A meta‐analytic examination of the relationship between job satisfaction and subjective well‐being

verifiedrich profile · Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology · 2010

Bowling, Nathan A.; Eschleman, Kevin J.; Wang, Qiang

10.1348/096317909x478557 · CrossRef: verified

How this was studied

paradigm: positivistpurpose: explanatory causaldesign: meta analytic synthesisidentification: nonetime: longitudinal trenddata: quantitative survey

A meta-analytic synthesis — it pools many primary studies rather than running a single design, so there is no single-study diagram.

analysis: meta analysis · validity (validity): internal unclear · external addressed · construct addressed · statistical addressed · classifier confidence 0.85

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.

job satisfactionemployee well being

r = 0.48 · grade A · unverified

employee well beingjob satisfaction

r = 0.44 · grade B · unverified

Models this article informs

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

In the authors’ words

The article’s own abstract.

The current meta‐analysis examined the relationship between job satisfaction and subjective well‐being (SWB). Consistent with the spillover hypothesis, we found positive relationships between job satisfaction and life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and the absence of negative affect. In addition, an examination of longitudinal studies suggested that the causal relationship from SWB to job satisfaction was stronger than the causal relationship from job satisfaction to SWB.

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.

8 supporting

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.