Warr, T, Cook, P y Wall, K 1979 Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological wellbeing

Journal of Occupational Psychology, 1979, 52, 129-148. Printed in Great Britain

Scales for the measurement of some workattitudes and aspects of psychological

well-being

PETER WARR, JOHN COOK and TOBY WALLMRC Social and Applied Psychology Unit,

University of Sheffield

Two studies of male manual workers are described, in which eight scales relevantto the quality of working life are introduced and assessed. The scales build uponprevious work, but are designed to remedy certain conceptual and operationaldeficiencies. They cover work involvement, intrinsic job motivation, higherorder need strength, perceived intrinsic job characteristics, job satisfaction, lifesatisfaction, happiness, and self-rated anxiety. In addition, components of jobsatisfaction and life satisfaction, derived through cluster analyses, are also identi-fied. The scales are shown to have good internal reliability and to be factoriallyseparate. Comprehensive psychometric data are provided as a base-line forfuture applications.

Adequate measurement of complex psychological states usually requires an iterativeprocess; researchers must move several times between conceptualization and opera-tionalization, adjusting their ideas and measures as they go. This is not alwaysfeasible within the span of a single research project, and it is sometimes necessary toaccept or adapt a previously reported measure or to create a new scale with onlylimited opportunity for systematic development. Neither approach is entirely satis-factory, especially as most investigators have understandably given priority in theirreports to substantive research questions rather than to the provision of detailedinformation about samples, means, variances, intercorrelations and other featureswhich would assist in subsequent assessment of their measures.

This problem is particularly evident in studies of the quality of working life andoccupational well-being. The need to examine a large number of subjective variableshas often led investigators to devise their own items or to select from previous measuressmall segments with unknown psychometric properties. An additional difficulty arisesfrom the complexity and ill-defined scope of many concepts in the area; questionnaireitems are sometimes difiicult to comprehend, especially for blue-collar workers whoare typically the focus of research.

There is thus a need for development work to create robust instruments in thequality of working hfe area. Of particular value would be short scales which areeasily completed by unsophisticated respondents, which are known to be psycho-metrically acceptable, and for which normative data are available. This paper con-tributes towards meeting this need by presenting eight separate scales for diagnosticand evaluative use in both research and practice. These measure work involvement,

1290305-8107/79/0602-0129502.00/0 © 1979 The British Psychological Society

130 p. WARR, J. COOK AND T. WALL

intrinsic job motivation, higher order need strength, perceived intrinsic job charac-teristics, job satisfaction, life satisfaction, happiness and self-rated anxiety.

The concepts in question have all been important in previous research, and earlierstudies will be described next. However, one terminological feature should first benoted. We have used ' job' to refer to the tasks undertaken in a particular setting,whereas 'work' is taken to cover jobs more generally. In this way, for example, 'jobmotivation' refers to a person's motivation in his or her current post, whereas 'workinvolvement' deals with involvement in jobs in general. This distinction between joband work has not always been drawn in the literature, with some consequentialconfusion.

WORK INVOLVEMENT AND INTRINSIC JOB MOTIVATION

Work involvement may be viewed as a component of the 'protestant workethic' (e.g. Blood, 1969; WoUack et al., 1971). It emerged as a measurable conceptfrom the paper by Lodahl & Kejner (1965), who presented both a 20-item scale (with'at least three dimensions') and a more homogeneous version of six items. Subsequentresearch has indicated statistically significant positive relationships between theirmeasures and age (e.g. Jones et al., 1975), reported participation in decision-making(e.g. Siegel & Ruh, 1973), internality on Rotter's (1966) locus of control scale (Runyon,1973), endorsement of the protestant ethic (Saal, 1978), and aspects of job satisfaction,especially satisfaction with intrinsic features of a job (e.g. Weissenberg & Gruenfeld,1968). Gechman & Wiener (1975) have reported a significant correlation with amountof voluntary unpaid overtime; and Warr & Lovatt (1977), using a simple two-itemscale, found a significant association with speed of obtaining a new job after redun-dancy. Involvement is usually found to be unrelated to job performance (see thereview by Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977), although there is a suggestion from Pelz &Andrews' (1976) results that among scientists involvement and performance aresignificantly interrelated (rs mostly between 0-20 and 0-30 in their study of ninesamples with n ranging between 65 and 401). This pattern is consistent withother findings that attitudes and job performance are more likely to be associatedamong managerial and professional employees, who have greater personal oppor-tunity to shape their own job activities than have many manual workers (Warr,1978c).

However, there are still reasons for dissatisfaction with the concept and measuresas employed so far (e.g. Lawler & Hall, 1970). The focus of the Lodahl & Kejneritems is mainly upon a person's present job (indeed they used the term ' job' involve-ment), whereas their definition was more in terms of work in general. Second, thisdefinition was itself uncertain. On the one hand, the authors were interested in 'theintemalization of values about the goodness of work or the importance of work inthe worth of the person' (p. 24). We view this as the extent to which a person wants tobe engaged in work, and take that as our basic definition of work involvement. Lodahl& Kejner's second definition was 'the degree to which a person's work performanceaffects his self-esteem' (p. 25). This is rather different, being concerned principallywith a person's present job and the extent to which he wants to perform well in thatjob. We prefer to treat this separate notion as intrinsic Job motivation. The term' intrinsic' is used to emphasize that the motivation is towards personal achievementand task success rather than towards 'extrinsic' satisfactions arising from features

MEASUREMENT OF SOME WORK ATTITUDES 131

such as additional pay or good working conditions. Illustrative items from Lodahl &Kejner's six-item scale are: 'most things in life are more important than work' (anegatively scored statement of work involvement), and 'I 'm really a perfectionistabout my job ' (representing what is here termed 'intrinsic job motivation').

This latter concept is akin to Lawler's (1969) 'intrinsic motivation', defined as'the degree to which a job holder is motivated to perform well because of somesubjective rewards or feelings that he expects to receive or experience as a result ofperforming well'. Lawler & Hall (1970) tapped intrinsic motivation through itemssuch as ' I feel a great sense of personal satisfaction when I do my job well', andstatements of this kind make up the 'internal work motivation' scale of Hackman &Oldham (1975, 1976). Scores on that scale have been found to be significantly posi-tively associated with aspects of job satisfaction and certain perceived job charac-teristics such as responsibility and knowledge of results (e.g. Hackman & Oldham,1975; Oldham et al., 1976; Wall et al, 1978). The last-named authors also report astatistically significant relationship (/•=0-41) with employee mental health, measuredby the General Health Questionnaire (Goldberg, 1972).

HIGHER ORDER NEED STRENGTH AND PERCEIVED INTRINSICJOB CHARACTERISTICS

Another feature which has attracted recent attention is employees' need forsatisfaction and achievement through skilled and autonomous work. The intensity ofthis need has been variously labelled 'growth need strength' (Hackman & Oldham,1975), 'self-actualization need strength' (Sims & Szilagyi, 1976) and 'higher orderneed strength' (Hackman & Lawler, 1971). We will use the last of these terms,recognizing its derivation from Maslow's (1970) hierarchical theory.

Higher order need strength has some conceptual similarity with intrinsic jobmotivation, but as defined here the latter refers only to a specific job situation whereashigher order need strength is viewed as a dispositional characteristic extending acrossjobs. Measurement of this characteristic has typically been through the items providedby Hackman & Oldham (1975). These include 'would like' ratings of, for example,' opportunities for personal growth and development in my job ' and forced-choicepreference responses between items like 'a job for which the pay is good' and 'a jobwith considerable opportunity to be creative and innovative'. We have found that thecontent and complexity of these items present difficulties and that a more com-prehensible scale is particularly required for blue-collar respondents.

Another component of Hackman & Oldham's general model is the extent towhich certain 'work motivating factors' are involved in a job. These are frequentlymeasured in terms of ratings of the presence of job variety, autonomy, task identity,task significance and feedback to the worker (see also Hackman & Lawler, 1971),and positive associations between their presence and overall job satisfaction have beensummarized by Wall (1978). However, the five factors often turn out to be moderatelyintercorrelated (median interfactor values of 0-52, 0-20 and 0-42 are reported byDunham, 1976, Steers & Spencer, 1977 and Saal, 1978, respectively), and it would beuseful to obtain standardization data for a brief single measure of the presence of jobcharacteristics which might give rise to intrinsic satisfaction. We will refer to this as ascale oi perceived intrinsic job characteristics.

p . WARR, J. COOK AND T. ^

Studies of job satisfaction have taken many different forms since the original workof Hoppock (1935). Some investigators have preferred to obtain overall satisfactionscores, either through single items (e.g. Quinn et al., 1974) or through aggregates ofseveral items (e.g. Brayfield «fe Rothe, 1951). Other researchers have used instrumentsspecially constructed to tap a number of different features of satisfaction. For example,the Job Description Index (Smith et al., 1969) contains subscales to measure attitudestowards pay, promotion prospects, the work itself, supervision, and co-workers. TheWorker Opinion Survey (Cross, 1973) has in addition a subscale to tap feelings aboutthe firm as a whole, and a similar instrument for use with managers also coversattitudes towards subordinates (Warr & Routledge, 1969).

These measures have a number of disadvantages. They tend to contain redundantand overlapping items and are rather long and cumbersome. Their emphasis has beenprimarily upon extrinsic features of satisfaction, to the relative exclusion of intrinsiccomponents. Furthermore, they sometimes confuse descriptive and evaluative judge-ments, although it is only the latter which can be said genuinely to measure satisfaction(e.g. Payne ef a/., 1976).

LIFE SATISFACTION, HAPPINESS AND SELF-RATED ANXIETY

Psychological well-being is a diffuse concept which deserves greater measurementattention (e.g. Bradburn, 1969; Warr & Wall, 1975). One set of investigations hasexamined the nature and correlates of life satisfaction, usually construing this in termsof people's expressed satisfaction with features of their environment and everyday life.Studies from a 'social indicators' perspective have examined national survey samples'ratings of a wide range of features (your car, your house, your sleep, your freedom ofspeech, etc.) (e.g. Andrews & Withey, 1974, 1976; Hall, 1976a). Some research hasgiven emphasis to the interrelationships between life satisfaction and other features ofpsychological well-being and mental health (e.g. Bradburn, 1969; Warr, 1978i); andother studies have looked at both life satisfaction and job satisfaction. For example.Hall (1976ft) reported an intercorrelation of 0-42 in a British sample; and in anAmerican study London et al. (1977) observed a median correlation of 0-21 betweensingle job satisfaction items and an overall life satisfaction measure. These latterauthors also observed that job satisfaction contributed more to life satisfaction formen than for women, a finding which echoes Hulin's (1969) observation.

A measure which has often been employed in national surveys (e.g. Quinn &Shepard, 1974) is an expression of personal happiness on a three-point scale. Thisprovides another perspective on well-being and in view of its simplicity and theavailability of comparison data is often worth recording.

Research into anxiety has traditionally been directed towards measures of traitanxiety, neuroticism, etc., and there is a need for short indices of self-rated anxiety.A number of possibilities have been examined by Bradburn (1969), Warr (1978ft) andothers, but (as with life satisfaction) further investigations with particularly salientitems are desirable.

SUMMARY OF TERMS

Working definitions of the several concepts outlined above are as follows. Thenumbers assigned to each are employed consistently throughout the paper.


1. Work involvement is viewed as the degree to which a person wants to be engagedin work.

2. Intrinsic job motivation is viewed as the degree to which a person wants to workwell in his or her job in order to achieve intrinsic satisfaction.

3. Higher order need strength is taken to be the importance which a person attaches tothe attainment of higher order needs.

4. Perceived intrinsic Job characteristics are the person's reports about the degree towhich features are present in his or her job which might give rise to intrinsicsatisfaction.

5. Job satisfaction is the degree to which a person reports satisfaction with intrinsicand extrinsic features of the job. Total job satisfaction is the sum of all separateitems, and overall job satisfaction is reported satisfaction with the job as a whole.

6. Life satisfaction is the degree to which a person reports satisfaction with salientfeatures of his life and life-space. Total life satisfaction is the sum of all separateitems, and overall life satisfaction is reported satisfaction with one's life as a whole.

7. Happiness is the degree to which a person reports that he or she is currently happy.8. Self-rated anxiety is the degree to which a person reports anxiety about salient

features of his or her life and life-space summed across items, and overall self-ratedanxiety is reported anxiety in general.

Definitions of components of concepts 5 and 6 will be introduced later.

Scales to measure these eight concepts were developed through two interviewstudies with blue-collar workers. The initial pool of items was drawn from the literatureand through discussion, and a pilot study was previously carried out to assist withinitial decisions about items and procedures. Study 1 took place in February 1977and Study 2 in November 1977.

The SamplesThe respondents in the two principal studies were 200 and 390 blue-collar male

workers within the mainland United Kingdom. They were all in full-time employment(thus excluding the self-employed), had worked in their present job for at least amonth, and had a mean length of service of 9-02 years. They were aged between 20and 64, and were all employed in manufacturing industry (orders 3 to 19 of theStandard Industrial Classification, which excludes service industries, construction,agriculture, mining and transport).

Respondents were drawn in equal numbers from 10 widely dispersed samplingareas (Study 1) and 20 areas (Study 2) according to a predetermined frame whichapproximately matched national demographic characteristics. This specified that halfthe sample in each area should be from firms employing fewer than 300 employees andhalf from larger companies (see, for example. Department of Employment, 1978).Within each half of the sample, 50 per cent should be above and 50 per cent below40 years of age, and within each quarter-sample half should be skilled, 30 per centsemi-skilled and 20 per cent unskilled. Decisions about skill level were made in terms oftraining required before a person was judged competent at his job (months or years,several weeks, or a few days respectively for the three levels of skill), and examples ofjobs in each category were supplied to interviewers from the material provided by theOffice of Population Censuses and Surveys (1970).


Other biographical information was gathered during the interview, and the twosamples were of almost identical composition. A combined analysis (« = 590) revealedthat 13 per cent were unmarried, 24 per cent were married without children at homeand 63 per cent were married with children at home. In terms of length of servicewith their present employer, 26 per cent reported less than 2 years, 22 per centbetween 2 and 5 years, 24 per cent between 5 and 10 years, 17 per cent between 10and 20 years, and 11 per cent more than 20 years. Nine per cent reported that theircompany contained no trade union members; and 'some', 'most' and 'all ' companyemployees were reported to be trade unionists by 12, 33 and 46 per cent of respondentsrespectively.

ProcedureInterviews were concerned solely with the scales under investigation, and were

carried out individually within respondents' homes by trained female staff of NationalOpinion Polls Ltd. Each interviewer sought volunteers to complete her quota samplingframe. The average time for each interview was about 30 minutes; in Study 2 thisincluded other scales which are not described here. Interviewers indicated that res-pondents had 'very little' or ' no ' difificulty with the material and that they generallyappeared to enjoy the interview.

Interviewers read out the instructions and items to each person, who selected hisanswer from the set of alternatives listed on a card. The interviewer then recorded theresponse in numerical form on the questionnaire.

The ItemsThe research design required decisions to be taken on the basis of Study 1 results

so that shorter and better scales could be used in Study 2. The latter study, with alarger number of respondents, was intended to provide cross-validation evidence andto yield reliable norms for this population. In order to include additional scales inStudy 2 (not reported here) the Life Satisfaction scale was omitted from this secondinvestigation.

The items finally selected and the response dimensions employed are presentedin full in Appendix A; the same sequence of scales was used in both studies. It will beseen that seven-point responses were sought throughout, except for section 4 {per-ceived intrinsic job characteristics) where five alternative responses were employed andfor the happiness item which involved a three-point response scale. Scoring was from1 to 7, 1 to 5 or 1 to 3 throughout, with 1 being the most negative response in eachcase. Each scale or subscale score was the unweighted sum of the responses to theincluded items.

Decisions about exclusion of items in Study 1 were based upon inter-item anditem-whole correlations (desired to be high within a scale), mean scores (desired tobe away from the end-point), standard deviations (desired to be high), and themeaning of each item (excessive redundancy within a scale was undesirable). Thefinal number of items in each scale is shown in Table 1. These were achieved afteromission of 2, 2 and 4 items in scales 1 to 3 respectively. Scale 4 in Study 1 comprisedseven items, but five additional ones were included for Study 2 in order to achieve

MEASUREMENT OF SOME WORK ATTITUDES

t i l

n

S l f S ? 5 S S S S S ? J 5 I I I I I i > | S

iillllillillllllillillr:csicO^ LOlSSlSS lg.2cD.S2 ^£^C6^

136 p . WARR, J. COOK AND T. WALL

more extensive coverage of intrinsic job characteristics; two of these were sub-sequently omitted in the light of the Study 2 results, leaving a 10-item scale. The finalscales contain no negatively keyed items, although some were included in the initialbattery. This group of items scaled only marginally less reliably than did the positivelykeyed ones, but they were excluded from Study 2 because they were reported byinterviewers to present conceptual difficulties for some respondents.

In addition to the eight scales already identified, it will be seen that the left-handcolumn of Table 1 contains several separately numbered and labelled items. Three ofthese (5x, 6x and 8x) are the single-item overall job satisfaction, life satisfaction andanxiety reports sohcited at the end of scales 5, 6 and 8 (see Appendix A).

The other terms newly introduced in Table 1 are subscales of measures 5 and 6,derived through cluster analyses using the furthest neighbour method. The job satis-faction items (scale 5) are divided in two separate ways. At one level of analysis, twoseparate clusters of items (5a and 5b) could readily be identified. Seven items (numbers5.2, 5.4, 5.6, 5.8, 5.10, 5.12, 5.14 in Appendix A) came together into a subscale whichis appropriately termed intrinsic job satisfaction (5a). The other items representextrinsic job satisfaction (5b). However, the full set of items could also be viewed at adifferent level in terms of three other clusters (5c, 5£/and 5e). One group of four items(5.2, 5.6, 5.8, 5.14) emerged as a cluster specially concerned -with job itself intrinsicsatisfaction (labelled 5c). Another cluster of five extrinsic satisfaction items (5.1, 5.3,5.5, 5.13, 5.15) appeared to be best described as working conditions extrinsic satis-faction (5d). The remaining items (5.4, 5.7, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12) comprised a clusterwhich straddled the intrinsic and extrinsic features in a way which suggested a concernfor individual recognition and management behaviour; we have interpreted this interms of employee relations satisfaction (5e).

Cluster analysis of the life satisfaction items yielded an interpretable three-component structure. Items 6.5, 6.6, 6.9 and 6.10 of scale 6 in Appendix A deal withimmediate personal concerns about health, education, social and family life, and wehave referred to this cluster as satisfaction with personal life (6a). Seven other items(6.7, 6.8, 6.11, 6.12, 6.13, 6.14, 6.15) form a cluster to do with satisfaction with stand-ards and achievement (6b); and the third cluster of four items (6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4) coverssatisfaction with life style (6c).

The choice of the complete scale or subscales in any investigation will dependupon the degree of specificity which is required. The subscales are strongly inter-correlated (see Table 3), and they are of course statistically associated with the fullscales of which they are part.

A number of features in Table 1 deserve comment. The values presented forStudy 1 are derived from the final set of items, after exclusion of less satisfactorymaterial. They are therefore directly comparable with the Study 2 values, except forscale 4 where additional items were present in Study 2; results for the incompletescale 4 used in Study 1 are therefore omitted from the table. In all cases the scales'internal homogeneity is good, as represented by alpha coefficients (Nunnally, 1967)and mean item-whole correlations, and these values are closely replicated across thetwo studies. Furthermore, the individual item-whole correlations (not shown in thetable) remain very similar across the studies. The rank-order correlations betweenitem-whole values for each item in a scale on the two occasions average around 0 95.The standard deviations remain very similar in the two studies, with the exception ofscale 3 (higher order need strength), which showed a significant decrease (P< 0-001)


from 6-80 to 5-03. This may have occurred because of the omission of four items fromthe original Study 1 version of this scale, generating a more homogeneous set ofstatements in Study 2. (Recall that the values in Table 1 cover the same items for eachstudy.)

There are small but statistically significant increases in mean scores for the firstthree scales from Study 1 to Study 2. These may also have arisen partly from theomission of the more divergent items; as noted above omissions were only madefrom these three scales. The decline in scores for scale 8 (self-rated anxiety) is notstatistically significant, but is of interest in that examination of individual itemsrevealed a large decrease in only one case, anxiety about Britain's economic future.This refiects a marked change in the economic climate between the dates of the twostudies, illustrated in sample newspaper headlines like ' Food prices shock and worseto come', 'Few will escape higher bills' (February, 1977) and 'Just the job—boostfrom the dole queues' and 'Taxes to be cut next week' (November, 1977).

It is also notable that the mean scores are located away from the end-point of thescales. It is often observed, for example, that the large majority of employees reportthemselves satisfied with their job (e.g. Quinn et al., 1974). Mean job satisfactionscores in the present studies are above the scale mid-point, but closer to the mid-pointthan to the maximum. This is also the case for life satisfaction, with the exception ofsubscale 6b where the mean value is below the scale mid-point; on the other hand,scales 1, 2 and 3 have relatively high means.

The pattern of correlations within and between the scales was closely replicatedacross the two studies. This may be illustrated by the factor analysis results in Table 2.These show the varimax-rotated loadings of each item on the six scales common toboth studies. (Note that the 'overall' items identified as Sx, 6x, 1 and 8x in Table 1were not included.) In keeping with an assumed model of six independent constructs,the first six factors only were rotated in each study, these embracing 50-1 and 46-5per cent of the accounted variance in the two cases. It can be seen that scale 1 {workinvolvement) straddles the first two factors in the Study 1 results, but that otherwisethe factor structure is remarkably consistent with the model. Items in each scale allload highly on a separate factor, and their loadings are extremely similar in the twostudies.

A summary of the interrelationships between the total scale and subscale scoresis presented in Table 3. This matrix derives from the combined sample of 590 res-pondents, except for the values associated with scale 4 {perceived intrinsic job charac-teristics) and scale 6 {life satisfaction). Since the final version of scale 4 contains moreitems than were used in Study 1, it is more appropriate to cite the correlations withthe final 10-item scale observed in Study 2 (« = 390). On the other hand, as scale 6was not used in Study 2, the values associated with this measure in Table 3 are basedupon the Study 1 sample of 200 respondents.

It can be seen that age is uncorrelated with other variables in the table exceptscale 2 {intrinsic job motivation) where r=O-ll. This contrasts with the small butsignificant relationships between similar variables and age which have been reportedelsewhere (e.g. Saleh & Otis, 1964; Aldag & Brief, 1977; Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977;Saal, 1978). As would be expected, skill level is moderately associated (r=0-29) withscale 4 {perceived intrinsic job characteristics), and to a lesser extent with higher orderneed strength (r = 0-17). Correlations were also calculated with length of service,family responsibility and degree of unionization. These are not shown in Table 3, but

p . WARR, J. COOK AND T. WALL


^,-OOCMr-

525ll 255;;;§

o CO in <- i i in CM <o o> p̂ co r̂ m m co CM co o CM r-. r. t̂ cO CM CO •* I I O O .-O O O O T- ,-O »-O »-O O CN CM O

I I I I I I I f I I

o o o o o "I I I I

SJ2!:3 l o S S o I I

ocM^-cM^cMO^cNOococoT-cDi

I I

p . WARR, J. COOK AND T. WALL

CNiT-r^050ocococDO>or^^

I c^g .«!

Illill l|f«l 11


no Statistically significant relationships with scale scores were observed. Expectedintercorrelations between age and length of service (r=0-44) and organization sizeand degree of unionization (r=0-27) were however present.

Scales 1 and 2 (work involvement and intrinsic job motivation) represent the twofacets of Lodahl & Kejner's (1965) 'work involvement'. In the case of the presentmeasures they are moderately intercorrelated (r=0-37), and relate in a similar fashionto the other variables. Note however that the latter scale is more strongly associatedwith higher order need strength and perceived intrinsic job characteristics (0-33 and 0-36against 0-17 and 0-28). Scale 3 (higher order need strength) is itself in addition signi-ficantly associated only with scales 4, 6a and 8. Scale 4 (perceived intrinsic job charac-teristics) reveals expected strong associations with job satisfaction (especially intrinsicsatisfaction) and smaller but significant relationships with life satisfaction and happiness.It should be noted that the life satisfaction scale used in this research contained noitems directly relevant to work.

The job satisfaction clusters are closely related to each other, suggesting thatseparate subscale scores will not always warrant calculation. The significant relation-ships with life satisfaction (e.g. 0-42 between the two total scores) and with happinessand self-rated anxiety (0-49 and -0-24 respectively) are however of interest. Thesubscales of life satisfaction are less strongly related to each other than are those ofjob satisfaction, and this aspect of well-being is, as expected, significantly correlatedwith happiness but is only just significantly associated with self-rated anxiety. Differentaspects of psychological well-being are being tapped by the three scales (see alsoWarr, 1978ft).

Appendix B presents the means, standard deviations and decile scores for eachscale and subscale except scale 7 where the three-point response dimension makesdecile scores inappropriate. Results for this scale (happiness) have often been presentedin terms of the percentage of respondents giving each of the three answers. Thus anAmerican national sample (n=2145) yielded 37-4 per cent 'very happy', 56-4 per cent'pretty happy', and 6-2 per cent 'not too happy' (Quinn & Shepard, 1974). Observedvalues for this sample of British male manual workers in manufacturing industrywere 27-7, 60-7 and 11-6 per cent respectively. (Note that we used 'fairly happy'instead of 'pretty happy'.)

A final question concerns the test-retest reliability of the measures. Sixty partici-pants in Study 2 were re-interviewed 6 months later. These were drawn from amongthose who had remained in their previous job to constitute a sample which matchedthe earlier group in terms of region, age and skill level. Test-retest correlation co-efficients were as follows: work involvement 0-56; intrinsic job motivation 0-65; higherorder need strength 0-26; perceived intrinsic job characteristics 0-69; total job satis-faction 0-63; overall job satisfaction 0-27; self-rated anxiety 0-63; overall self-ratedanxiety 0 49. The satisfaction subscales yielded values of 0-68, 0-51, 0-60, 0-45 and0-64 for 5a to 5e respectively.

The observed test-retest reliability of the higher order need strength scale (0-26)is undesirably low. This concept has presented problems of operationalization to otherinvestigators (cf. Steers & Spencer, 1977) and there is clearly scope for furtherimprovement. The low stability of the single overall job satisfaction item (0-27) may becontrasted with the high value of 0-63 for the 15-item scale of total job satisfaction. Allthe other coefficients are acceptably high, relative to measures in the literature and tothe internal homogeneity of the scales. It should also be noted that the mean values

p . WARR, J. COOK AND T. WAL

observed on the two occasions did not differ significantly from each other, nor did thestandard deviations except for scales 1 and 3 which were slightly smaller (P<005)

DISCUSSION

The eight measures described here have proved to be acceptable to blue-collarworkers and their psychometric properties appear to be good. The main purpose ofthis paper has been to describe the measures and to provide base-line data for sub-sequent applications, but construct validity evidence in terms of expectations from theliterature would of course be helpful. The intercorrelations between scales, with oneor two exceptions, are similar to those reported in North American research withother measures. Previous studies, summarized in the Introduction, have suggested thatwork involvement may be more closely associated with intrinsic than extrinsic satis-faction, whereas the difference was not observed here (/•=0-27 and 0-30 respectively).One explanation arises from the alternation of intrinsic and extrinsic items in our jobsatisfaction measure and the resulting strong intercorrelation between the twosubscales (r=0-72).

However, the correlations between work involvement and fob satisfaction ofbetween 0-23 and 0-30 are typical of those in the literature (e.g. McKelvey & Sekaran,1977; Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977; Saal, 1978). PForA: invo/ve/Me«/is usually found to beless strongly related to higher order need strength (e.g. Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977; Saal,1978), and the observed value in Table 2 is 0-17. Intrinsic Job motivation is also relatedto Job satisfaction (median r=0-33) and perceived intrinsic Job characteristics (r = 0-36),in line with evidence presented in the Introduction. The latter measure is stronglyrelated (0-73) to total Job satisfaction and to intrinsic Job satisfaction (0-76), as expected.Total Job satisfaction is moderately associated with total life satisfaction (0-42) andhappiness (0-49) and less strongly but significantly associated with self-rated anxiety(-0-24).

It should be emphasized again that in order to ensure independence from othermeasures the life satisfaction scale used here did not make any reference to work; oneor more additional items to cover this feature may be appropriate in some otherstudies of life satisfaction. Another extension of the present method would be to usethe scales in a self-completion mode; as described in the Method section, responseswere here recorded by interviewers. The scales are currently being employed in severalother investigations and are proving to be extremely appropriate for self-completion;indeed, item simplicity was one objective in their construction.

One illustrative self-completion study (conducted in collaboration with RobinMaurice) examined mailed responses from 340 university graduates some 6 monthsafter leaving university. Their mean job satisfaction scores were higher than for theblue-collar workers studied here: 74-61, 34-32 and 40-37 for scales 5, 5a and 5b(SD 11-39, 6-53 and 6-23 respectively); but the values for men (« = 200) and women(«= 140) were extremely similar. Intrinsic and extrinsic Job satisfaction were found tointercorrelate 0-65 for the full sample, and total Job satisfaction was associated withsatisfaction with personal life and satisfaction with life-style at the 0-36 and 0-28 levelrespectively. Subscale 6b was not used in full, but the summed response to items 6.7and 6.8 in Appendix A (about accomplishments and the future) correlated 0-61 withtotal Job satisfaction. A total life satisfaction score from items 6.1 to 6.10 was found to


correlate 0-49 with total job satisfaction. One interesting feature was that the associa-

tions between job and life satisfactions for the men in this sample were consistently

higher than those for women; however, the differences (e.g. 0-53 and 0-39 for total life

satisfaction) did not attain statistical significance.

Finally, a general comment about scale homogeneity is in order. In all these

studies the items in each scale were presented in a block before moving on to the next

scale (see Appendix A). This is of course a widespread practice and on balance we

favour it over the randomization of items from different scales. It is however likely to

encourage internal homogeneity and may reduce associations between scales; these

outcomes should be borne in mind when instruments are being compared.

REFERENCESAxDAG, R. J. & BRIEF, A. P. (1977). Age, work values and employee reactions. Industrial Gerontology,

4, 192-197.ANDREWS, F . M . & WITHEY, S . B . (1974). Developing measures of perceived life quality: Results

from several national surveys. Social Indicators Research, 1, 1-26.ANDREWS, F . M . & WITHEY, S . B . (1976). Social Indicators of Well-being. New York: Plenum Press.BLOOD, M . R . (1969). Work values and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 456-459.BRADBURN, N . M . (1969). The Structure of Psychological Well-being. Chicago: Aldine.BRAVFIELD, A . H . & RoTHE, H. F . (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology,

35,307-311.CROSS, D . (1973). The Worker Opinion Survey: A measure of shop-floor satisfactions. Occupational

Psychology, 47, 193-208.DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT (1978). How big is British business? DE Gazette, 86, 37-40.DUNHAM, R . B . (1976). The measurement and dimensionality of job characteristics. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 61,404-409.GECHMAN, A . S. & WIENER, Y . (1975). Job involvement and satisfaction as related to mental health

and personal time devoted to work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 521-523.GOLDBERG, D . P. (1972). The Detection of Psychiatric Illness by Questionnaire. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.HACKMAN, J. R. & LAWLER, E . E . (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 55, 259-286.HACKMAN, J. R. & OLDHAM, G . R . (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 60,159-170.HACKMAN, J. R. & OLDHAM, G . R . (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.HALL, J. (1976a). Subjective measures of quality of life in Britain: 1971 to 1975. Social Trends, 7,

47-60.HALL, J. (19766). The quality of life. Unpublished research report.HoppocK, R. (1935). Job Satisfaction. New York: Harper.HuLiN, C. L. (1969). Sources of variation in job and life satisfaction: The role of community and

job-related factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 279-291.JONES, A. P., JAMES, L . R . & BRUNI, J. R. (1975). Perceived leadership behavior and employee con-

fidence in the leader as moderated by job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60,146-149.LAWLER, E . E . (1969). Job design and employee motivation. Personnel Psychology, 22, 426-435.LAWLER, E . E . & HALL, D . T . (1970). Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satis-

faction, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 305-312.LoDAHL, T. M. & KEJNER, M . (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 49, 24-33.LONDON, M . , CRANDALL, R . & SEALS, G . W . (1977). Contributions of job and leisure satisfaction to

quality of life. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 328-334.MASLOW, A . H . (1970). Motivation and Personality, rev. ed. New York: Harper & Row.MCKELVEY, B . & SEKARAN, U . (1977). Toward a career-based theory of job involvement: A study of

scientists and engineers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 281-305.NuNALLY, J. (1967). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-HUl.


OFFICE OF POPULATION CENSUSES AND SURVEYS (1970). Classification of Occupations. London: HMSO.OLDHAM, G . R . , HACKMAN, J. R. & PEARCE, J. L. (1976). Conditions under which employees respond

positively to enriched work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 395^03.PAYNE, R . L . , FINEMAN, S. & WALL, T . D . (1976). Organizational climate and job satisfaction: A

conceptual synthesis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 45-62.PELZ, D . C . & ANDREWS, F . M . (1976). Scientists in Organizations, rev. ed. Michigan: Institute for

Social Research.QuiNN, R. P. & SHEPARD, L . J . (1974). The 1972-73 Quality of Employment Survey. Michigan:

Institute for Social Research.QuiNN, R. P., STAINES, G . L . & MCCULLOUGH, M . R . (1974). Job Satisfaction: Is there a Trend?

Washington: US Department of Labor.RABINOWITZ, S . & HALL, D . T . (1977). Organizational research on job involvement. Psychological

Bulletin, 84, 265-288.ROTTER, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.

Psychological Monographs, 80, whole no. 609.RuNYON, K. E. (1973). Some interactions between personality variables and management styles.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 288-294.SAAL, F . E . (1978). Job involvement: A multivariate approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63,

53-61.SALEH, S. D . & OTIS, J. L. (1964). Age and level of job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 17,425^30.SiEOEL, A. L. & RuH, R. A. (1973). Job involvement, participation in decision making, personal

background and job behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9, 318-327.SIMS, H . P. & SZILAGYI, A. E. (1976). Job characteristic relationships: Individual and structural

moderators. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 17, 211-230.SMITH, P. C , KENDALL, L . M . & HULIN, C . L . (1969). The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and

Retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.STEERS, R . M . & SPENCER, D . G . (1977). The role of achievement motivation in job design. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 62, 472-479.WALL, T . D . (1978). Job redesign and employee participation. In P. B. Warr (ed.). Psychology at Work,

2nd ed. Harmondsworth, Middx: Penguin.WALL, T . D . , CLEGG, C . W . & JACKSON, P. R. (1978). An evaluation of the job characteristics model.

Journal of Occupational Psychology, 51, 183-196.WARR, P. B. (1978a). Attitudes, actions and motives. In P. B. Warr (ed.). Psychology at Work, 2nd

ed. Harmondsworth, Middx: Penguin.WARR, P. B. (19786). A study of psychological well-being. British Journal of Psychology, 69,111-121.WARR, P. B. & LOVATT, D . J. (1977). Retraining and other factors associated with job finding after

redundancy. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 50, 67-84.WARR, P. B. & ROUTLEDGE, T . (1969). An opinion scale for the study of managers' job satisfaction.

Occupational Psychology, 43, 95-109.WARR, P. B. & WALL, T . D . (1975). Work and Well-being. Harmondsworth, Middx: Penguin.WEISSENBERG, P . & GRUENFELD, L . W . (1968). Relationship between job satisfaction and job involve-

ment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 469-473.WOLLACK, S., GooDALE, J. G., WiJTiNG, J. P. & SMITH, P. C. (1971). Development of the survey of

work values. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 331-338.

Received 10 July 1978

MRC Social and Applied Psychology UnitDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of SheffieldSheffield SIO 2TN


APPENDIX A

The instructions and finally-selected items are presented in full below. The sequence shown is thatemployed in the research, but the numbering has been altered to correspond with the numbers usedin the text. The scales may be freely used, and minor modifications to the instructions may sometimesbe required. However, users are requested to supply to the authors as much detail as possible aboutsamples, results and correlates.

Scale 1: Work InvolvementIntroduction. For some people work is just a means to get money, it's something they have to put up

with. For others, work is the centre of their life, something that really matters to them.I would first of all like to ask you about your reactions to work in general, and whether actually

doing work is important to you personally. By 'work' I mean having a paid job.Here are some statements which people have made about work and working, in general. Without

limiting yourself to your present job would you indicate on this scale (SHOW CARD 'W') howstrongly you agree or disagree with each comment in turn? Remember that I'm asking about paidjobs in general, not simply your present job.1.1. Even if I won a great deal of money on the pools I would continue to work somewhere1.2. Having a job is very important to me1.3. I should hate to be on the dole1.4. I would soon get very bored if I had no work to do1.5. The most important things that happen to me involve work1.6. If unemployment benefit was really high I would still prefer to work

Scale 2: Intrinsic Job MotivationIntroduction. Now can we move in a little closer to how you personally feel about your present

job?Again I would like you to think about a number of statements that people have made about

work, but this time think about your present job, not work in general. Please indicate on the samescale as before (SHOW CARD 'W') how strongly you agree or disagree with each comment.Remember that I'm asking now about your present job as a (INSERT TITLE).2.1. I feel a sense of personal satisfaction when I do this job well2.2. My opinion of myself goes down when I do this job badly2.3. I take pride in doing my job as well as I can2.4. I feel unhappy when my work is not up to my usual standard2.5. I like to look back on the day's work with a sense of a job well done2.6. I try to think of ways of doing my job effectively.

Scale 5: Job SatisfactionIntroduction. The next set of items deals with various aspects of your job. I would like you to

tell me how satisfied or dissatisfied you feel with each of these features of your present job.Each item names some aspect of your present job as a

(INSERT TITLE). Just indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with it by using this scale(SHOW CARD 'X').5.1. The physical work conditions5.2. The freedom to choose your own method of working5.3. Your fellow workers5.4. The recognition you get for good work5.5. Your immediate boss5.6. The amount of responsibility you are given5.7. Your rate of pay5.8. Your opportunity to use your abilities5.9. Industrial relations between management and workers in your firm5.10. Your chance of promotion

146 P. WARR, J. COOK AND T. WALL

5.11. The way your firm is managed5.12. The attention paid to suggestions you make5.13. Your hours of work5.14. The amount ofvariety in your job5.15. Your job security5x. Now, taking everything into consideration, how do you feel about your job as a whole?

Scale 4: Perceived Intrinsic Job CharacteristicsIntroduction. You may have felt in the last section that some of the job features mentioned were

not present in your job very much. It is likely that some of the aspects did apply to your job, whileothers applied less or not at all. Could we now go through a small number of these items again,together with a few new ones, but this time thinking about how much you feel each feature is presentin the job you are doing? For this we use a different scale (SHOW CARD 'M').4.1. The freedom to choose your own method of working4.2. The amount of responsibility you are given4.3. The recognition you get for good work4.4. Being able to judge your work performance, right away, when actually doing the job4.5. Your opportunity to use your abilities4.6. The amount of variety in your job4.7. Your chance of promotion4.8. The attention paid to suggestions you make4.9. The feeling of doing something which is not trivial, but really worthwhile4.10. Doing a whole and complete piece of work

Scale 3: Higher Order Need StrengthIntroduction. Now let's look at the things that matter to you in a job. What things are important

in a job and what things are less important in your opinion ? I'd like you to think about paid workin general—any paid job you might do or might like to do, not just your present job.

I'm going to mention a number of characteristics which you might look for in a job. Please showme on this scale (SHOW CARD ' Y') how important each one is when you think about jobs youwould like to have.3.1. Using your skills to the maximum3.2. Achieving something that you personally value3.3. The opportunity to make your own decisions3.4. The opportunity to learn new things3.5. Challenging work3.6. Extending your range of abilities

Scale 8: Self-rated AnxietyIntroduction. So far we have thought a great deal about work and your job. For this set of items

I would like you to consider some wider aspects of your life that go beyond work, although they mayinclude it.

Most people these days have something to worry about, sometimes big things, sometimes quitesmall things. Would you think back over the past few weeks and let me know to what extent youmay have been concerned or worried about various circumstances that affect your life. This is thescale to be used for this section (SHOW CARD 'Z').8.1. Not having enough money for day to day living8.2. Your immediate family8.3. Your health8.4. Growing old8.5. How things are going at work8.6. Britain's economic future8x. In general, how worried or concerned do you feel these days ?

Scale 6: Life SatisfactionIntroduction. Finally, will you consider some other aspects of your life at the present moment.


tisfied you feel about each one iiand indicateCARD 'X').6.1. The house or flat that you live in6.2. The local district that you live in6.3. Your standard of living: the things you can buy and do6.4. The way you spend your leisure time6.5. Your present state of health6.6. The education you have received6.7. What you are accomplishing in life6.8. What the future seems to hold for you6.9. Your social life6.10. Your family life6.11. The present government6.12. Freedom and democracy in Britain today6.13. The state of law and order in Britain today6.14. The moral standards and values in Britain today6.15. Britain's reputation in the world today6x. Taking everything together, your life as a whole these days.

? Please use this scale again (SHOW

Scale 7: HappinessAnd, as a final item.

7. Taking all things together, how v auld you say things were these days ? Would you say yoi3. Very happy2. Fairly happy1. Not too happy

Card' fV' (for Scales 1 an(1. No, I strongly disagree2. No, I disagree quite a lot3. No,Idisagreejustalittle4. I'm not sure about this5. Yes, I agree just a little6. Yes, I agree quite a lot7. Yes, I strongly agree

2) Card'X' (for Scales 5 and 6)1. I'm extremely dissatisfied2. I'm very dissatisfied3. I'm moderately dissatisfied4. I'm not sure5. I'm moderately satisfied6. I'm very satisfied7. I'm extremely satisfied

Card' Y' (for Scale 3)1. Not at all important2. Not particularly important3. I'm not sure about its import!4. Moderately important5. Fairly important6. Very important7. Extremely important

Carrf'Z'(for Scale 8)1. Not at all concerned2. Just a little concerned3. Mildly concerned4. Worry a little5. Quite worried6. Very worried7. Extremely worried

Card'M'(for Scale 4)1. There's none of that in my job2. There's/«.s/ a little of that in my job3. There's a moderate amount of that in my job4. There's quite a lot of that in my job5. There's a great deal of that in my job.

WARR, J. COOK AND T. WALL

APPENDIX B

Deciles, means and standard deviations for all see(/7=590) (except for scale 4 (/7=390) and scale

blue-collar male employees in

is and subscales for the combined sample5 ( A ) = 2 0 0 ) ; see text). Respondents wereanufacturing industry.

Decile

SD

1

23456789

10

1

Workinvolve-

ment

2 4 0ZIZ29931 833335036237339-14 2 0

594

2

Intrinsicjob

28532334235637038-13 9 440 841-44 2 0

551

3

Higherorder

strength

26631 03 3 03473583703 8 439841 34 2 0

5-80

4Perceivedintrinsic

jobcharacter-

istics

2082452752983 2 23 5 037340-143 551 0

839

5

Totaljob

faction

47656863668 071 5756785835890

1020

1542

5a

Intrinsicjob

faction

20325228-131 43 3 23493723924254 9 0

8-25

56

Extrinsicjob

satis-faction

25830433636238240 34 2 444748 0560

836

WorkingJob itself conditions Employee Overall Totalintrinsic extrinsic relations job life

satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction

13015917719 220521 82302392 5 72802032

4 9 0

6bSatisfaction

withandards and

18-21-23-24-25-27-28-29-31-35-2589

4 8 4

6c

Satisfactionwith

life style

12-416 72002302472672853063424 2 02440

795

6x

Overalife

satlsfact

53357-1620644670704

930670911 40

19 820721 5222229239

Decile

MeanSD

1472 1833 21 5\ 2425 2563 2727 2883 3083 337

10 42 025447-12

14816918019-1 '•20-1 ^21 2 I22-1230239 i28 02022

386

61M l132153175194

276404

^00•13•28

9 0

13815717419121 42422784 2 018617-18

1001251 692^142623^103584 1 25117 0 0337V59

Documents

Warr, T, Cook, P y Wall, K 1979 Scales for the measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological wellbeing