Regulatory focus, moderates job satisfaction and organizational commitment relationship, 28th congress of icap 2006

1. THE MODERATING ROLE OF
REGULATORY FOCUS IN THE
COMMITMENT – SATISFACTION
RELATIONSHIP
Yannis Markovits1, Rolf Van Dick1, 2
&
Ann Davis1
Aston University, Birmingham (1)
Goethe University Frankfurt (2)
contact: markovits@thenet.gr
26th INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF
APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY
16 – 21 July 2006, Athens

2. Overview
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Contribution – Background
Key variables
Regulatory focus characters
The samples
Study 1 (private sector)
Study 2 (public sector)
Discussion

3. Contribution - Background (1)
 Examines the role of regulatory focus to
organizational commitment – job
satisfaction relationship
 Develops for the first time characters of
regulatory focus (based on promotion
focus and prevention focus) and relates
to attitudes
 Compares approach between private and
public sector employees

4. Contribution - Background (2)
• Promotion focused individuals more
satisfied at work than prevention focused
(Higgins, et al., 1988; Weiss &
Cropanzano, 1996)
• Affective commitment relates to
promotion focus and continuance
commitment and normative commitment
to prevention focus (Meyer, et al., 2004;
Van-Dijk & Kluger, 2004)

5. Key variables
• ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT (Meyer,
Allen & Smith, 1993; Powell & Meyer, 2004)
 Affective commitment (AC): “Want to stay” – internal feeling and
affect
 Normative commitment (NC): “Ought to stay” – moral imperative
and indebted obligation
 Continuance commitment (CC): “Have to stay” – side bet - low
alternatives and high sacrifices
• JOB SATISFACTION – MSQ (Weiss et al.,
1967)
 Extrinsic satisfaction: Pay, Physical conditions, Security and safety,
Policies and procedures
 Intrinsic satisfaction: Creativity, Development, Achievement,
Accomplishment
• REGULATORY FOCUS (Lockwood, Jordan &
Kunda, 2002)
 Promotion focus
 Prevention focus

6. Regulatory focus characters (1)
Promotion
focus
low
high
Prevention
low
Indifferent
Conservatives
focus
high
Achievers
Rationalists

7. Regulatory focus characters (2)
• Higgins (1988): Promotion focus and
prevention focus
 achievers – strive toward self-ideal
 conservatives – strive for self-protection
 indifferent – no ideals or goals
 rationalists – measure costs and benefits

8. Regulatory focus characters (3)
• Achievers >
self-motivated, mainly satisfied and
committed, primarily intrinsically and affectively > not
easily managed
• Indifferent
> apathetic, non committed, usually
dissatisfied, not care for anything at work > unwilling to be
managed
• Conservatives
> looking for safety and security,
stable organizations, predictable future > respond to HRM
practices
• Rationalists
> measure and calculate decisions and
actions, usually proactive > carefully consider HRM
practices

9. The samples
 Private sector
•
258 employees, response rate: 62%, 51% male, mean
age: 29, mean job tenure: 5 years
•
Educational level: 43% Secondary, 30.6% Technological,
21.3% University, 5.1% Postgraduate
 Public sector
•
234 employees, response rate: 71%, 44.4% male, mean
age: 35, mean job tenure: 8 years
•
Educational level: 22.2% Secondary, 17.9%
Technological, 40.2% University, 19.7% Postgraduate

10. Study 1 (private sector)
Hypotheses & Results
•
Hypothesis 1: The relationship between extrinsic or intrinsic
satisfaction and continuance commitment is moderated by
promotion and prevention focus.
 Confirmed for both extrinsic satisfaction and intrinsic satisfaction
(3-way interactions, sig. < .05 and < .01)
•
Hypothesis 2: The relationship between extrinsic satisfaction
and continuance commitment is stronger for “rationalists” and
“conservatives” than any other regulatory focus character.
 Confirmed (3-way interaction, sig. < .05)
•
Hypothesis 3: The relationship between intrinsic satisfaction and
continuance commitment is stronger for “achievers” than any
other regulatory focus character.
 Confirmed (3-way interaction, sig. < .01)

11. Study 1
Results
Extrins ic satisfaction
5,5
5
Indifferent
Conservatives
Achievers
Rationalists
4,5
4
3,5
3
low CC
high CC
Continuance com m itm ent
low Promfocus / low Prevfocus
low Promfocus / high Prevfocus
high Promfocus / low Prevfocus
high Promfocus / high Prevfocus
3-way-interaction
F(7,256)=3.12,
p<.05

12. Study 1
Results
Intrinsic satisfaction
5,5
5
Indifferent
Conservatives
Achievers
Rationalists
4,5
4
3,5
3
low CC
high CC
Continuance com m itm ent
low Promfocus / low Prevfocus
low Promfocus / high Prevfocus
high Promfocus / low Prevfocus
high Promfocus / high Prevfocus
3-way-interaction
F(7,256)=5.43,
p<.01

13. Study 2 (private sector)
Hypotheses & Results
•
Hypothesis 4: The relationship between extrinsic or intrinsic
satisfaction and normative commitment is moderated by
promotion and prevention focus.
 Confirmed for both extrinsic satisfaction and intrinsic satisfaction
(3-way interactions, both sig. < .05)
•

•
Hypothesis 5: The relationship between extrinsic satisfaction
and normative commitment is stronger for “rationalists” and
“conservatives” than any other regulatory focus character.
Partially confirmed; only for “conservatives” (3-way interaction,
sig. < .05)
Hypothesis 6: The relationship between intrinsic satisfaction and
normative commitment is stronger for “achievers” than any other
regulatory focus character.
o Not confirmed

14. Study 2
Results
5,5
Extrinsic satisfaction
5
Indifferent
Conservatives
Achievers
Rationalists
4,5
4
3,5
3
low NC
high NC
Norm ative com m itm ent
low Promfocus / low Prevfocus
low Promfocus / high Prevfocus
high Promfocus / low Prevfocus
high Promfocus / high Prevfocus
3-way-interaction
F(7,233)=8.41,
p<.05

15. Study 2
Results
5,5
Intrinsic satisfaction
5
Indifferent
Conservatives
Achievers
Rationalists
4,5
4
3,5
3
low NC
high NC
Norm ative com mitm ent
low Promfocus / low Prevfocus
low Promfocus / high Prevfocus
high Promfocus / low Prevfocus
high Promfocus / high Prevfocus
3-way-interaction
F(7,233)=10.92,
p<.05

16. Discussion (1)
•
Regulatory focus moderates relationship between job
satisfaction and organizational commitment – particularly
between extrinsic satisfaction and normative commitment
or continuance commitment
•
PRIVATE SECTOR: “Conservatives”: given what expected
and guaranteed > feel satisfied > sense of loyalty >
continuance committed. “Rationalists”: given what
presumed or agreed upon > feel satisfied > sense of
loyalty > continuance committed
•
PUBLIC SECTOR: “Conservatives”: given what expected
and guaranteed > feel satisfied > sense of duty and
obligation > normative committed. “Rationalists”: given
what presumed or agreed and predefined > feel satisfied >
sense of duty and obligation > normative committed.

17. Discussion (2)
•
“Conservatives” and “Rationalists” are two characters that
can be managed, in order to be satisfied and committed –
IMPORTANT FEELINGS: LOYALTY, DUTY &
OBLIGATION
•
“Achievers” are satisfied and committed by their own
choice and personality trait, and not by management
policies – SELF-MOTIVATED & INTERNALLY DRIVEN
•
“Indifferent”, by and large, remain apathetic or negative to
management practices and feel dissatisfied and
uncommitted – UNWILLING & NEGATIVE ATTITUDES
•
Strengths and limitations:
– Samples size, replication across sectors
– Cross-sections, self-reports – common method
variance, convenience sampling, question translation