Journal of Occupational Psychology, 1979,52, 129-148.

Printed in Great Britain

Scales for the measurement of some work

attitudes and aspects of psychological
well-being

PETER W A R R , J O H N COOK and TOBY WALL

MRC Social and Applied Psychology Unit,
University of Shefield

Two studies of male manual workers are described. in which eight scales relevant
to the quality of working life are introduced and assessed. The scales build upon
previous work, but are designed to remedy certain conceptual and operational
deficiencies. They cover work involvement, intrinsic job motivation, higher
order need strength, perceived intrinsic job characteristics, job satisfaction, life
satisfaction, happiness. and self-rated anxiety. In addition, components of job
satisfaction and life satisfaction, derived through cluster analyses, are also identi-
fied. The scales are shown to have good internal reliability and to be factorially
separate. Comprehensive psychometric data are provided as a base-line for
future:applications.

Adequate measurement of complex psychological states usually requires an iterative

process; researchers must move several times between conceptualization and opera-
tionalization, adjusting their ideas and measures as they go. This is not always
feasible within the span of a single research project, and it is sometimes necessary to
accept or adapt a previously reported measure or to create a new scale with only
limited opportunity for systematic development. Neither approach is entirely satis-
factory, especially as most investigators have understandably given priority in their
reports to substantive research questions rather than to the provision of detailed
information about samples, means, variances, intercorrelations and other features
which would assist in subsequent assessment of their measures.
This problem is particularly evident in studies of the quality of working life and
occupational well-being. The need to examine a large number of subjective variables
has often led investigatorsto devise their own items or to select from previous measures
small segments with unknown psychometric properties. An additional difficulty arises
from the complexity and ill-defined scope of many concepts in the area; questionnaire
items are sometimes difficult to comprehend, especially for blue-collar workers who
are typically the focus of research.
There is thus a need for development work to create robust instruments in the
quality of working life area. Of particular value would be short scales which are
easily 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 diagnostic
and evaluative use in both research and practice. These measure work involvement,
129
0305-8 107/79/06024129$02.00/0 0 1979 The British Psychological Society
130 P . W A R R , J . COOK A N D 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 earlier
studies will be described next. However, one terminological feature should first be
noted. 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, ‘job
motivation’ refers to a person’s motivation in his or her current post, whereas ‘work
involvement’ deals with involvement in jobs in general. This distinction between job
and work has not always been drawn in the literature, with some consequential
confusion.

WORK INVOLVEMENT A N D INTRINSIC JOB MOTIVATION

Work involvement may be viewed as a component of the ‘protestant work

ethic’ (e.g. Blood, 1969; Wollack et al., 1971). It emerged as a measurable concept
from 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. Subsequent
research has indicated statistically significant positive relationships between their
measures and age (e.g. Jones el al., 1975), reported participation in decision-making
(e.g. Siege1 & Ruh, 1973), internality on Rotter’s (1966) locus of control scale (Runyon,
1973), endorsement of the protestant ethic (Saal, 1978),and aspects ofjob satisfaction,
especially satisfaction with intrinsic features of a job (e.g. Weissenberg & Gruenfeld,
1968). Gechman & Wiener (1975) have reported a significant correlation with amount
of voluntary unpaid overtime; and Warr & Lovatt (1977), using a simple two-item
scale, 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 the
review by Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977), although there is a suggestion from Pelz &
Andrews’ (1976) results that among scientists involvement and performance are
significantly interrelated (rs mostly between 0-20 and 0.30 in their study of nine
samples with n ranging between 65 and 401). This pattern is consistent with
other findings that attitudes and job performance are more likely to be associated
among managerial and professional employees, who have greater personal oppor-
tunity to shape their own job activities than have many manual workers (Warr,
1978~).
However, there are still reasons for dissatisfaction with the concept and measures
as employed so far (e.g. Lawler t Hall, 1970). The focus of the Lodahl & Kejner
items 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, this
definition was itself uncertain. On the one hand, the authors were interested in ‘the
internalization of values about the goodness of work or the importance of work in
the worth of the person’ (p. 24). We view this as the extent to which a person wants to
be 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 performance
affects his self-esteem’ (p. 25). This is rather different, being concerned principally
with a person’s present job and the extent to which he wants to perform well in that
job. We prefer to treat this separate notion as intrinsic job motivation. The term
‘intrinsic,’ is used to emphasize that the motivation is towards personal achievement
and task success rather than towards ‘extrinsic’ satisfactions arising from features
 MEASUREMENT OF SOME W O R K 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’ (a
negatively scored statement of work involvement), and ‘I’m really a perfectionist
about 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 some
subjective rewards or feelings that he expects to receive or experience as a result of
performing well’. Lawler & Hall (1970) tapped intrinsic motivation through items
such as ‘I feel a great sense of personal satisfaction when I do my job well’, and
statements 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 a
statistically significant relationship (r =0.41) with employee mental health, measured
by the General Health Questionnaire (Goldberg, 1972).

HIGHER O R D E R NEED S T R E N G T H A N D PERCEIVED I N T R I N S I C

JOB CHARACTERISTICS

Another feature which has attracted recent attention is employees’ need for
satisfaction and achievement through skilled and autonomous work. The intensity of
this need has been variously labelled ‘growth need strength’ (Hackman & Oldham,
1975), ‘self-actualization need strength’ (Sims & Szilagyi, 1976) and ‘higher order
need 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 job
motivation, but as defined here the latter refers only to a specificjob situation whereas
higher order need strength is viewed as a dispositional characteristic extending across
jobs. Measurement of this characteristic has typically been through the items provided
by Hackman & Oldham (1975). These include ‘would Iike’ ratings of, for example,
‘opportunities for personal growth and development in my job’ and forced-choice
preference responses between items like ‘a job for which the pay is good’ and ‘a job
with considerable opportunity to be creative and innovative’. We have found that the
content 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 to
which certain ‘work motivating factors’ are involved in a job. These are frequently
measured 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 been
summarized by Wall (1978). However, the five factors often turn out to be moderately
intercorrelated (median interfactor values of 0.52, 0.20 and 0.42 are reported by
Dunham, 1976, Steers & Spencer, 1977 and Saal, 1978, respectively), and it would be
useful to obtain standardization data for a brief single measure of the presence of job
characteristics which might give rise to intrinsic satisfaction. We will refer to this as a
scale of perceived intrinsic job characteristics.
132 P . W A R R , J . COOK A N D T . W A L L

JOB SATISFACTION

Studies of job satisfaction have taken many different forms since the original work
of Hoppock (1935). Some investigators have preferred to obtain overall satisfaction
scores, either through single items (e.g. Quinn et af., 1974) or through aggregates of
several items (e.g. Brayfield & Rothe, 1951). Other researchers have used instruments
specially constructed to tap a number of different features of satisfaction. For example,
the Job Description Index (Smith et af., 1969) contains subscales to measure attitudes
towards pay, promotion prospects, the work itself, supervision, and co-workers. The
Worker Opinion Survey (Cross, 1973) has in addition a subscale to tap feelings about
the firm as a whole, and a similar instrument for use with managers also covers
attitudes towards subordinates (Warr & Routledge, 1969).
These measures have a number of disadvantages. They tend to contain redundant
and overlapping items and are rather long and cumbersome. Their emphasis has been
primarily upon extrinsic features of satisfaction, to the relative exclusion of intrinsic
components. 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 et af., 1976).
LIFE SATISFACTION, HAPPINESS A N D SELF-RATED ANXIETY

Psychological well-being is a diffuse concept which deserves greater measurement

attention (e.g. Bradburn, 1969; Warr & Wall, 1975). One set of investigations has
examined the nature and correlates of life satisfaction, usually construing this in terms
of 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 of
speech, etc.) (e.g. Andrews & Withey, 1974, 1976; Hall, 1976~).Some research has
given emphasis to the interrelationships between life satisfaction and other features of
psychological well-being and mental health (e.g. Bradburn, 1969; Warr, 1978b); and
other studies have looked at both life satisfaction and job satisfaction. For example,
Hall (19763) reported an intercorrelation of 0.42 in a British sample; and in an
American study London et af. (1977) observed a median correlation of 0.21 between
single job satisfaction items and an overall life satisfaction measure. These latter
authors also observed that job satisfaction contributed more to life satisfaction for
men than for women, a finding which echoes Huh’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. This
provides another perspective on well-being and in view of its simplicity and the
availability of comparison data is often worth recording.
Research into anxiety has traditionally been directed towards measures of trait
anxiety, 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 (1978b) and
others, but (as with life satisfaction) further investigations with particularly salient
items are desirable.
SUMMARY OF TERMS

Working definitions of the several concepts outlined above are as follows. The
numbers assigned to each are employed consistently throughout the paper.
 MEASUREMENT OF S O M E W O R K ATTITUDES 133

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

in work.
2. Intrinsic job motivation is viewed as the degree to which a person wants to work
well 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 to
the attainment of higher order needs.
4. Perceived intrinsic job characteristics are the person's reports about the degree to
which features are present in his or her job which might give rise to intrinsic
satisfaction.
5 . Job satisfaction is the degree to which a person reports satisfaction with intrinsic
and extrinsic features of the job. Total job satisfaction is the sum of all separate
items, 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 salient
features of his life and life-space. Total life satisfaction is the sum of all separate
items, 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-rated
anxiety is reported anxiety in general.
Definitions of components of concepts 5 and 6 will be introduced later.

METHOD

Scales to measure these eight concepts were developed through two interview
studies with blue-collar workers. The initial pool of items was drawn from the literature
and through discussion, and a pilot study was previously carried out to assist with
initial decisions about items and procedures. Study 1 took place in February 1977
and Study 2 in November 1977.
The Samples
The 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 a
month, and had a mean length of service of 9.02 years. They were aged between 20
and 64,and were all employed in manufacturing industry (orders 3 to 19 of the
Standard Industrial Classification, which excludes service industries, construction,
agriculture, mining and transport).
Respondents were drawn in equal numbers from 10 widely dispersed sampling
areas (Study 1) and 20 areas (Study 2) according to a predetermined frame which
approximately matched national demographic characteristics. This specified that half
the sample in each area should be from firms employing fewer than 300 employees and
half 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 below
40 years of age, and within each quarter-sample half should be skilled, 30 per cent
semi-skilledand 20 per cent unskilled. Decisions about skill level were made in terms of
training 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 of
jobs in each category were supplied to interviewers from the material provided by the
Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (1970).
134 P . W A R R , J . COOK A N D T . W A L L

Other biographical information was gathered during the interview, and the two
samples were of almost identical composition. A combined analysis (n = 590) revealed
that 13 per cent were unmarried, 24 per cent were married without children at home
and 63 per cent were married with children at home. In terms of length of service
with their present employer, 26 per cent reported less than 2 years, 22 per cent
between 2 and 5 years, 24 per cent between 5 and 10 years, 17 per cent between 10
and 20 years, and 11 per cent more than 20 years. Nine per cent reported that their
company contained no trade union members; and ‘some’, ‘most’ and ‘all’ company
employees were reported to be trade unionists by 12,33 and 46 per cent of respondents
respectively.

Procedure
Interviews were concerned solely with the scales under investigation, and were
carried out individually within respondents’ homes by trained female staff of National
Opinion Polls Ltd. Each interviewer sought volunteers to complete her quota sampling
frame. The average time for each interview was about 30 minutes; in Study 2 this
included other scales which are not described here. Interviewers indicated that res-
pondents had ‘very little’ or ‘no’difficulty with the material and that they generally
appeared to enjoy the interview.
Interviewers read out the instructions and items to each person, who selected his
answer from the set of alternatives listed on a card. The interviewer then recorded the
response in numerical form on the questionnaire.

The Items
The 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 a
larger number of respondents, was intended to provide cross-validation evidence and
to yield reliable norms for this population. In order to include additional scales in
Study 2 (not reported here) the Life Satisfaction scale was omitted from this second
investigation.
The items finally selected and the response dimensions employed are presented
in full in Appendix A; the same sequence of scales was used in both studies. It will be
seen that seven-point responses were sought throughout, except for section 4 (per-
ceived intrinsic job characteristics) where five alternative responses were employed and
for the happiness item which involved a three-point response scale. Scoring was from
1 to 7, 1 to 5 or 1 to 3 throughout, with 1 being the most negative response in each
case. Each scale or subscale score was the unweighted sum of the responses to the
included items.

RESULTS

Decisions about exclusion of items in Study 1 were based upon inter-item and
item-whole correlations (desired to be high within a scale), mean scores (desired to
be away from the end-point), standard deviations (desired to be high), and the
meaning of each item (excessive redundancy within a scale was undesirable). The
final number of items in each scale is shown in Table 1. These were achieved after
omission of 2,2 and 4 items in scales 1 to 3 respectively. Scale 4 in Study 1 comprised
seven items, but five additional ones were included for Study 2 in order to achieve
 Table 1. Characteristics of scales and subscales in two samples (Study I n=200; Study 2 n=390)
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~

Study 1 Study 2
Study 1 Study2 mean mean
Number Scale Study 1 Study 2 Study 1 Study 2 coefficient coefficient corrected corrected
cale or Subscale of items midpoint mean mean SD SD alpha alpha item-whole item-whole s>
r r m

volvement 6 24 31 -77 33.37 5-98 5.86 0.63 0.64 0.38 0-48

job motivation 6 24 35.13 36.82 5.46 5.45 0.82 0.82 0.59 0.61
rder need strength 6 24 33-69 36-07 6.80 5.03 0.91 0.82 0.75 0.59
d intrinsic job
ristics 10 30 - 32.74 - 8.39 - 0-86 - 0.56
satisfaction 15 60 69.86 70.86 14.18 16.02 0-85 0.88 0.50 0.53
job satisfaction 7 28 32-36 32.74 7-69 8.53 0.79 0.85 0.55 0.55
job satisfaction 8 32 37-54 38.22 7.81 8.63 0.74 0.78 0.44 0.50
lf intrinsic satisfaction 4 16 20.27 20.35 4-61 5.05 0-76 0.72 0.55 0-51
conditions extrinsic
tion 5 20 25-57 26.06 4.75 4.89 0.60 0.58 0.36 0.33
e relations satisfaction 6 24 24.06 24-58 7.40 8.21 0-80 0-82 0.57 0.58
ob satisfaction 1 4 5-24 5-37 1.46 1.44 - - - -
satisfaction 15 60 67-09 - 11.40 - 0.78 - 0.53 -
tion with personal life 4 16 21 -51 - 3.48 - 0.59 - 0.37 -
tion with standards
ievement 7 28 25.44 - 7.1 2 - 0.81 - 0.54 -
tion with life style 4 16 20.22 - 3.86 - 0.60 - 0.39 -
ife satisfaction 1 4 5-13 - 1.28 - - - - -
ss 1 2 2.24 2.12 0.53 0.71 - - - -
d anxiety 6 24 19.03 18.40 6,64 7.44 0.68 0.74 0.41 0.49
elf-rated anxiety 1 4 3.56 3.27 1-53 1.61 - - - -
136 P . W A R R , J . COOK A N D T . W A L L

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 final
scales contain no negatively keyed items, although some were included in the initial
battery. This group of items scaled only marginally less reliably than did the positively
keyed ones, but they were excluded from Study 2 because they were reported by
interviewers to present conceptual difficulties for some respondents.
In addition to the eight scales already identified, it will be seen that the left-hand
column of Table 1 contains several separately numbered and labelled items. Three of
these (5x, 6x and 8x) are the single-item overall job satisfaction, life satisfaction and
anxiety reports solicited 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, two
separate clusters of items (5a and 5b) could readily be identified. Seven items (numbers
5.2, 5.4, 5.6, 5.8, 5.10, 5.12, 5.14 in Appendix A) came together into a subscale which
is appropriately termed intrinsic job satisfaction (5a). The other items represent
extrinsic job satisfaction (5b). However, the full set of items could also be viewed at a
different level in terms of three other clusters (5c, 5d and 5e). One group of four items
(5.2, 5.6, 5.8, 5.14) emerged as a cluster specially concerned with job itsey intrinsic
satisfaction (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, 5.1 1, 5.12) comprised a cluster
which straddled the intrinsic and extrinsic features in a way which suggested a concern
for individual recognition and management behaviour; we have interpreted this in
terms 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 with
immediate personal concerns about health, education, social and family life, and we
have referred to this cluster as satisfaction with personal life (6a). Seven other items
(6.7, 6.8, 6.1 1, 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) covers
satisfaction with life style (6c).
The choice of the complete scale or subscales in any investigation will depend
upon 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 full
scales of which they are part.
A number of features in Table 1 deserve comment. The values presented for
Study I are derived from the final set of items, after exclusion of less satisfactory
material. They are therefore directly comparable with the Study 2 values, except for
scale 4 where additional items were present in Study 2; results for the incomplete
scale 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 the
two studies. Furthermore, the individual item-whole correlations (not shown in the
table) remain very similar across the studies. The rank-order correlations between
item-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 of
scale 3 (higher order need strength), which showed a significant decrease ( P < 0.001)
 MEASUREMENT OF SOME W O R K ATTITUDES 137

from 6.80 to 5.03. This may have occurred because of the omission of four items from
the original Study 1 version of this scale, generating a more homogeneous set of
statements in Study 2. (Recall that the values in Table 1 cover the same items for each
study.)
There are small but statistically significant increases in mean scores for the first
three scales from Study 1 to Study 2. These may also have arisen partly from the
omission of the more divergent items; as noted above omissions were only made
from these three scales. The decline in scores for scale 8 (self-rated anxiety) is not
statistically significant, but is of interest in that examination of individual items
revealed a large decrease in only one case, anxiety about Britain’s economic future.
This reflects a marked change in the economic climate between the dates of the two
studies, illustrated in sample newspaper headlines like ‘Food prices shock and worse
to come’, ‘Few will escape higher bills’ (February, 1977) and ‘Just the job-boost
from 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 the
scales. It is often observed, for example, that the large majority of employees report
themselves satisfied with their job (e.g. Quinn et al., 1974). Mean job satisfaction
scores in the present studies are above the scale mid-point, but closer to the mid-point
than to the maximum. This is also the case for life satisfaction, with the exception of
subscale 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 replicated
across 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 to
both studies. (Note that the ‘overall’ items identified as 5x, 6x, 7 and 8x in Table 1
were 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 46.5
per cent of the accounted variance in the two cases. It can be seen that scale 1 (work
involvement) straddles the first two factors in the Study 1 results, but that otherwise
the factor structure is remarkably consistent with the model. Items in each scale all
load highly on a separate factor, and their loadings are extremely similar in the two
studies.
A summary of the interrelationships between the total scale and subscale scores
is presented in Table 3. This matrix derives from the combined sample of 590 res-
pondents, except for the values associated with scale 4 (perceived intrinsicjob charac-
teristics) and scale 6 (life sarisfaction). Since the final version of scale 4 contains more
items than were used in Study 1, it is more appropriate to cite the correlations with
the final 10-item scale observed in Study 2 (n=390). On the other hand, as scale 6
was not used in Study 2, the values associated with this measure in Table 3 are based
upon the Study 1 sample of 200 respondents.
It can be seen that age is uncorrelated with other variables in the table except
scale 2 (intrinsic job motivation) where r=0-17. This contrasts with the small but
significant relationships between similar variables and age which have been reported
elsewhere (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) with
scale 4 (perceived intrinsicjob characteristics), and to a lesser extent with higher order
need 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
 Table 2. Varhax-rotated loadings on six factors
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6

Study Study Study Study Study Study Study Study Study Study Study Study
Scale item 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
cd
1. Work involvement
1.1 02 65 46 -13 -04 06 10 06 05 12 -10 01
1.2 60 53 40 21 10 -07 -10 18 13 06 07 12
1.3 68 59 11 08 32 13 -01 06 06 02 06 -03
1.4 16 65 34 08 01 -03 -16 -01 06 06 -05 -07
1.5 31 44 46 25 -08 07 -05 -01 11 27 16 12
1.6 49 66 39 18 08 04 -05 04 03 09 03 11 0
0
2. Intrinsic job motivation 0
70
2.1 07 13 69 69 21 01 32 25 06 21 02 01
2.2 21 12 59 75 16 02 11 05 16 09 03 03
2.3 08 05 48 69 50 12 22 15 01 08 15 -05
2.4 -18 13 59 75 33 02 01 07 02 01 11 05
2.5 09 18 67 76 21 04 19 05 13 13 04 -02
2.6 -02 01 42 48 41 23 27 15 09 16 04 06 E
>
3. Higher order need strength r
P
3.1 24 13 10 03 73 54 25 22 -12 -03 05 08
3.2 08 30 13 07 75 58 12 14 -08 -05 25 04
3.3 08 -08 01 02 80 74 25 20 -11 01 -03 05
3.4 03 05 02 03 81 78 03 -04 -01 11 12 07
3.5 -10 -01 19 15 72 78 15 05 -01 08 23 -01
3.6 -08 -07 25 05 73 77 14 -01 -04 09 20 02
 Table 2-continued
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6

Study Study Study Study Study Study Study Study Study Study Study Study
Scale Item 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

4. Perceived intrinsic job characteristics

4.1 -03 -06 04 05 27 15 72 73 13 13 -05 -06
4.2 05 07 13 12 35 16 70 68 01 27 07 05
4.3 -01 08 23 12 25 04 49 31 51 69 10 04 3
4.4 - 06 - 03 - 14 - 57 - 13 - - 06 m
4.5 13 07 01 15 36 05 68 71 16 30 10 05
4.6 15 11 -02 14 28 13 67 63 04 21 -02 05
4.7 13 03 -08 01 35 19 16 20 42 54 -10 02
4.8 07 03 -01 08 41 11 41 26 39 61 -10 09
4.9 - 08 - 24 06 - 49 - 38 - - 02
4.1 0 - 08 - 09 11 - 47 - 16 - - 03
--
5. Job satisfaction
5.1 14 08 23 13 -05 -03 16 15 45 43 10 -09 cn
5.2 -10 -02 03 01 02 09 61 52 26 27 06 07 0
5.3 08 11 33 12 16 13 01 14 43 35 05 14 rm
5.4 -12 12 25 05 -09 02 21 16 68 73 -03 02
5.5 06 04 -04 04 07 02 06 17 59 59 05 04
5.6 -11 02 17 19 03 15 57 43 33 39 14 -03
5.7 06 19 19 05 -07 03 06 07 49 55 -03 -23
5.8 16 04 18 21 -13 03 59 48 44 49 03 09
5.9 11 02 02 09 -13 -04 15 14 70 68 -13 -12
5.1 0 10 08 02 12 -06 07 29 14 62 66 -15 -04
5.1 1 01 13 -02 13 -12 -05 03 05 76 74 -06 -06
5.1 2 12 -03 07 23 -03 -05 16 18 65 65 -11 -04
5.13 41 31 29 17 -10 -05 23 15 21 28 02 -18
5.14 12 16 17 15 02 -02 59 50 28 35 -10 -12
5.15 61 05 -05 03 -07 -05 26 34 20 51 -02 -21

8. Self-rated anxiety
8.1 03 -05 07 -02 27 -03 -15 -67 -14 -01 63 66
8.2 02 -05 10 -07 27 10 -02 -05 -11 -04 55 74
8.3 01 -04 -07 -02 08 06 13 -01 07 01 74 77
8.4 10 -06 -10 08 -08 -04 07 -13 03 04 63 62
8.5 -22 04 08 -01 32 09 -13 01 -24 -33 41 65
8.6 11 10 14 13 21 05 17 01 -19 -21 33 41
 L
P
0

Table 3. Product-moment correlations between scales and subscales for the combined sample
(a) (b) 1 2 3 4 5 5a 56 5c 5d 5e 5x 6 6a 66 6c 6x 7 8

l 03
olvement 04 01
job motivation 17 13 37
rder need strength -09 17 17 33
d intrinsic job characteristics 01 29 28 36 28
satisfaction 06 06 30 35 09 73
job satisfaction 04 11 27 36 12 76 93
job satisfaction 07 01 30 30 05 60 93 72
lf intrinsic satisfaction 06 13 23 34 14 70 82 91 62
conditions extrinsic satisfaction 08 03 30 31 10 58 84 65 91 58
e relations satisfaction 04 02 26 28 03 64 92 84 87 62 67
ob satisfaction 12 01 34 31 04 54 70 63 69 59 67 61
satisfaction -08-03 17 18 05 30 42 39 38 34 28 41 42
tion with personal life -13 04 16 22 20 24 20 20 16 17 15 17 27 68
tion with standards and achievement -11 -08 15 09-01 22 37 35 33 29 22 38 34 88 39
tion with life style 07 01 08 18-05 24 39 35 36 32 29 36 37 71 39 41
life satisfaction -03-11 08 13 03 28 45 43 39 37 32 40 47 66 48 51 57
ss 01 -03 13 17 11 36 49 42 50 36 44 48 39 43 35 31 38 51
d anxiety -01 06 -01 04 20 -1 5 -24 19 -27 - 15 -22 -25 -21 - 18 -04 -1 7 -21 18 -23
- -
elf-rated anxiety 07 01 -01 05 04-15-23-20-24-14-21 -23-17-21 -03-23-19-22-22 61

=590 except for scale 4 (n=390) and scale 6 (n=200); see the text.
<O.OOl when r>0.15 except for scale 4 (>0.16) and scale 6 (>O-23).
 MEASUREMENT OF SOME WORK ATTITUDES 141

no statistically significant relationships with scale scores were observed. Expected

intercorrelations between age and length of service (r = 0 4 ) and organization size
and degree of unionization (r=0.27) were however present.
Scales 1 and 2 (work involvement and intrinsic job motivation) represent the two
facets of Lodahl & Kejner’s (1965) ‘work involvement’. In the case of the present
measures they are moderately intercorrelated (r =0.37), and relate in a similar fashion
to the other variables. Note however that the latter scale is more strongly associated
with higher order need strength and perceived intrinsicjob characteristics (0.33 and 0.36
against 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 intrinsic
satisfaction) and smaller but significant relationshipswith life satisfaction and happiness.
It should be noted that the life satisfaction scale used in this research contained no
items directly relevant to work.
The job satisfaction clusters are closely related to each other, suggesting that
separate 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 happiness
and self-rated anxiety (0.49 and -0.24 respectively) are however of interest. The
subscales of life satisfaction are less strongly related to each other than are those of
job satisfaction, and this aspect of well-being is, as expected, significantly correlated
with happiness but is only just significantly associated with self-rated anxiety. Different
aspects of psychological well-being are being tapped by the three scales (see also
Warr, 19783).
Appendix B presents the means, standard deviations and decile scores for each
scale and subscale except scale 7 where the three-point response dimension makes
decile scores inappropriate. Results for this scale (happiness)have often been presented
in terms of the percentage of respondents giving each of the three answers. Thus an
American 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). Observed
values for this sample of British male manual workers in manufacturing industry
were 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 among
those who had remained in their previous job to constitute a sample which matched
the 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; higher
order 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-rated
anxiety 0.49. The satisfaction subscales yielded values of 0.68, 0.51, 0.60, 0.45 and
0.64 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 other
investigators (cf. Steers & Spencer, 1977) and there is clearly scope for further
improvement. The low stability of the single overall job satisfaction item (0.27) may be
contrasted with the high value of 0.63 for the 15-item scale of total job satisfaction. All
the other coefficientsare acceptably high, relative to measures in the literature and to
the internal homogeneity of the scales. It should also be noted that the mean values
 142 P . W A R R , J . COOK A N D T . WALL

observed on the two occasions did not differ significantlyfrom each other, nor did the
standard deviations except for scales 1 and 3 which were slightly smaller (P<O.O5)
at time 2.

DISCUSSION

The eight measures described here have proved to be acceptable to blue-collar

workers and their psychometric properties appear to be good. The main purpose of
this 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 the
literature would of course be helpful. The intercorrelations between scales, with one
or two exceptions, are similar to those reported in North American research with
other measures. Previous studies, summarized in the Introduction, have suggested that
work involvement may be more closely associated with intrinsic than extrinsic satis-
faction, whereas the difference was not observed here (r=0.27 and 0.30 respectively).
One explanation arises from the alternation of intrinsic and extrinsic items in our job
satisfaction measure and the resulting strong intercorrelation between the two
subscales (r =0.72).
However, the correlations between work involvement and job satisfaction of
between 0.23 and 0.30 are typical of those in the literature (e.g. McKelvey & Sekaran,
1977; Rabinowitz & Hall, 1977; Saal, 1978). Work involvement is usually found to be
less 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 related
to job satisfaction (median r =0.33) and perceived intrinsicjob characteristics (r =0.36),
in line with evidence presented in the Introduction. The latter measure is strongly
related (0.73) to total job satisfaction and to intrinsicjob satisfaction (0.76), as expected.
Total job satisfaction is moderately associated with total life satisfaction (0.42) and
happiness (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 other
measures the life satisfaction scale used here did not make any reference to work; one
or more additional items to cover this feature may be appropriate in some other
studies of life satisfaction. Another extension of the present method would be to use
the scales in a self-completion mode; as described in the Method section, responses
were here recorded by interviewers. The scales are currently being employed in several
other 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 Robin
Maurice) examined mailed responses from 340 university graduates some 6 months
after leaving university. Their mean job satisfaction scores were higher than for the
blue-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 (n=200) and women
(n = 140) were extremely similar. Intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction were found to
intercorrelate 0.65 for the full sample, and total job satisfaction was associated with
satisfaction with personal life and satisfaction with life-style at the 0.36 and 0.28 level
respectively. Subscale 66 was not used in full, but the summed response to items 6.7
and 6.8 in Appendix A (about accomplishments and the future) correlated 0-61 with
total job satisfaction. A total life satisfaction score from items 6.1 to 6.10 was found to
 MEASUREMENT O F SOME WORK ATTITUDES 143

correlate 0.49 with totaljob 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 5 3 and 0.39 for totallife
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.

REFERENCES
ALDAO,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 AppliedPsychology, 53,456-459.
BRADBURN. N. M. (1969).The Structure of Psychological WeUbiW. Chicago: Aldine.
BRAYFIELD, A. H. & ROTHE,H.F.(1951). An index ofjob satisfaction. Journalof AppliedPsychology,
35,307-3 1 1.
CROSS,D. (1973).The Worker Opinion Survey: A measure of shopfloor satisfactions. Occupational
Psychology, 41,193-208.
DEPARTMENT OF EMPWYMENT (1978). How big is British business? DE Gazette. 86,3740.
DUNHAM, R. B. (1976).The measurement and dimensionality of job characteristics. Journalof 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.
GOLDBERO, D. P. (1972). The Detection of Psychiatric Illness by Questionnaire. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
HACKMAN, J. R. & LAWLER,E. E. (1971). Employe 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, I 59-1 70.
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. (1976~).Subjective measures of quality of life in Britain: 1971 to 1975. Social Trends, 7,
47-60.
HALL,J. (1976b). The quality of life. Unpublished research report.
HOPFQCK,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. Journalof Applied Psychology, 60,146149.
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. Journalof
Applied Psychology, 49,2433.
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 andPersonality, rev. ed. New York: Harper & Row.
MCKELVEY. B. & SEKARAN, U. (1977).Toward a career-based theory of job involvement: A study of
scientists and enginecrs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22,281-305.
NUNALLY. J. (1967).Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
144 P . W A R R , J . COOK A N D T. W A L L

OFFICEOF POPULATION CENSUSES AND SURVEYS (1970). Class~cation 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, 61,395-403.
PAYNE, R. L., FINEMAN, S. & WALL,T.D. (1976). Organizational climate and job satisfaction: A
conceptual synthesis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16,4542.
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.
UBINOWITZ, S . & HALL,D. T. (1977). Organizational research on job involvement. Psychological
Bulletin, 84, 265-288.
ROITER,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 ofjob satisfaction. PersonnelPsychology, 17,425430.
SIEGEL,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. & SZIIAGYI, A. E. (1976). Job characteristic relationships: Individual and structural
moderators. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 17,211-230.
SMITH,P. C., KENDALL,L. M. & H a m , 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. Journalof
Applied Psychology, 62,472479.
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., CLEW, C. W. &JACKSON,P. R. (1978). An evaluation of the job characteristics model.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 51, 183-196.
WARR.P. B. (1978~).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 ofPsychology, 69,111-121.
WARR.P.B. & LOVAIT,D. J. (1977). Retraining and other factors associated with job finding after
redundancy. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 50,6744.
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., WIJTINO,J. P. & SMITH,P. C. (1971). Development of the survey of
work values. Journal of Applied Psychology. 55,331-338.

Received 10 July I978

MRC Social and Applied Psychology U d t

Department of Psychology
University of Sheffield
Sheffield S10 2TN
 MEASUREMENT OF SOME W O R K ATTITUDES 145

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

W O R K A N D LIFE ATTITUDES SURVEY

Scale 1 : Work Involvement

Introduction. 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’) how
strongly you agree or disagree with each comment in turn? Remember that I’m asking about paid
jobs 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 somewhere
1.2. Having a job is very important to me
1.3. I should hate to be on the dole
1.4. I would soon get very bored if I had no work to do
1.5. The most important things that happen to me involve work
1.6. If unemployment benefit was really high I would still prefer to work

Scale 2: Intrinsic Job Motivation

Introduction. 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 same
scale 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 well
2.2. My opinion of myself goes down when I do this job badly
2.3. I take pride in doing my job as well as I can
2.4. I feel unhappy when my work is not up to my usual standard
2.5. I like to look back on the day’s work with a sense of a job well done
2.6. I try to think of ways of doing my job effectively.

Scale 5: Job Satisfaction

Introduction. 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 conditions
5.2. The freedom to choose your own method of working
5.3. Your fellow workers
5.4. The recognition you get for good work
5.5. Your immediate boss
5.6. The amount of responsibility you are given
5.7. Your rate of pay
5.8. Your opportunity to use your abilities
5.9. Industrial relations between management and workers in your firm
5.10. Your chance of promotion
146 P . W A R R , J . COOK A N D T. W A L L

5.I 1. The way your firm is managed

5.12. The attention paid to suggestions you make
5.13. Your hours of work
5.14. The amount of variety in your job
5.15. Your job security
5x. Now, taking everything into consideration, how do you feel about your job as a whole?

Scale 4: Perceived Intrinsic Job Characteristics

Introduction. 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, while
others 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 present
in 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 working
4.2. The amount of responsibility you are given
4.3. The recognition you get for good work
4.4. Being able to judge your work performance, right away, when actually doing the job
4.5. Your opportunity to use your abilities
4.6. The amount of variety in your job
4.7. Your chance of promotion
4.8. The attention paid to suggestions you make
4.9. The feeling of doing something which is not trivial, but really worthwhile
4.10. Doing a whole and complete piece of work

Scale 3: Higher Order Need Strength

Introduction. 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 work
in 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 show
me on this scale (SHOW CARD ‘Y’) how important each one is when you think about jobs you
would like to have.
3.1. Using your skills to the maximum
3.2. Achieving something that you personally value
3.3. The opportunity to make your own decisions
3.4. The opportunity to learn new things
3.5. Challenging work
3.6. Extending your range of abilities

Scale 8: Self-rated Anxiety

Introduction. 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 may
include it.
Most people these days have something to wony about, sometimes big things, sometimes quite
small things. Would you think back over the past few weeks and let me know to what extent you
may have been concerned or worried about various circumstances that affect your life. This is the
scale to be used for this section (SHOW CARD ‘Z’).
8.1. Not having enough money for day to day living
8.2. Your immediate family
8.3. Your health
8.4. Growing old
8.5. How things are going at work
8.6. Britain’s economic future
8x. In general, how worried or concerned do you feel these days?

Scale 6 : Lve Satisfaction

Introduction. Finally, will you consider some other aspects of your life at the present moment,
 MEASUREMENT OF SOME W O R K ATTITUDES 147

and indicate how satisfied you feel about each one in turn? Please use this scale again (SHOW
CARD ‘X’).
6.1. The house or flat that you live in
6.2. The local district that you live in
6.3. Your standard of living: the things you can buy and do
6.4. The way you spend your leisure time
6.5. Your present state of health
6.6. The education you have received
6.7. What you are accomplishing in life
6.8. What the future seems to hold for you
6.9. Your social life
6.10. Your family life
6.1 1. The present government
6.1 2. Freedom and democracy in Britain today
6.13. The state of law and order in Britain today
6.14. The moral standards and values in Britain today
6.15. Britain’s reputation in the world today
6x. Taking everything together, your life as a whole these days.

Scale 7: Happiness
And, as a final item.
7. Taking all things together, how would you say things were these days? Would you say you are:
3. Very happy
2. Fairly happy
1. Not too happy

RESPONSE CARDS

Card ‘ W ’(for Scales 1 and 2) Card ‘X ’ (for Scales 5 and 6)

1. No, I strongly disagree
2. No, I disagree quite a lot
3. No, I disagree just a little
4. I’m not sure about this
5. Yes, I agree just a little
6. Yes, I agree quite a lot
7. Yes, I strongly agree
1. I’m extremely dissatisfied
2. I’m very dissatisfied
3. I’m moderately dissatisfied
4. I’m not sure
5. I’m moderately satisfied
6. I’m very satisfied
7. I’m extremely satisfied

Card ‘ Y’ (for Scale 3 ) Curd ‘Z’ (for Scale 8)

1. Not at all important 1. Not at all concerned
2. Not particularly important 2. Just a little concernad
3. I’m not sure about its importance 3. Mildly concerned
4. Moderately important 4. Worry a little
5. Fairly important 5. Quite worried
6. Very important 6. Very worried
7. Extremely important 7. Extremely worried

Card ‘ M ’ (for Scale 4)

1. There’s none of that in my job
2. There’s just u Ilttle of that in my job
3. There’s a moderate amount of that in my job
4. There’s quite a lot of that in my job
5. There’s a great deal of that in my job.
148 P . W A R R , J . COOK A N D T. W A L L

APPENDIX B
Deciles, means and standard deviations for all scales and subscales for the combined sample
(n=590) (except for scale 4 (n=390) and scale 6 (n=200); see text). Respondents were
blue-collar male employees in manufacturing industry.

1 2 3 4 6 68 5b
Perceived
Higher intrinsic Total Intrinsic Extrinsic
Work Intrinsic order job job job job
involve- job need character- satis- satis- satis-
ment motivation strength istics faction faction faction
Decile 1 24.0 28.5 26.6 20.8 47.6 20.3 26.8
2 27.8 32.3 31 .O 24.6 56.8 26-2 30.4
3 29.9 34.2 33.0 27.5 63.6 28.1 33.6
4 31.8 35.6 34-7 29.8 68.0 31 *4 36.2
5 33.3 37.0 35.8 32-2 71 *5 33.2 38.2
6 35.0 38.1 37.0 35.0 75-6 34.9 40.3
7 36.2 39.4 38.4 37.3 78.5 37-2 42.4
8 37.3 40-8 39.8 40.1 83.5 39.2 44.7
9 39.1 41 -4 41 a3 43.5 89.0 42.6 48.0
10 42.0 42.0 42.0 51.0 102.0 49.0 56.0
Mean 32.83 36.26 35.27 32.74 70.53 32.61 37.99
SD 5.94 5.51 5.80 8.39 15.42 8-26 8.36

5c 5d 5e 5x 6 68
Working Satisfaction
Job itself conditions Employee Overall Total with
intrinsic extrinsic relations job life personal
satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction life
Decile 1 13.0 18.6 12-4 2.66 53.3 16.4
2 15.9 21 *6 16.7 4.16 57.1 18.3
3 17.7 23.2 20.0 4.48 62.0 19.8
4 19.2 24.6 23.0 4.80 64-4 20.7
5 20.6 26.8 24.7 6.1 1 67.0 21 *5
6 21 -8 27.2 26.7 6-40 70.4 22.2
7 23.0 28.5 28.5 5.70 72.9 22.9
8 23.9 29.7 30.6 6.02 76.0 23.9
9 26.7 31 *2 34.2 6.50 81 .O 24.9
10 28.0 36.0 42.0 7.00 93.0 28.0
Mean 20.32 25.89 24.40 5-33 67.09 21 *51
SD 4.90 4.84 7.95 1.44 11.40 3.48

66 6c 6x 8 Ex
Satisfaction
with Satisfaction Overall Overall
standards and with life Self-rated self-rated
achievement life style satisfaction anxiety anxiety
Decile 1 14.7 14.8 2.61 9.0 1 *oo
2 18.3 16.9 4.1 1 11-6 1.25
3 21 a 6 18.0 4.32 13.8 1.69
4 24-2 19.1 4.53 15.7 2.14
5 25.6 20.1 4.75 17.4 2.62
6 27.2 21.2 4.94 19.1 3.10
7 28.8 22.1 5-27 21.4 3.58
8 30.8 23.0 5.64 24.2 4.1 2
9 33.7 23.9 6.04 27.8 5.11
10 42.0 28.0 7.00 42.0 7.00
Mean 25.44 20.22 5.13 18.61 3.37
SD 7.12 3.86 1.28 7.18 1.59