Cross-cultural Evidence of the Relationship between Subjective Well-being and Job Performance: A Meta-analysis

verifiedmedium profile · Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones · 2022

Salgado, Jesús F.; Moscoso, Silvia

10.5093/jwop2022a3 · CrossRef: verified

How this was studied

paradigm: positivistpurpose: explanatory causaldesign: meta analytic synthesisidentification: nonetime: cross sectionaldata: 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.

employee well beingtask performance

r = 0.37 · k=15 · grade A · unverified

employee well beingtask performance

r = 0.37 · k=78 · grade A · 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.

This meta-analysis examined the differences across countries/regions, and the moderator effects of the study type (cross-sectional vs. longitudinal) on the SWB-job performance relationship. The database consists of 78 independent samples (N = 18,853), located through electronic and manual searches. The results showed that overall SWB (ρ = .37), cognitive SWB (ρ = .27), and affective SWB (ρ = .37) are predictors of job performance. Evidence of cross-cultural effects showed that the magnitude of the SWB-job performance relationship was larger in the Asia-Pacific region than in Europe and the US-Canada region (Asia-Pacific ρ = .41, Europe ρ = .33, USA ρ = .23). Moderator analyses indicated that, on average, cross-sectional (concurrent) and longitudinal (predictive) studies showed similar validity (ρ = .33 vs. ρ = .32). Lastly, we discuss the main contributions, and some practical implications and some limitations of the study are mentioned.

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.

1 supporting

No open-access quotations have been captured yet.

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