (see
Williams
& Podsakoff, 1989). Rather than taking the analyses and
interpre-
tations in the primary studies at face value, the present research
reanalyzed their correlation matrices, thus overcoming some
lim-
itations of the studies.
Table 3
Regression Analyses: Subsequent Attitude or Performance
Regressed on Preceding Attitude and Performance
Analysis k n
Criterion: Subsequent attitude Criterion: Subsequent
performance
Attitude Performance R2 Attitude Performance R2
General analyses

Overall 16 3,077 .77 (65.98)*** .00 (0.08) .59 .06 (4.27)*** .64
(48.75)*** .45
JS 14 2,874 .75 (59.87)*** .00 (0.21) .56 .03 (2.11)* .65
(44.86)*** .42
OC 5 1,130 .84 (51.70)*** .02 (1.00) .71 .08 (3.81)*** .69
(32.16)*** .50
In-role 11 2,072 .75 (51.24)*** .00 (0.00) .56 .05 (3.15)** .64
(38.37)*** .43
Extra-role 5 1,005 .81 (40.84)*** �.02 (1.22) .64 .05 (2.08)*
.70 (30.05)*** .51
Lag, 1–6 7 1,010 .79 (40.06)*** .03 (1.47) .63 .12 (5.23)*** .68
(30.11)*** .50
Lag, 7–12 6 1,140 .76 (37.08)*** �.08 (3.79)*** .55 .02 (0.74)
.67 (29.24)*** .45
Lag, 13� 4 991 .75 (35.15)*** .00 (0.12) .56 .03 (1.36) .62
(24.96)*** .40
Specific analyses
JS, extra-role 4 848 .80 (37.33)*** .00 (0.20) .64 .04 (1.64) .67
(25.51)*** .46
Lag, 1–6 1 77 .83 (12.70)*** .06 (0.90) .74 .11 (1.70) .81
(12.50)*** .75
Lag, 7–12 1 370 .81 (22.13)*** �.07 (1.91) .63 .07 (1.32) .51
(9.98)*** .29
Lag, 13� 2 401 .78 (25.10)*** .05 (1.67) .63 .00 (0.14) .86
(33.16)*** .74
JS, in-role 10 2,026 .73 (47.71)*** .00 (0.33) .53 .03 (1.76) .61
(34.15)*** .37
Lag, 1–6 4 730 .78 (34.47)*** .05 (2.36)* .63 .10 (3.56)*** .61
(21.01)*** .40
Lag, 7–12 5 770 .73 (28.08)*** �.07 (2.69)** .51 .00 (0.12) .74
(29.81)*** .55
Lag, 13� 2 590 .69 (23.07)*** .05 (1.64) .48 �.03 (0.74) .58
(17.32)*** .34

OC, extra-role 3 558 .85 (35.81)*** .03 (1.35) .71 .03 (1.20)
.86 (38.29)*** .74
Lag, 1–6 1 157 .71 (11.96)*** .04 (0.74) .49 .05 (1.31) .85
(20.81)*** .76
Lag, 13� 2 401 .88 (36.23)*** .00 (0.16) .77 .03 (1.24) .85
(32.71)*** .74
OC, in-role 2 572 .85 (38.78)*** .05 (2.14)* .73 .09 (2.77)**
.60 (18.11)*** .37
Lag, 1–6 1 46 .90 (12.84)*** .16 (2.30)* .78 .27 (6.01)*** .87
(19.74)*** .91
Lag, 13� 1 526 .85 (37.27)*** .06 (2.43)* .73 .08 (2.19)* .58
(16.46)*** .34
Note. Standardized path coefficients, with t scores in
parentheses. JS � job satisfaction; OC � organizational
commitment; Lag � time lag between the
coded measurement waves in months.
* p � .05. ** p � .01. *** p � .001.
Though statistically significant in several cases, the effects of
job attitudes on performance were generally weak in the present
analyses (e.g., � � .06 overall, .03 for satisfaction, .08 for
com-
mitment). One reason may be that these effects are short lived.
As
might be expected (see Hulin, Henry, & Noon, 1990), the
effects
were stronger for shorter time lags between measurement
waves,
though only slightly so (e.g., � � .11 for time lags of 6 months

or
less). It is noteworthy that the time intervals in the analyzed
studies
were quite long, with a range of 1.5 months to 18 months. Re-
search still has to explore whether stronger effects emerge for
shorter intervals (e.g., a few days). In general, to the extent that
time lags are longer than the actual duration of the effects of
interest, these effects are reflected in the cross-sectional, not
the
cross-lagged, relationships (Clegg et al., 1977). More
theoretical
and empirical work on the temporal characteristics of job
attitude–
performance effects is necessary to help researchers choose
opti-
mal time intervals.
Furthermore, cross-lagged effects between job attitudes and
performance may be stronger under certain circumstances (see
also
Judge et al., 2001). Possible moderators of these effects include
autonomy at work (Kalleberg & Marsden, 1995; Riketta, 2002);
the stimulating nature of jobs (Ivancevich, 1979);
organizational
tenure (Cohen, 1993; Wright & Bonett, 2002); and the degree to
which job attitude and performance are measured with regard to
the same, rather than different, targets (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1974;
Lee, Carswell, & Allen, 2000; Riketta & Van Dick, 2005; Van-
denberghe, Bentein, & Stinglhamber, 2004). The studies
included
in the present meta-analysis did not provide enough information
to
test the effects of these moderators. Additional panel studies in-
cluding these moderators would be valuable.
A theoretical challenge is to explain the counterintuitive nega-

tive effect of performance on job satisfaction for moderate time
lags (� � �.08, time lag � 7–12 months). One explanation is
that
the effect is due to people who perform strongly but who do not
perceive themselves to be adequately rewarded for their perfor-
mance. In this case, high performers may be less satisfied than
are
low performers, especially when enough time has passed to
stifle
their hope for performance-adequate rewards. This would
explain
why the effect is evident only for longer time lags. Thus, reward
systems and justice perceptions may be additional moderators,
especially for job attitude–performance effects. Because the
effect
is weak and was based on only six studies, replication attempts
are
advisable before further interpretation is attempted.
From a practical perspective, the longitudinal effects of job
attitudes on performance might be weaker than many
practitioners
have hoped. Thus, researchers should be cautious with practical
recommendations such as, “Increase job satisfaction or commit-
ment to increase productivity.” Especially when effect sizes are
small, it is important to communicate them so that practitioners
understand their practical significance (McCartney & Rosenthal,
2000). A useful tool for this purpose is the binomial effect-size
display (Rosenthal & Rubin, 1982). Translated into this display,
the present finding of a job attitudes–performance effect of � �
.06 means that, among the half of employees with higher job
attitudes, 53% also belong to the half with higher performance;
whereas, among the half of employees with lower job attitudes,
47% belong to the half with higher performance. It is up to
practitioners to decide, on the basis of this information, whether

their organizations would substantially benefit from higher job
attitudes.
Conclusions
This meta-analysis provides some support for effects of job
attitudes on performance and little support for the reverse
effects.
In light of the weak effects observed in the present analyses,
future
research should focus on moderators of the relations between
job
attitudes and performance. The present findings suggest timing
of
measurement as one moderator, with effects being more likely
to
emerge for shorter (vs. longer) time spans. Moreover, research
should increasingly use panel designs to broaden the database
for
follow-up meta-analyses on the causal link between job
attitudes
and performance.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in
the
meta-analysis.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and
antecedents of
affective, continuance and normative commitment to the
organization.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.
*Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. (1996). Socialization tactics:

Longitudinal
effects on newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management
Journal, 39,
149 –178.
*Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and
the good
soldier: The relationship between affect and employee
“citizenship.”
Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587.
*Bechtold, S. E., Sims, H. P., & Szilagyi, A. D. (1981). Job
scope
relationships: A three-wave longitudinal analysis. Journal of
Occupa-
tional Behaviour, 2, 189 –202.
Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they
distinctions
worth making? Academy of Management Journal, 35, 232–244.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Advances
in experimental social psychology (pp. 1– 62). New York:
Academic
Press.
*Bond, F. W., & Bunce, D. (2003). The role of acceptance and
job control
in mental health, job satisfaction, and work performance.
Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 1057–1067.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance
and con-
textual performance: The meaning for personnel selection

research.
Human Performance, 10, 99 –109.
*Borrill, C. S., West, M. A., Scully, J. W., Carter, M. R., &
Hirst, G.
(2003). [Implementation of team working training in an NHS
hospital
setting]. Unpublished raw data.
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Affect in the workplace.
Annual
Review of Psychology, 53, 279 –307.
Brown, S. P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of
organizational research
on job involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 235.
Brown, S. P., & Peterson, R. A. (1993). Antecedents and
consequences of
salesperson job satisfaction: Meta-analysis and assessment of
causal
effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 63–77.
Cherrington, D. J., Reitz, H. J., & Scott, W. E. (1971). Effects
of contingent
and noncontingent reward on the relationship between
satisfaction and
task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 531–536.
Cheung, M. W. L., & Chan, W. (2005). Meta-analytic structural
equation
modeling: A two-stage approach. Psychological Methods, 10, 40
– 64.
Clegg, C. W., Jackson, P. R., & Wall, T. D. (1977). Potential of
cross-

lagged correlation analysis in field research. Journal of
Occupational
Psychology, 50, 177–196.
Cohen, A. (1993). Age and tenure in relation to organizational
commit-
479RESEARCH REPORTS
ment: A meta-analysis. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
14, 143–
159.
Cohen, A. (2003). Multiple commitments in the workplace: An
integrative
approach. Mawah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cooper-Hakim, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). The construct of
work
commitment: Testing an integrative framework. Psychological
Bulletin,
131, 241–259.
*Crampon, W., Mowday, R., Smith, F., & Porter, L. W. (1978,
August).
Early attitudes predicting future behavior. Paper presented at
the 38th
Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, San Francisco,
CA.
*Donaldson, S. I., Ensher, E. A., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2000).
Longitu-
dinal examination of mentoring relationships on organizational
commit-

ment and citizenship behavior. Journal of Career Development,
26, 233.
Dorfman, P. W., & Stephan, W. G. (1984). The effects of group
perfor-
mance on cognitions, satisfaction, and behavior: A process
model.
Journal of Management, 10, 173–192.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of
attitudes. Fort
Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance.
Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1974). Attitudes towards objects as
predictors of
single and multiple behavioral criteria. Psychological Review,
81, 29 –
74.
Grieve, F. G., Whelan, J. P., & Meyers, A. W. (2000). An
experimental
examination of the cohesion–performance relationship in an
interactive
team sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 12, 219 –235.
*Griffin, R. W. (1991). Effects of work redesign on employee
perceptions,
attitudes, and behaviors: A long-term investigation. Academy of
Man-
agement Journal, 34, 425.
Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How

important are
job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative
behavioral out-
comes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal,
49, 305–
325.
Hulin, C. L., Henry, R. A., & Noon, S. L. (1990). Adding a
dimension:
Time as a factor in the generalizability of predictive
relationships.
Psychological Bulletin, 107, 328.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-
analysis. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Ivancevich, J. M. (1979). High and low task stimulation jobs: A
causal
analysis of performance–satisfaction relationships. Academy of
Manage-
ment Journal, 22, 206.
Jetten, J., O’Brien, A., & Trindall, N. (2002). Changing
identity: Predicting
adjustment to organizational restructure as a function of
subgroup and
superordinate identification. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 41,
281–297.
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and
transactional
leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity.
Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89, 755–768.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K.
(2001). The job
satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and
quantitative
review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376 – 407.
Kalleberg, A. L., & Marsden, P. V. (1995). Organizational
commitment
and job performance in the U.S. labor force. In R. L. Simpson &
J. H.
Simpson (Eds.), Research in the sociology of work. (Vol. 5, pp.
235–
257). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kenny, D. A. (1975). Cross-lagged panel correlation: A test for
spurious-
ness. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 887–903.
Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction,
organizational
citizenship behavior, and turnover on organizational
effectiveness: A
unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 54, 101–
114.
Lawler, E. E. I., & Porter, L. W. (1967). The effect of
performance on job
satisfaction. Industrial Relations, 7, 20 –28.
Lee, K., Carswell, J. J., & Allen, N. J. (2000). A meta-analytic
review of
occupational commitment: Relations with person- and work-
related vari-
ables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 799.

*Maier, G., & Rosenstiel, L. V. (2006). [Selection and
socialization of
future leaders]. Unpublished raw data.
March, J. G., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Organizational
performance as a
dependent variable. Organization Science, 8, 698.
McCartney, K., & Rosenthal, R. (2000). Effect size, practical
importance,
and social policy for children. Child Development, 71, 173.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the
workplace.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment
to orga-
nizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-
component
conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004).
Employee
commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and
integrative
model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 991–1007.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L.
(2002).
Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the
organization:
A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences.
Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 61, 20 –52.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982).
Employee–
organization linkages: The psychology of commitment,
absenteeism, and
turnover. New York: Academic Press.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The
measurement
of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
14,
224 –247.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group
cohesiveness
and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115,
210 –227.
Murphy, K. R., & De Shon, R. (2000). Interrater correlations do
not
estimate the reliability of job performance ratings. Personnel
Psychol-
ogy, 53, 873–900.
*Nathan, B. R., Mohrman, A. M., Jr., & Milliman, J. (1991).
Interpersonal
relations as a context for the effects of appraisal interviews on
perfor-
mance and satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Academy of
Management
Journal, 34, 352.
Organ, D. W. (1977). A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the
satisfaction
causes performance hypothesis. Academy of Management
Review, 2, 46.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The
good
soldier syndrome. Toronto, Canada: Lexington.
Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and
job perfor-
mance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
23, 257–
266.
Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-
analysis. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358 –384.
Riketta, M., & Van Dick, R. (2005). Foci of attachment in
organizations:
A meta-analytic comparison of the strength and correlates of
workgroup
versus organizational identification and commitment. Journal of
Voca-
tional Behavior, 67, 490 –510.
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). A simple, general
purpose display of
magnitude of experimental effect. Journal of Educational
Psychology,
74, 166 –169.
Sackett, P. R., Laczo, R. M., & Arvey, R. D. (2002). The effects
of range
restriction on estimates of criterion interrater reliability:
Implications for
validation research. Personnel Psychology, 55, 807– 825.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1996). Measurement error in

psychological
research: Lessons from 26 research scenarios. Psychological
Methods, 1,
199 –223.
Schneider, B., Hanges, P. J., Smith, D. B., & Salvaggio, A. N.
(2003).
Which comes first: Employee attitudes or organizational
financial and
market performance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 836 –
851.
Schwab, D. L., & Cummings, L. L. (1970). Theories of
performance and
satisfaction: A review. Industrial Relations, 9, 408 – 430.
*Sheridan, J. E., & Slocum, J. W. (1975). The direction of the
causal
relationship between job satisfaction and work performance.
Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Performance, 14, 159 –172.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The
measurement of
satisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Staw, B. M. (1975). Attribution of the “causes” of performance:
A general
alternative interpretation of cross-sectional research on
organizations.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 414.

Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee
positive
emotion and favorable outcomes at the workplace. Organization
Sci-
ence, 5, 51–71.
*Szilagyi, A. D. (1980). Causal inferences between leader
reward behav-
iour and subordinate performance, absenteeism, and work
satisfaction.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 195–204.
*Tharenou, P. (1993). A test of reciprocal causality for
absenteeism.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 269 –290.
Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., & Stinglhamber, F. (2004).
Affective
commitment to the organization, supervisor, and work group:
Anteced-
ents and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 47–71.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing:
Combining psy-
chometric meta-analysis and structural equations modeling.
Personnel
Psychology, 48, 865– 885.
Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996).
Comparative
analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of
Applied
Psychology, 81, 557–574.
*Wanous, J. P. (1974). A causal– correlational analysis of the

job satisfac-
tion and performance relationship. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 59,
139.
Wanous, J. P., & Hudy, M. J. (2001). Single-item reliability: A
replication
and extension. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 361–375.
Williams, L. J., & Podsakoff, P. M. (1989). Longitudinal field
methods for
studying reciprocal relationships in organizational behavior
research:
Toward improved causal analysis. In B. M. Staw & L. L.
Cummings
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 11, pp. 247–
292).
London: JAO.
Wright, T. A., & Bonett, D. G. (2002). The moderating effects
of employee
tenure on the relation between organizational commitment and
job
performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87,
1183–1190.
Received March 28, 2007
Revision received June 27, 2007
Accepted July 30, 2007 �
E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!
Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite
APA journal will be available

online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at
http://notify.apa.org/ and you will be
notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become
available!
481RESEARCH REPORTS
MGT- C4 Assign
JOB ATTITUDES
Assignment Overview
As noted on the Background page in this module, Swailes
(2002) critiqued the conceptualization and measurement of the
job attitude of organizational commitment. Four years later,
Harrison, Newman, and Roth (2006) integrated organizational
commitment and job satisfaction into an overall job attitude
based on the compatibility principle in attitude theory, and
found through meta-analysis of studies published between 1983
and 2004 that it substantially predicted integrative, higher-order
behavioral outcomes. Riketta (2008) would have at least
addressed, if not resolved, the conceptualization and
measurement issues that Swailes raised in their subsequent
meta-analyses.
The focus of this case study is on the relationship between the
conceptualization and operationalization of a construct, in this
case the job attitude of organizational commitment. As noted on
the module Background page, Swailes (2002) critiqued the
conceptualization and measurement (operationalization) of
organizational commitment. In the six years that followed,
Harrison, et al. (2006) and Riketta (2008) published meta-
analyses of the impact of organizational commitment on
performance.

Case Assignment
Assess the extent to which Harrison, et al. (2006) and Riketta
(2008) address the issues that Swailes (2002) raised regarding
the conceptualization and measurement of organizational
commitment.
Assignment Expectations
1. Summarize the key issues that Swailes (2002) raises
regarding the conceptualization and measurement of
organizational commitment.
2. Briefly describe the way(s) in which Riketta (2008)
conceptualizes and operationalizes organizational commitment.
3. Briefly describe the way(s) in which Harrison, et al. (2006)
conceptualize and operationalize organizational commitment.
4. Assess the extent to which Harrison, et al. (2006) and Riketta
(2008) address the issues that Swailes (2002) raised regarding
the conceptualization and Measurement of Organizational
Commitment.
General Expectations
1. Length: 5–6 pages of double-spaced, 12-point text, plus cover
and reference pages.
2. Structure: Narrative style, including a brief introduction in
which you provide an overview of your paper.
3. References: Follow Campion's (1997) rules for references
(see Background page).
4. Style: APA format.
5. Proofread your paper before uploading it.
Upload your paper by the module due date.
Background
Required Materials
There are two sections of required readings in this module. The
first section introduces Meta-analysis as a quantitative approach
to reviewing and synthesizing the results of a large number of
empirical research studies on a particular topic. The goal is to
help you understand, critique, and effectively draw upon meta-

analysis research review articles. The second section provides
breadth and depth of foundation in theory and research related
to job attitudes, and includes recent, high quality meta-analyis
research articles that illustrate the concepts introduced in the
articles in the first section.
Note: The required readings are described in the order in which
you are encouraged to read them, as each provides concepts that
will help you make sense of the subsequent readings.
I. Meta-Analysis
In Module 3 of ORG601 you were introduced to three basic
types of academic articles that contribute to the creation and
testing of new knowledge:
1. Theoretical articles that develop new theoretical constructs
and propose conceptual relationships among those constructs
2. Empirical research articles in which quantitative data is
collected and analyzed, most often to test hypotheses that are
derived deductively from a theory, and
3. Review articles that provide an in-depth overview of the
theory and empirical research related to a particular
phenomenon.
A meta-analysis article could be seen as a hybrid of the second
and third types of academic articles. It employs an empirical,
meta-analytic research method to quantitatively review and
synthesize empirical research findings from a large number of
studies on a particular topic.
The following article provide an overview of the nature, role,
methods, and relative use of meta-analysis in two fields related
to business administration: information systems and
international business research.
· Kirca, A. H., & Yaprak, A. (2010). The use of meta-analysis
in international business research: Its current status and
suggestions for better practice. International Business Review,
19(3), 306-314.
II. Job Attitudes
In this module, we focus on the two most widely researched job
attitudes - organizational commitment and job satisfaction.

ENC 1102NoonanSpring 2018RESEARCH PAPER PACKETContents.docx

ENC 1102NoonanSpring 2018RESEARCH PAPER PACKETContents.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ENC 1102NoonanSpring 2018RESEARCH PAPER PACKETContents.docx

Similar to ENC 1102NoonanSpring 2018RESEARCH PAPER PACKETContents.docx (20)

More from christinemaritza

More from christinemaritza (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ENC 1102NoonanSpring 2018RESEARCH PAPER PACKETContents.docx