A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings

verifiedrich profile · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · 1985

Jackson, Susan E; Schuler, Randall S

10.1016/0749-5978(85)90020-2 · CrossRef: verified

What this article reports

The findings we extracted from this work, normalized into Principia’s relationship form (X → Y). Each feeds the synthesized models below.

role conflictjob satisfaction

r = -0.48 · k=37 · grade A · unverified

role ambiguityturnover intention

r = 0.29 · k=25 · grade A · unverified

role ambiguityjob satisfaction

r = -0.46 · k=56 · grade A · unverified

Models this article informs

The meta-analytic priors this article contributes evidence to — its place in the broader synthesis.

What the literature says about it

Attributed, open-access quotes from other works that cite this article, plus the citation-graph verdict tally. Corroborations and disputes, in one place — the honest-broker view.

11 supporting

supportsMeta-analytic evidence shows that conflicting and ambiguous roles correlate with low job satisfaction and low health [18], corroborating the role theory, which states that role conflict and role ambiguity will lead to job dissatisfaction and anxiety [19].

Four Wellbeing Patterns and their Antecedents in Millennials at Work (2018) · CCBY

Ancillary research

Neighbouring works in the citation graph around this article.

Assembled from Principia’s registry — bibliographic record, extracted effect sizes, the models they inform, and open-access citing literature.