The impact of expectations and values on job attitudes

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIORAND HUMAN PERFORMANCE31, 394--417 (1983)

The Impact of Expectations and Values on Job Attitudes JEFFREY H. GREENHAUS Drexel University C L A U D E N E SEIDEL

East Orange (NJ) General Hospital AND M I C H A E L MARINIS

Sherwin Williams, Inc. Two studies (a longitudinal field survey and a laboratory simulation) were designed to test the effects of realistic expectations and value attainment on job-related attitudes and perceptions. In each study, value attainment (the match between job values and job experiences) accounted for considerably more variance in facet satisfaction than did realistic expectations. In the simulation, value attainment and realistic expectations interacted to predict the level of trust toward the organization. In addition, there was some evidence that realistic expectations may dampen the importance of a facet that is unattained on the job. The implications of these findings for the recruitment process were discussed.

Despite mixed evidence on their usefulness in reducing voluntary turnover, realistic job previews (RJPs) are considered a valuable part of an organization's recruitment practices (Porter & Steers, 1973; Wanous, 1980). One of the most frequently cited reasons for the success of RIPs involves the concept of "met expectations." RJPs presumably deflate initial job expectations to more realistic levels; realistic expectations, by Study 1 was based on the second author's doctoral dissertation at Stevens Institute of Technology under the direction of the first author, and the contributions of committee members Joseph B. Kruskal and H. Karl Springob are appreciated. Study 2 was based on the third author's master's thesis at Stevens under the direction of the first author. An abbreviated version of Study 1 was presented at the 1982 annual meeting of the Eastern Academy of Management, Baltimore, Maryland. The authors gratefully acknowledge the constructive comments of Brian L. Hawkins, Daniel R. Ilgen, Richard R. Reilly, John P. Wanous, and two anonymous reviewers on earlier drafts of this manuscript. Correspondence should be sent to Jeffrey H. Greenhaus, Department of Management and Organizational Sciences, College of Business and Administration, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104. 394 0030-5073/83 $3.00 Copyright© 1983by AcademicPress, Inc.

EXPECTATIONS

395

definition, are likely to be met on the job; met expectations produce job satisfaction; and high levels of job satisfaction reduce the tendency to withdraw from an organization. A job expectation usually refers to a person's belief that he or she will obtain an outcome (or a specific level of an outcome) on a particular job. Job expectations are realistic to the extent that they are subsequently confirmed or met on the job. Therefore, realistic expectations and met expectations are essentially equivalent concepts. The met expectations hypothesis, in its purest form, proposes that job experiences that confirm expectations tend to be satisfying, whereas job experiences that deviate from expectations produce dissatisfaction. Although the met expectations hypothesis appears to be widely accepted, it has not gone unchallenged (Dugoni & Ilgen, 1981; Reilly, Brown, Blood, & Malatesta, 1981; Ilgen & Dugoni, Note 1). In particular, Locke (1969, 1976) has distinguished expectations (beliefs) from values (what a person desires or wants in a job). Locke proposes that unrealistic or unmet expectations produce surprise. Whether the surprise is pleasant or unpleasant, whether it produces satisfaction or dissatisfaction, depends on whether the unmet expectation is in a direction that one values or is in a direction that one disvalues. Therefore, it is the attainment of an employee's values, not necessarily the confirmation of expectations, that produces job satisfaction (Locke, 1976). The purpose of the present research was to study the effects of realistic expectations and value attainment on several job-related attitudes and perceptions. This paper presents the results of two studies. The first, a field survey, was designed to test the impact of realistic expectations and value attainment on job satisfaction. The second study, a laboratory simulation, investigated the consequences of realistic expectations and value attainment on satisfaction, cognitive adaptation, and attitudes toward the organization. STUDY 1

Despite the apparent popularity of the met expectations hypothesis, relatively few studies have tested the relationship between met expectations and job satisfaction. In their study of retail employees, Dugoni and Ilgen (1981) found no relationship between expectations and satisfaction when the effects of perceived job experiences were held constant. Horner, Mobley, and Meglino (Note 2) reported negative relationships between unmet expectations and satisfaction among Marine recruits. However, the authors provided no evidence that unmet expectations explained a significant portion of the variance in satisfaction over and above the variance explained by job experiences. Even the research linking an RJP to job satisfaction (Youngberg, 1963) cannot be taken as a validation of the met expectations hypothesis since it

396

GREENHAUS~ SEIDEL, AND MARINIS

was not determined that the RJP produced realistic expectations. In short, there is little evidence supporting the relationship between met expectations and job satisfaction. On the other hand, value attainment (or the closely related concept of " n e e d " fulfillment) has been consistently associated with job satisfaction (Locke, 1976; Lofquist & Dawis, 1969; Schaffer, 1953; Vroom, 1964). It is generally assumed that a person brings a relatively fixed set of values to a job situation. The more closely the person's job experiences meet these values the higher the level of job satisfaction. In perhaps the only study designed to test the rival explanations of satisfaction (value attainment and met expectations), Locke (1967) found that successful performance on a task (presumably a valued outcome) produced satisfaction even when performance deviated from expectations; that is, even when performance expectations were not confirmed. Locke (1967) concluded that met expectations have a much weaker effect on satisfaction than does value attainment. Unfortunately, Locke did not measure value attainment directly but rather assumed (rightly perhaps) that task success is positively valued and task failure is disvalued. In line with Locke's reasoning, it is predicted (Hypothesis 1) that value attainment explains a greater portion of the variance in job satisfaction than do realistic expectations. However, we feel that there are boundary conditions that determine when realistic expectations have an impact on job satisfaction. Specifically, it is predicted (Hypothesis 2) that the positive relationship between realistic expectations and job satisfaction is stronger for employees whose job values are not attained than for employees whose values are attained on the job. A realistic forewarning that job values will not be attained may enable a,person to prepare for the disappointment and engage in effective coping (Ilgen & Seely, 1974; Locke, 1976; Wanous, 1977, 1980). Realistic expectations, in other words, may activate effective coping behavior and produce greater satisfaction than if the lack of value attainment had come as a surprise. However, employees whose values are subsequently attained on a job should be relatively satisfied with the job regardless of whether they had accurately (realistically) expected that their values would be attained. When an employee's values are attained on a job, preparation and coping are not necessary and, therefore, realistic expectations should not have a strong impact on job satisfaction. METHOD

Overview of Procedure Participants in the study were 125 graduates of an eastern technological college. Data were collected at two points in time. The first questionnaire,

EXPECTATIONS

397

which included measures of job expectations, was administered to the participants in April 1980, when they were college seniors. Students who had accepted a job at that point were asked to complete the questionnaire as soon as possible and to indicate their anticipated date of employment. Students who had not yet accepted a job were requested to keep the questionnaire and complete it immediately after they had accepted a job and before they began work. The first questionnaire was distributed to 258 seniors in sections of a required course. After several follow-up attempts, 154 students returned completed questionnaires. The second questionnaire included measures of job experiences, value attainment, and job facet satisfaction. It was mailed to the 154 persons who completed the first questionnaire after they had been on their jobs for approximately 3 months. Kramer (1974) observed that most of the new graduates in her sample were in the height of"reality shock" 2 - 3 months after they had begun to work. After several followups, 125 persons returned completed questionnaires. Research Instruments

Prior research has assessed realistic or met expectations in three ways: (a) a cross-sectional comparison of an outsider's perception of an organization with the perceptions of the organization by a group of insiders (Wanous, 1976); (b) an employee's retrospective assessment of initial expectations (Dunnette, Arvey, &Banas, 1973; Feldman, 1976); and (c) a longitudinal comparison of an outsider's (or new employee's)job expectations with his or her own subsequent job experiences (Dugoni & Ilgen, 1981; Homer et al., Note 2). A cross-sectional approach was ruled out for the present study because ultimately the realism of a person's expectations depends on his or her own unique job experiences. It was also decided to avoid the potential biases of a retrospective account of job expectations. Instead, a longitudinal design was used to compare an outsider's expectations with his or her subsequent job experiences. In order to avoid the problems associated with the use of discrepancy scores (Cronbach & Furby, 1970); Wall & Payne, 1973), a probability estimation procedure was used to assess the similarity between job expectations and subsequent job experiences. Because of the novelty of this procedure, a detailed description of the technique is presented below. Job expectations. On the first questionnaire, students indicated their expectations regarding 14 different outcomes on their newly accepted jobs. The 14 items represented three job facets: (a) task characteristics (task identity, variety, autonomy, task importance, and interesting work); (b) interpersonal relationships (guidelines from boss, feedback from boss, warmth of relationships among peers, and cooperation among peers); and

398

GREENHAUS, SEIDEL~ AND MARINIS

(c) company practices (fairness to employees, encouragement of free speech, ethical behavior, communication with employees, and understanding of employees' problems). These outcomes were chosen because new recruits may hold unrealistic expectations in these areas. For example, job candidates may expect more variety, autonomy, and interesting work than they ultimately experience on the job (Dunnette et al., 1973; Schein, 1978). In addition, as Schein (1978) has observed, recruits frequently do not realize the importance of the social-yinterpersonal system (the "human organization") in which their tasks are embedded, both in the immediate work group and in the organization as a whole. It should be noted that concrete outcomes (e.g., pay, benefits) were excluded from this study because their concreteness tends to reduce individual differences in the realism of expectations (Wanous, 1976, 1977). Each expectation item (e.g., "Management will understand employees' problems") was a declarative statement written in the future tense. The response categories were seven frequencies of occurrence: 7, always; 6, most of the time; 5, generally; 4, as often as not; 3, now and then; 2, usually not; and 1, never. 1 Students indicated the likelihood (chances out of 10) that they would experience each frequency of an outcome on their job. For example, a student might expect that there is 1 chance in 10 that management will always understand employees' problems (frequency Level 7); 8 chances in 10 that management will understand employees' problems most o f the time (Level 6); and 1 chance in 10 that management will understand employees' problems generally (Level 5). For each item, students' probability estimates were required to sum to 10. All respondents were able to complete this scale successfully. In order to reduce the possibility of response sets, each facet had approximately equal numbers of positively and negatively worded items. Furthermore, items were interspersed throughout the scale by facet and direction of wording. Job experiences. On the second questionnaire, participants were presented with the same 14 outcomes that were used to assess expectations. This time, however, the statements were worded in the present tense (e.g., "Management understands employees' problems") and respondents simply checked, on a 7-point scale, how frequently each outcome Based on a procedure introduced by Hakel (1968), a pilot group of 133 undergraduate students was presented with a list of 21 frequency terms and was instructed to rate the frequency of occurrence (from 0-100) that each term implied. The seven frequency terms used in the present study were chosen because they were perceived by the pilot group to be approximately equidistant frequency intervals.

EXPECTATIONS

399

occurred. The seven frequency categories used to assess job experiences were identical to the frequencies used to measure expectations. An index o f realistic expectations. The realism of job expectations was operationally defined as the accuracy with which the student predicted his or her subsequent job experiences; this is, the match between expectations and experiences. For each of the 14 outcomes, we 1. Identified the person's job experience frequency level (from 1 to 7); 2. Identified the person's prior probability estimates for the experienced frequency level and for the two adjacent levels (one level above and one level below the experienced level); and 3. Summed the probability estimates for the three frequency levels (the experienced level and the two adjacent levels) to produce a realism score for that outcome. For example, if a person experienced that "Management understands employees' problems now and then" (Level 3), the person's probability estimates for frequency Levels 2, 3, and 4 for that item were summed. For each outcome, therefore, realism could range from 0 to 10. The higher the realism score, the more accurately the person had predicted the frequency with which that outcome would occur on the job. Realism scores within a facet were averaged to produce three realism subscores: task; interpersonal; and company practices. The probability estimates for the actual experienced level and the two adjacent levels were summed because it was felt that the three frequency levels, taken together, represented a "band of experience" that portrayed reality more thoroughly than simply the one frequency level that was checked on the experience item. In the rare instance where a person's experience level was at the end point of the scale (1 or 7), only the experienced level and the one adjacent level were used to compute the realism score. Although this procedure could admittedly distort the realism data somewhat for those persons with extreme job experience scores, it was dictated by the belief that reality was best captured by a band of experiences. Value attainment. The same 14 outcomes were used to assess the attainment of job values. Respondents compared the frequency with which they experienced each outcome to the frequency they would like to have experienced. Respondents indicated, for example, whether "Management understands employees' problems": (7) very much more often; (6) much more often; (5) a little more often; (4) as often as; (3) a little less often; (2) much less often; or (1) very much less often than they would have liked. Respondents who indicated that an outcome occurred very much less often or very much more often than desired received an attainment score

400

GREENHAUS, SEIDEL, AND MARINIS

o f 1; those who felt that the outcome occurred much less often or much more often than desired received a score o f 2; those who indicated that the outcome occurred a little less often or a little more often than desired received a score of 3; and those who believed that the outcome occurred as often as desired received a score of 4. Subjective assessments of discrepancies were suggested as an alternative to the use of difference scores (Wall & Payne, 1973). Value attainment scores for each outcome within a facet were averaged to produce three subscores. Job facet satisfaction. The same 14 outcomes were used to assess facet satisfaction. For each item (e.g., " T h e extent to which management understands employees' p r o b l e m s " ) , respondents indicated their level of satisfaction on a 7-point scale from extremely satisfied to extremely dissatisfied. Satisfaction scores for each outcome within a facet were averaged to produce three subscores. Scale validation. Since the scales used to measure expectations, experiences, value attainment, and facet satisfaction were developed expressly for this study, validation data based on prior research is not available. Evidence for the validity o f the measures in the current study can come from a combination of two sources: the process used to develop the scales; and data derived from the use o f the scales. The c o m m o n element in all o f the scales was the identical set of 14 job outcomes. Although it is not claimed that the 14 outcomes are exhaustive, they appear to tap significant elements of a n e w c o m e r ' s work experience. In support of this claim, we found a strong correlation (r = .67, p < .01) between the average satisfaction with the 14 outcomes and scores on a 7-item brief form o f the B r a y f i e l d - R o t h e overall job satisfaction scale. In addition, the seven frequency intervals used to measure expectations and experiences were based on Hakel's (1968) methodology regarding the interpretation of frequency terms as well as our own pilot data. The use o f frequency intervals that are perceived to be approximately equidistant seems to be a more precise way to assess expected and experienced outcomes than the methods used in prior research. Relationships between realistic expectations and other relevant variables can also provide support for the validity o f the expectations and experiences scales. As part o f the present study, data were collected on respondents' prior summer and parttime work activities and on their experiences during recruitment with the organization they ultimately joined. It was found that realistic expectations regarding task characteristics were positively related (all p < .05) to the receipt of a c o m p a n y booklet during recruiting (r = . 18); amount o f negative information presented in the booklet (r = .17); number of different topics the candidate discussed with the recruiter (r = . 17); and the similarity o f prior job experiences to their current job duties (r = .16). Realistic expectations regarding c o m p a n y practices were positively re-

EXPECTATIONS

401

lated to the number of topics discussed with the prospective boss during recruiting (r = . 17, p < .05) and the number of employees with whom the candidate discussed the company during recruiting (r = .16, p < .05). Although these correlations are low, they are consistent with the literature on the development of realistic expectations (Hall, 1976).

Sample The sample consisted of 107 males and 18 females. Eighty-eight percent of the respondents were engineering majors, 8% majored in science, and 4% specialized in systems management. There was a very close correspondence between the distribution of majors in the final sample and the distribution of the entire senior class. Furthermore, there were no differences in job expectations between those students who returned only the first questionnaire and those who returned both questionnaires. The average age of the students at the time of completing the first questionnaire was 21.8 years. Ninety-nine percent of the respondents returned the second questionnaire within 5 months after they began work (M = 3.7 months; range = 2 - 6 months).

Data Analysis Zero-order and partial correlations were used to determine whether satisfaction was more strongly related to value attainment than to realistic expectations (Hypothesis 1). Moderated multiple regression analysis (Zedeck, 1971) was used to test Hypothesis 2. Satisfaction was first regressed on value attainment and realistic expectations. Then the value attainment × realistic expectations product term was entered to determine whether the interaction explained a significant portion of the variance in satisfaction. For each hypothesis, data were analyzed separately for the three facets under investigation: task; interpersonal; and company. Results Means and intercorrelations among the major variables in the study are presented in Table 1. Expectations were high and perceived job experiences were favorable. Realism (which could range from 0 to 10) and value attainment (which could range from 1 to 4) were also quite high. There were also positive correlations among the variables within each facet; that is, expectations, experiences, and value attainment were all interrelated. Note that value attainment and realism, the two variables hypothesized to predict satisfaction, were positively intercorrelated. In addition, the internal consistency (alpha) reliability coefficients of some of the scales were relatively low. Hypothesis 1.predicted that value attainment would account for more of the variance in satisfaction than would realistic expectations. As Table 2

SD

Expectations ~ Job experiences Realistic expectations Value attainment Facet satisfaction M

38 (86)

5.4 0.8

5.4 0.8

2

(63)

1

7.3 1.8

46 48 (50)

3

Task

3.1 0.6

13 61 35 (78)

4

15 79 48 73 (83) 5.3 1.1

5

5.6 0.6

(55)

1

5.4 0.8

29 (51)

2

7.4 1.8

27 63 (51)

3

4

3.3 0.4

12 63 42 (43)

Interpersonal

22 74 45 74 (68) 5.4 1.0

5

5.6 0.7

(64)

1

5.5 0.8

30 (70)

2

7.8 1.9

50 52 (47)

3

Company

3.3 0.5

20 72 38 (62)

4

23 80 40 76 (82) 5.2 1.I

5

Note. Internal consistency (alpha) reliability estimates are in parentheses; decimals omitted from correlations; N = 125; r ~ . 17, p < .05; r >~ .23, p < .01. For descriptive purposes, expectation items were rescaled to a 7-point scale by: (1) multiplying the value o f each frequency level ( 1 - 7 ) by its respective probability; (2) summing the products across frequency levels; and (3) dividing the total by 10.

I. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Variables

TABLE 1

INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG VARIABLES IN STUDY 1

Z

Z

r~

>

4~

.53 .55 ,58

Task Interpersonal relations C o m p a n y practices

.46 ,46 .52

r 2 partial .23 .20 ,16

r2 .12 .05 .04

r ~ partial

Realistic expectations t'

.59 ,58 ,59

R ~ without interaction

.61~ .58 ,59

R ~ with interaction

Note. N = 125; all p r o d u c t - m o m e n t correlations are significant at .01 level; all partial con'elations are significant at .01 level except for the partial correlation between realistic expectations and satisfaction with c o m p a n y practices (p < .05). Tabled r 2 is squared p r o d u c t - m o m e n t correlation between value attainment and facet satisfaction; r 2 partial is squared partial correlation between value attainment and facet satisfaction holding realistic expectations constant. b Tabled r 2 is squared p r o d u c t - m o m e n t correlation between realistic expectations and facet satisfaction; r 2 partiM is squared partial correlation between realistic expectations and facet satisfaction holding value attainment constant. ~ Increment in R 2 significant at .01 level.

r2

Job facet satisfaction

Value attainment"

TABLE 2 CORRELATES OF JOB FACET SA'I-ISFACTIONIN ~'I'UDY 1

4~

~q >

404

GREENHAUS, SEIDEL, AND MARINIS

indicates, value attainment and realistic expectations were both positively related to job facet satisfaction. H o w e v e r , for each o f the three facets, the correlation between value attainment and satisfaction was significantly greater than the correlation between realistic expectations and satisfaction (for task, t(122) -- 3.78, p < .01; for interpersonal, t(122) = 4.59, p < .01; for company, t(122) = 6.12, p < .01). Since value attainment and realistic expectations were intercorrelated, partial correlations were calculated between each o f these two variables and facet satisfaction holding the other variable constant. Although realistic expectations were still significantly related to satisfaction, they explained considerably less of the variance in satisfaction ( 4 - 1 2 % ) than did value attainment (46-52%). The results o f the regression analyses are also presented in Table 2. It can be seen that the inclusion of the interaction term resulted in a small (2%) but significant increment in R 2 predicting task satisfaction. The sample was then split at its median on task-related value attainment. As predicted, the correlation between realistic expectations and satisfaction was significantly (p < .05) stronger for employees whose value attainment was relatively low (r = .55, n = 68, p < .01) than for employees whose value attainment was relatively high (r = .20, n = 57, ns).

Discussion Value attainment explained a substantially greater portion of the variance in satisfaction than realistic expectations. The impact o f realism on satisfaction seems to depend on the specific job facet under consideration and the extent to which employees' values regarding that facet have been attained on the job. Realistic expectations regarding the task appear to have an effect on task satisfaction for recruits whose subsequent tasks are relatively inconsistent with their values. On the other hand, realistic expectations have relatively little impact on task satisfaction when recruits' task-related values are ultimately attained on the job. It is possible, as suggested earlier, that realistic expectations can promote satisfaction only when a subsequent job situation is sufficiently aversive to require some form of preparation and coping. The research design, however, was limited in several respects. First, the two predictors of satisfaction, value attainment and realistic expectations, were intercorrelated, thereby providing unstable estimates o f each variable's independent contribution to satisfaction. Correlational studies also make it impossible to draw legitimate causal inferences. In addition, since value attainment and facet satisfaction were measured on the same questionnaire, it is possible that the strong value attainment-satisfaction correlations were due to the use of a c o m m o n method and time frame. In

EXPECTATIONS

405

short, the methodology posed several threats to the internal validity of the study. In addition, Study 1 did not address the psychological processes by which values and expectations influence satisfaction. A second study was designed to overcome these limitations. STUDY 2

The second study involved manipulations of realistic expectations and value attainment. Since it would have been impossible to manipulate both of these variables in a field setting, a partial stimulation of the organizational entry process was developed. The first aim of the study (Hypothesis 3) was to reevaluate the prediction that value attainment and realistic expectations interact to influence facet satisfaction. Recall that the interaction hypothesis is based on the notion that realistic expectations regarding an aversive event (lack of value attainment) enable a person to cope with future disappointment. However, neither Dugoni and Ilgen (1981) nor Horner et al. (Note 2) obtained a positive relationship between the presentation of an RJP and employees' selfreported ability to handle difficult job situations. It is possible, however, that realistic expectations provide time for a person to erect cognitive defenses (Locke, 1976). It has been suggested that "One commonly used coping mechanism is to convince oneself that the value being sought is really not as important as one thought it was originally" (Locke, 1976, p. 1303). This idea, which is consistent with cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957), has never, to our knowledge, been tested in the context of job expectations. Therefore, it is predicted (Hypothesis 4) that value attainment and realistic expectations interact to predict the importance of a job facet. When a valued level of a job facet is ultimately unattained, persons who had realistically expected not to attain their valued level will place less importance on the facet than those who had unrealistically expected to attain their valued level; that is, a negative relationship between realism and facet importance. However, when a valued level of a facet is attained, there is no need to reduce the importance of the facet and, therefore, we predict no relationship between realism and facet importance in this situation. Realistic expectations may also affect a recruit's global perception of an organization. As Dugoni and Ilgen (1981) have suggested, "RJPs may convey indirectly a message of openness and honesty to the recipient" (p. 580). It seems reasonable that perceptions of an open and honest recruiting process might produce high levels of trust toward the organization. Although Dugoni and Ilgen (198l) and Horner e t al. (Note 2) found no effect on RJPs on perceptions of trust, neither study took into account the extent to which recruits' values were attained on the job. Although no

406

GREENHAUS, SEIDEL, AND MARINIS

h y p o t h e s i s is a d v a n c e d in t h e p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h , it w a s d e c i d e d to e x p l o r e the e f f e c t s o f v a l u e a t t a i n m e n t a n d r e a l i s t i c e x p e c t a t i o n s o n p e r c e p t i o n s o f t r u s t t o w a r d the o r g a n i z a t i o n .

Method

Overview In o r d e r to s i m u l a t e a p o r t i o n o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l e n t r y p r o c e s s , college s t u d e n t s a s s u m e d t h e r o l e o f P a t N o o n a n (all n a m e s w e r e gender-neutral), a college senior going through the recruiting process. During the c o u r s e o f t h e s i m u l a t i o n , N o o n a n ' s v a l u e s , e x p e c t a t i o n s , a n d j o b experiences regarding a particular job facet were manipulated. Checks on t h e m a n i p u l a t i o n s w e r e i n s e r t e d at s e v e r a l p o i n t s a n d at t h e e n d o f t h e simulation, job-related perceptions and attitudes were assessed.

Role Description E a c h p a r t i c i p a n t r e c e i v e d a 10-page b o o k l e t t h a t c o n t a i n e d t h e e n t i r e s i m u l a t i o n . P a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e a s k e d to i m a g i n e t h e m s e l v e s as P a t N o o n a n a n d to a n s w e r all q u e s t i o n s as t h e y t h o u g h t N o o n a n w o u l d a n s w e r t h e m . T h e f o l l o w i n g r o l e d e s c r i p t i o n w a s p r o v i d e d to e a c h p a r t i c i p a n t : You are Pat Noonan, a 22-year-old college senior. You are single and entered college right out of high school. You have been going to school full-time with temporary summer jobs for the past four years. This is an exciting time for you because you are planning to enter your first permanent job in your chosen occupation. There are several things that are important to you as an individual. One is that you earn enough money to cover daily living expenses and to begin a savings account. To do this, you would need to earn at least $16,000 in your first year. You would also prefer a job which does not require a significant amount of paperwork because that type of work always bores you. Another consideration is that you are trying to start a career. You would like a job that offers the opportunity to be promoted within a couple of years. Of course, you wouldn't want your plans to be suddenly interrupted so your job should offer security against being terminated suddenly.

Manipulation o f Variables It w o u l d h a v e b e e n e x t r e m e l y c u m b e r s o m e to m a n i p u l a t e N o o n a n ' s values, expectations, and job experiences regarding a number of job facets simultaneously. Therefore, only one facet was manipulated for e a c h p a r t i c i p a n t , either t h e a m o u n t o f j o b - r e l a t e d t r a v e l o r t h e c l o s e n e s s o f s u p e r v i s i o n . T r a v e l w a s c h o s e n p r i m a r i l y b e c a u s e it is r e a d i l y a m e n a ble to c r e d i b l e m a n i p u l a t i o n s , a n d c l o s e n e s s o f s u p e r v i s i o n w a s c h o s e n b e c a u s e it h a s b e e n i d e n t i f i e d as a f r e q u e n t s o u r c e o f d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n ( V r o o m , 1964).

EXPECTATIONS

407

Therefore, the role descriptions for approximately half of the participants (the "travel group") indicated that: THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF A JOB FOR YOU IS THE AMOUNT OF TRAVEL INVOLVED. The role descriptions for the other half of the participants (the "supervision group") indicated that: THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF A JOB FOR YOU IS THE AMOUNT OF SUPERVISION YOU RECEIVE. It should be stressed that the travel group received no information about supervision and the supervision group received no information about travel. There were two levels (low and high) for each of the three independent variables: values, expectations, and job experiences. The manipulated levels refer to the amount of travel (or supervision) that Noonan valued, expected, and experienced on the job. Although a verbatim description of the manipulations is provided in Table 3, a summary is presented below. Job values. The manipulation of job values was presented directly after the common role description. Members of the travel group were informed either that Noonan wanted a job with a great deal of travel (high value) or that Noonan wanted a job with relatively little travel (low value). Members of the supervision group were informed either that Noonan wanted a great deal of supervision (high value) or that Noonan wanted very little direct supervision (low value). Job expectations. All participants received a copy of a job offer made to Noonan from the Gerder Company. Noonan decides to accept the offer and to meet with Lee Jordan, the prospective boss. A description of this meeting reveals that Noonan's starting salary will be $16,120, that advancement opportunities and job security will be quite favorable, and that a moderate amount of detailed paperwork will be required. In addition, members of the travel group were informed either that Noonan will be traveling a great deal on the job (high expectation) or that Noonan will be traveling relatively infrequently (low expectation). Members of the supervision group were informed either that Noonan will receive frequent supervision (high expectation) or that Noonan will receive infrequent supervision (low expectation). Job experiences. All participants received a description of Noonan's work experiences after 6 months of employment. They were informed that Noonan was earning $16,120 annually, was rated as pro motable, had no worries about security on the job, and that the job entailed a moderate amount of paperwork. In addition, members of the travel group were informed either that Noonan is traveling a great deal (high job experience) or that Noonan is traveling infrequently (low job experience). Members of the supervision group were informed either that Noonan is supervised frequently (high job experience) or that Noonan is supervised infrequently (low job experience).

Supervision

Job experience Travel

Supervision

Expectation Travel

Supervision

Value Travel

Independent Variable

" R e g a r d i n g your c o n c e r n for travel, it t u r n s out that y o u are spending approximately 85% o f y o u r time traveling." " R e g a r d i n g your c o n c e r n for supervision, it t u r n s o u t that y o u m e e t very, frequently with y o u r s u p e r v i s o r and you work very closely t o g e t h e r . "

" I n response to y o u r question about travel, y o n were told that y o u will be traveling about 8 0 - 9 0 % o f the t i m e . " " I n response to y o u r question about supervision, y o u were told that y o u will m e e t frequently and work very closely with y o u r s u p e r v i s o r . "

" Y o u want a j o b that offers the opportunity for a significant a m o u n t o f travel ( 8 0 - 9 0 % ) . T h i s is so i m p o r t a n t b e c a u s e it helps to give the j o b s o m e v a r i e t y . " " Y o u want a job in w h i c h y o u receive a good deal o f supervision. This is very important b e c a u s e y o u learn best w h e n you work closely with a s u p e r v i s o r . "

High

" R e g a r d i n g y o u r c o n c e r n for travel, it turns o u t that y o u are spending approximately 15% o f y o u r time traveling." " R e g a r d i n g y o u r c o n c e r n for supervision, it t u r n s o u t that y o u m e e t very infrequently with y o u r s u p e r v i s o r and work almost entirely on y o u r o w n . "

" I n r e s p o n s e to y o u r q u e s t i o n a b o u t travel, y o u were told that y o u will be traveling about 1 0 - 2 0 % o f the t i m e . " " I n r e s p o n s e to y o u r q u e s t i o n about supervision, y o u were told that y o u will be working on y o u r o w n m o s t o f the time and will m e e t infrequently with y o u r s u p e r v i s o r . "

" Y o u w a n t a j o b that requires relatively little travel ( 1 0 20%). This is so i m p o r t a n t b e c a u s e e x c e s s i v e travel m a k e s a j o b grueling." " Y o u w a n t a j o b in w h i c h y o u receive very little supervision. This is very i m p o r t a n t b e c a u s e it gives y o u a s e n s e of accomplishment."

Low

TABLE 3 MANIPULATIONS OF VALUES, EXPECTATIONS, AND JOB EXPERIENCES IN STUDY 2

~7

Z

O0

EXPECTATIONS

409

Summary. The manipulations of values, expectations, and job experiences enabled us to classify participants along two dimensions: 1. Value attainment (high value-high experience or low value-low experience) versus value discrepancy (high value-low experience or low value-high experience); and 2. Realistic expectation (high expectation-high experience or low expectation-low experience) versus unrealistic expectation (high expectation-low experience or low expectation-high experience). Although travel (or supervision) was the only facet that was manipulated, each participant was provided with identical information on salary, paperwork, promotion opportunity, and job security. The inclusion of these other job elements was designed to enhance the credibility of the simulation. For all participants, the levels of salary, promotion opportunity, and job security that were experienced on the job were all valued and expected. The amount of paperwork experienced on the job was disvalued but expected. Measures Manipulation checks. Immediately after the presentation of the role description, participants indicated what they, Pat Noonan, valued on a job. The valued amount of pay, paperwork, promotion opportunity, job security, and travel (or supervision) was rated on separate 7-point scales from very little to a great deal. In addition, participants rated the importance of each facet on a 7-point scale from not at all important to extremely important. Following Noonan's job acceptance meeting with Lee Jordan, participants indicated what Noonan expected to find on the job. With the exception of starting salary (where a dollar figure was entered), expectations regarding travel (or supervision), paperwork, promotion opportunity, and security were rated on 7-point scales from very little to a great deal. Direct perceptions of value attainment and realistic expectations were also assessed. At the conclusion of the simulation, participants were asked "Is the amount of travel (or supervision) in your job in line with what you wanted when you decided to join the Gerder Company?" Ratings were made on a 7-point scale from not at all in line to exactly in line. Participants were also asked "Is the amount of travel (or supervision) in your job in line with what you expected when you decided to join the Gerder Company?" Ratings were again made on a 7-point scale from not at all in line to exactly in line. Dependent variables. In addition to assessing facet importance at the beginning of the simulation as a manipulation check, importance was also measured at the completion of the simulation. On the last page of the booklet, participants rated how important Pat Noonan now considered

410

GREENHAUS, SEIDEL, AND MARINIS

travel (or supervision), salary, paperwork, promotion opportunity, and job security. Ratings were made on 7-point scales from not at all important to extremely important. Participants were also asked to imagine that Pat Noonan was talking to a long-time friend who is thinking of taking a similar job with the Gerder Company. In response to several questions posed by the friend, participants rated how satisfied Noonan was with the pay, paperwork, promotion opportunity, security, and travel (or supervision). They also indicated how much Noonan now trusted the Gerder Company. Ratings of facet satisfaction and trust were made on 7-point scales from not at all to very much.

Sample and Procedure Since two levels of three independent variables were manipulated, there were eight versions of the simulation booklet for travel and eight versions for supervision. Copies of the 16 versions of the booklet were randomly interspersed and were distributed to 227 students in eight management classes at three universities. Students completed the anonymous simulation booklets in class and then participated in a brief discussion of the study. Travel booklets were completed by 113 students and supervision booklets were completed by 114 students. All of the students were undergraduates (98% were juniors or seniors) and their average age was 21.4 years. All but two students had chosen a major, the most popular of which were management (33%), marketing (20%), human resources (13%), and accounting (10%). Fifty-seven percent of the participants were male. Subsequent analyses revealed that there were no differences in the background of the students who completed the travel and the supervision booklets. Furthermore, there were no relationships between student characteristics and assignment to the eight conditions for either the travel or the supervision sample.

Data Analysis Moderated multiple regression analysis was used to test each hypothesis. The value attainment and realistic expectation manipulations were each dummy coded (0, 1) and the dependent variables were regresseed on value attainment, realistic expectations, and the value attainment x realistic expectations product term. The data were originally examined separately for the two outcome groups (travel and supervision). No differences were found between the travel and supervision groups in their responses to the manipulation checks. In order to determine whether the interactive effects of value attainment and realistic expectations on the dependent variables differed

EXPECTATIONS

411

as a function of outcome, we tested the outcome x value attainment x realistic expectations interactions predicting facet satisfaction, facet importance, and trust toward the organization. Since none of the interactions were significant, the travel and supervision samples were combined to predict the dependent variables. Results

Manipulation Checks M e m b e r s o f the high value group r e p o r t e d wanting more travel/ supervision (M = 6.41) than members of the low value group (M = 2.00; t(225) = 12.97, p < .01). Furthermore, the value manipulation had no impact on the values o f the nonmanipulated facets. M e m b e r s o f the high e x p e c t a t i o n g r o u p e x p e c t e d m o r e t r a v e l / supervision (M = 6.47) than members of the low expectation group (M = 2.35; t(225) = 13.08, p < .01). The expectation manipulation had no impact on the expectations of the nonmanipulated facets. M e m b e r s o f the attained value group believed that their travel/ supervision experiences on the job were more in line with what they wanted (M = 5.61) than did members of the unattained value group (M = 2.20; t(225) = 15.93, p < .01). In addition, members of the realistic expectation group indicated that their travel/supervision was more in line with their expectations (M = 5.15) than did members of the unrealistic expectation group (M = 2.47; t(225) = 9.57, p < .01). Furthermore, value attainment had no impact on perceptions o f realistic expectations and realistic expectations had no impact on perceptions o f value attainment.

Hypotheses It was predicted that value attainment and realistic expectations would interact to predict facet satisfaction (Hypothesis 3) and facet importance (Hypothesis 4). The results o f the regression analyses are presented in Table 4 and the subgroup means are presented in Table 5. As Table 4 indicates, value attainment explained substantially more of the variance in facet satisfaction than did realistic expectations; t(224) = 12.6, p < .01). H o w e v e r , there was no support for the hypothesized interaction. Value attainment was significantly related to facet importance at the conclusion of the simulation; participants attributed greater importance to an attained value than to an unattained value. There was also a value attainment x realistic expectation interaction predicting facet importance. Realistic expectations resulted in lower importance ratings than unrealistic expectations when a valued outcome was unattained and resulted in higher importance ratings when a valued outcome was attained on the job.

.61" .12" .06*

Facet satisfaction Facet importance Trust toward organization

.00 .00 .04*

rz

Realistic Expectations

.61 .12 .10

R ~ without interaction

R 2 with

.61 16~ .12a

interaction b

a Since value attainment and realistic expectations were not correlated, r2's represent the variance in the dependent variable uniquely explained by each independent variable. The interaction predicting importance was significant for the supervision group as well as for the total sample, and the interaction predicting trust was significant for the travel group as well as for the total sample. The travel and supervision groups were combined (?4 = 227) because of the nonsignificant outcome x value attainment × realistic expectations interactions and the absence o f any theoretical reason for considering the outcomes separately. c Increment in R 2 significant at .05 level. a Increment in R ~ significant at .01 level. * p < .01.

r2

Dependent variables

Value Attainment

Independent variables a

TABLE 4 RESULTS OF REGRESSION ANALYSES IN STUDY 2

~Z

~7 r~

~

>

rn

413

EXPECTATIONS

TABLE 5 SATISFACTION~ ~MPORTANCE, AND TRUST AS A FUNCTION OF VALUE ATTAINMENT AND REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS

Realistic Expectation Facet satisfaction Value attained Value not attained

Unrealistic Expectation

M = 5.84

M = 5.82

S D = 1.51

S D = 1.44

M = 2.37

M = 2.20

S D = 1.34

S D = 1.38

Facet importance Value attained Value not attained

M = 5.88

M = 5.22

S D = 1.36

SD = 1.42

Trust Value attained Value not attained

M = 5.84

M = 5.78

S D = 1.08

S D = .88

M = 4.12

M = 4.73

S D = 1.56

S D = 1.54

M = 5.63

M = 4.85

S D = 1.22

SD = 1.19

N o t e . Cell N's are: realistic expectation-value attained (56); realistic expectationvalue not attained (57); unrealistic expectation-value attained (54); unrealistic expectation-value not attained (60).

W e also r e e v a l u a t e d H y p o t h e s i s 4 h o l d i n g initial f a c e t i m p o r t a n c e (the manipulation check) constant. Therefore, subsequent facet importance (the d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e ) w a s r e g r e s s e d o n initial i m p o r t a n c e , v a l u e att a i n m e n t , r eal i s t i c e x p e c t a t i o n s , a n d t h e v a l u e a t t a i n m e n t x r eal i st i c exp e c t a t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n t e r m . T h e a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d a significant v a l u e att a i n m e n t x r eal i s ti c e x p e c t a t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n (F(1,222) = 11.10, p < .01) t h e r e b y m a i n t a i n i n g s u p p o r t f o r H y p o t h e s i s 4. Organizational

Trust

V a l u e a t t a i n m e n t a n d r e a l i s t i c e x p e c t a t i o n s i n t e r a c t e d to p r e d i c t part i c i p a n t s ' t r u s t t o w a r d t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n . A s T a b l e 5 i n d i c a t e s , t h e debilitating e f f e c t o f u n r e a l i s t i c e x p e c t a t i o n s o n p e r c e p t i o n s o f t r u s t w a s particularly severe for persons whose values were not attained on the job.

DISCUSSION V a l u e a t t a i n m e n t , o n c e again, a c c o u n t e d f o r m o r e o f t h e v a r i a n c e in f a c e t s a t i s f a c t i o n t h a n did r e a l i s t i c e x p e c t a t i o n s . T h e h y p o t h e s i z e d interaction b e t w e e n value attainment and realism was nonsignificant. The d a t a c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f th e u n a t t a i n e d v a l u e g r o u p

414

GREENHAUS, SEIDEL, AND MARINIS

was considerably lower than the satisfaction of the attained value group regardless of the realism of the expectations. The data provide support for the notion that realistic expectations enable a person to cope by denying the importance of an unattained job facet. However, as Dugoni and Ilgen (1981) and Homer et al. (Note 2) found, RJPs apparently do not facilitate the adoption of a more active coping strategy. It may be helpful to link an RJP with a program designed to teach proactive coping skills. Horner et a l . ' s (Note 2) film gave Marine recruits advice on coping with training, but the nature and appropriateness of the advice were not addressed. Value attainment and realistic expectations predicted trust toward the organization. Trust was lowest among those persons who had unrealistically expected to attain their values. Given the lack of support for the met expectations hypothesis, this finding is one viable explanation for an RJP's success in reducing turnover. That is, RJPs may provide a climate of openness, honesty, and support that enhances the person's attraction toward the organization. Future field research is needed to reconcile the differences between our findings and those of Dugoni and Ilgen (1981) and Horner et al. (Note 2). Finally, a simulation of the organizational entry process appears to hold some promise as a research technique. Its major advantage is the ability to manipulate value attainment and realistic expectations independently. Given the positive relationship between expectations and values (Bray, Campbell, & Grant, 1974) and between value attainment and realism (Study 1), it becomes important to disentangle the effects of these variables on job attitudes and perceptions. However, the artificiality of the simulation needs to be examined. It is appropriate to ask whether a role-play simulation procedure is capable of arousing emotional and perceptual reactions. Did participants, in other words, incorporate the role of Pat Noonan sufficiently to experience events as Pat Noonan would have experienced them? Although we cannot be certain in our response, several observations support the appropriateness of this methodology. First, participants were periodically reminded to respond to the role-play as they thought Pat Noonan would respond. Participants' incorporation of the role is partially supported by the very strong manipulation check data. Furthermore, there were no relationships between any student characteristic (gender, age, year in school, prior work experience) and any of the variables under investigation. The absence of individual differences in reactions to the simulation may reflect the power of role incorporation. Although we would not argue that the participants' reactions were identical to what they would have been in a real job search, there is evidence that they did express reactions consistent with a real situation.

EXPECTATIONS

415

For example, at the end of the simulation, students rated how surprised Pat N o o n a n was at some of his/her job experiences. As might be expected, realistic expectations were negatively related to surprise (r = - . 2 0 , p < .01) and value attainment was unrelated to surprise (r = .09). Furthermore, facet satisfaction was related to a one-item measure of overall job satisfaction (r = .51, p < .01) as well as to a one-item measure o f thoughts of quitting (r = - . 4 0 , p < .01). Perhaps the most striking source o f support for the simulation is its consistency with Study 1 in their one c o m m o n area of inquiry: the prediction of facet satisfaction. In both studies, value attainment accounted for substantially more of the variance in satisfaction than did realistic expectations and the value attainment x realism interaction was weak or nonsignificant. N o n e of these observations by themselves demonstrates the appropriateness of the simulation procedure conclusively. Taken together, however, they do suggest that the participants responded in a manner consistent with the assumption of the role although undoubtedly at a less intense level. As with simulations in other areas (e.g., sex bias; Rosen & Jerdee, 1974), the present data can most usefully function to raise important issues that need to be addressed in the field.

CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH The present research indicates that realistic expectations do not invariably produce higher levels o f satisfaction than unrealistic expectations. Although there is some evidence (task facet in Study 1) of a value attainment x realism interaction, the interaction did not account for nearly so much variance in satisfaction as did value attainment. Porter and Steers (1973) suggest that satisfaction and the decision to participate can be enhanced either by increasing job rewards or by decreasing expectations to more realistic levels. Our data, taken as a whole, suggest that realistic expectations play a relatively minor role in producing feelings o f satisfaction. Thus, the presentation o f realistic information to recruits may not solve an organization's long-term human resource problems if jobs fail to meet employees' important values. This observation is consistent with the conclusions drawn by Wanous (1980) and by Dugoni and Ilgen (1981). Future research should continue to investigate the psychological processes by which realistic expectations influence emotional and perceptual reactions to work. For example, the impact of expectation confirmation may depend on the causal attributions people invoke to explain their work experiences. Kovenklioglu and Greenhaus (1978) found that persons who attribute a negative outcome to unstable causes are more optimistic about future events than those who attribute the outcome to stable causes.

416

GREENHAUS, SEIDEL, AND MARINIS

R e s e a r c h might investigate w h e t h e r n e w c o m e r s ' attributions regarding negative work experiences affect j o b attitudes and whether RJPs influence the attributional tendencies of new e m p l o y e e s . In addition, it would be useful to investigate a b r o a d e r variety o f j o b facets in future research. It is important to determine which j o b o u t c o m e s are m o s t susceptible to unrealistic expectations and which o u t c o m e s are m o s t resistant to the effects o f RJPs. Finally one assumption o f the present research is that recruits possess relatively fixed sets of values that they bring to a job. It is also possible, as Ilgen and Dugoni (Note 1) have speculated, that RJPs m a y alter the values o f a recruit who is uncertain a b o u t desired levels of a job facet. This raises the question o f whether realistic previews lead some candidates to shift their values to be consistent with e x p e c t e d j o b experiences. As Reilly (Note 3) has observed, such value shifts during recruiting could explain the similar job a c c e p t a n c e rates o f candidates e x p o s e d to realistic and traditional job previews. Additional research should address this important issue. In s u m m a r y , realistic expectations seem to have a w e a k e r impact on j o b facet satisfaction than does value attainment. Realism, h o w e v e r , m a y affect the importance attributed to unattained elements o f the j o b and m a y influence perceptions o f trust t o w a r d the organization. These issues need to be investigated in field settings in order to understand the consequences o f RJPs more thoroughly.

REFERENCES Bray, D. W., Campbell, R. J., & Grant, D. L. Formative years in business. New York: Wiley, 1974. Cronbach, L . J . , & Furb~y, L. How should we measure " c h a n g e " - - o r should we? Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 74, 68-80.

Dugoni, B. L., & Ilgen, D. R. Realistic job previews and the adjustment of new employees. Academy of Management Journal, 1981, 24, 579-591. Dunnette, M. D., Arvey, R. D., & Banas, P. A. Why do they leave? Personnel, 1973, 50, 25-39. Feldman, D. C. A contingency theory of socialization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1976, 21, 433-452. Festinger, L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, II1.: Row, Peterson, 1957. Hakel, M. D. How often is often? American Psychologist, 1968, 23, 533-534. Hall, D. T. Careers in organizations. Pacific Palisades, Calif.: Goodyear, 1976. Ilgen, D. R., & Seely, W. Realistic expectations as an aid in reducing voluntary resignations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 452-455. Kovenklioglu, G., & Greenhaus, J. H. Causal attributions, expectations, and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1978, 63, 698-705. Kramer, M. Reality shock: Why nurses leave nursing. St. Louis: Mosby, 1974. Locke, E. A. Relationship of success and expectation to affect in goal-seeking tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 7, 125-134.

EXPECTATIONS

417

Locke, E. A. What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1969, 4, 309-336. Locke, E. A. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976. Lofquist, L. H., & Dawis, R. V. Adjustment to work. New York: A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y Crofts, 1969. Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 80, 151-176. Reilly, R. R., Brown, B., Blood, M. R., & Malatesta, C. Z. The effect of realistic previews: A study and discussion of the literature. Personnel Psychology, 1981, 34, 823-834. Rosen; B., & Jerdee, T. H. Influence of sex-role stereotypes on personnel decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 9-14. Schaffer, R. H. Job satisfaction as related to need satisfaction at work. Psychological Monographs, 1953, 67, (Whole No. 364). Schein, E. H. Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1978. Vroom, V. H. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley, 1964. Wall, T. D., & Payne, R. Are deficiency scores deficient? Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 58, 322-326. Wanous, J. P. Organizational entry: From naive expectations to realistic beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 61, 22-29. Wanous, J. P. Organizational entry: Newcomers moving from outside to inside. Psychological Bulletin, 1977, 84, 601-618. Wanous, J. P. Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, and socialization of newcomers. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1980. Youngberg, C. An experimental study of '~job satisfaction" and turnover in relation to job expectations and self expectations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1963. Zedeck, S. Problems with the use of "moderator" variables. Psychological Bulletin, 1971, 76, 295-310.

REFERENCE NOTES 1. Ilgen, D. R., & Dugoni, B. L. Initial orientation to the organization: Its impact on psychological processes associated with the adjustment of new employees. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Kissimee, Fla., 1977. 2. Homer, S. O., Mobley, W. H., & Meglino, B. M. An experimental evaluation of the effects of a realistic job preview on Marine recruit affect, intentions, and behavior. Center for Management and Organizational Research, University of South Carolina, 1979. 3. Reilly, R. R. Personal communication, February 1982. RECEIVED: March 25, 1982