When being able is not enough. The combined value of positive affect and self-efficacy for job satisfaction in teaching

Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1145e1153

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

When being able is not enough. The combined value of positive affect and self-efficacy for job satisfaction in teaching Angelica Moè*, Francesca Pazzaglia, Lucia Ronconi Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale, Università di Padova, Via Venezia, 8 Padova, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 29 July 2009 Received in revised form 23 February 2010 Accepted 26 February 2010

This study examines how good strategies and praxis interplay with positive affect and self-efficacy to determine a teacher's job satisfaction, in the hypothesis that teaching effectively does not in itself guarantee satisfaction: positive affect and self-efficacy beliefs are needed. Self-assessment scales, designed to assess the use of efficient teaching strategies and praxes, self-efficacy in teaching, positive affect and job satisfaction, were completed by 399 teachers. Structural equation modelling (SEM) analysis revealed the mediating role of both positive affect and self-efficacy beliefs in the relationship between teaching strategies/praxes and job satisfaction. Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Teachers Job satisfaction Self-efficacy Positive affect

1. Introduction How can people get the most from their job and be fully satisfied? Having ability and developing the right skills is necessary for good performance; however, it is not sufficient. Many people possess the right strategies and tools for working optimally, but nevertheless experience dissatisfaction, burnout or anxiety. This can lead to the typical behavioural consequences of absenteeism, dropout, or even psychological disorders (e.g., Kinman & Jones, 2008; Villanueva & Djurkovic, 2009). In general, job satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) is an aspect of work most often related to well-being. It is defined as ‘a positive (or negative) evaluative judgment one makes about one's job’ (Weiss, 2002, p. 175). Furthermore, job satisfaction is especially crucial for teachers, not only because its lack is associated with burnout (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009), but because demotivated teachers demotivate students through emotional contagion (Hatfiled, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1993) and their inability to satisfy their students' needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Conversely, high satisfaction increases a teacher's motivation. Motivated or even enthusiastic teachers raise intrinsic motivation in students and promote their levels of vitality (Day et al., 2000). Resilient and engaged teachers influence a student's

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ39 049 8276689; fax: þ39 049 8276600. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Moè). 0742-051X/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.02.010

experiences of autonomy and competence and as a result increase their motivation (Klusmann, Kunter, Trautwein, Lüdtke, & Baumert, 2008). So how can teachers increase their level of job satisfaction? We argue that they should: (a) be able to teach effectively, (b) experience high self-efficacy about their job, which means feeling able to handle a variety of teaching tasks, and c) experience positive affect. Research has clearly shown that successful teachers not only teach well and are able to create optimal learning environments, but also experience well-being and job satisfaction: being able to provide good instruction and being satisfied with one's own job are both necessary when defining effective teachers (Klusmann et al., 2008). In the present study we investigated teacher job satisfaction as a function of: (1) teaching practice, i.e., how far are effective strategies and praxes used in a flexible way, (2) self-efficacy, and (3) positive emotions. A teacher's mission is to transmit knowledge, as well as sustain motivation to learn and promote the development of their students: successful teachers foster cognitive activation, manage school activities well, limit disturbance, make good use of time, proceed at an appropriate pace, and create an adequate and supportive social environment (Kunter, Baumert, & Köller, 2007). Teaching well is important both in face-to-face instruction and in distance education (Richardson, 2005). Self-efficacy describes the belief to be able to organise and execute specific actions (Bandura, 1997). It affects expectations, choices, persistence and sense of responsibility for actions taken. Those who consider themselves able to obtain the desired outcomes and who maintain high levels of control on situations are motivated to act and persevere,

1146

A. Moè et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1145e1153

avoiding anxiety or anger. Believing oneself to be one's own agent helps development (Bandura, 2006). A teacher's self-efficacy can be defined as a situation-specific confidence to be able to help students learn and to influence their achievement and motivation (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). A teacher's self-efficacy is therefore a major source of motivation and commitment in all aspects of teaching (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998), affecting student achievement and motivation (Bandura, 1993, 1997; Ross, 1998), student self-efficacy (e.g., Ashton & Webb, 1986; Ross, 1998), and the teacher's own job satisfaction (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Steca, 2003; Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, & Malone, 2006). In fact, teachers easily become dissatisfied with their work if they believe they are unable to confront challenges. Instead, high self-efficacy teachers show greater enthusiasm for teaching (Allinder, 1994). Self-efficacy affects the effort invested in teaching: high self-efficacy corresponds with better planning and organisation, and greater tendency to try out new approaches (Guskey, 1988a; Stein & Wang, 1988). The evaluations given on satisfaction and self-efficacy may depend on the personal interpretations of the context. However, irrespective of the specific setting of teaching, these well-beingrelated aspects have been shown to be very important steps toward good teaching in a large body of research carried out in countries including Germany (Klusmann et al., 2008), the Netherlands (Näring, Briët, & Brouwers, 2006), Australia (O'Connor, 2008), United States (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001), Greece (Poulou, 2007), France (Leroy, Bressoux, Sarrazin, & Trouilloud, 2007), United Kingdom (Brady & Woolfson, 2008), Canada (Carbonneau, Vallerand, Fernet, & Guay, 2008), Norway (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009) and Italy (Caprara et al., 2006). Our study was designed to confirm the importance of these aspects and explore their relationships. In the light of past studies, it is plausible to expect a mutual relationship between teaching practice and self-efficacy. In particular, good teaching practice could be a predictor of a teacher's selfefficacy. This is in line with all research on self-efficacy and its sources, but e to our knowledge e to date this issue has never been addressed with teachers. Poulou (2007), for instance, found that personal characteristics, motivation and class-management skills are important predictors of self-efficacy, but did not considered praxis and use of teaching strategies in her study. Our hypothesis is that teaching practice will affect the perception of being able as a teacher, i.e. self-efficacy. As regards the relationship with job satisfaction, research has shown that lack of autonomy (which is negatively linked to selfefficacy) fosters burnout, which e in turn e hampers job satisfaction (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). At the same time, it has been demonstrated that autonomy is related to job satisfaction (Crosso & Costigan, 2007). We thus speculate that self-efficacy will affect job satisfaction. Summing up, in order to experience job satisfaction, teachers should be able to teach and be confident in their professional skills; perceive themselves as self-efficient; and experience positive affect. Positive affect can be defined as a state of pleasure and high energy (Watson & Tellegen, 1985) characterised by emotions such as interest, excitement, pride. Research has shown the central role of emotions in shaping a teacher's identity and adjustment to school challenges (Hargreaves, 1998, 2001, 2005). Teaching is an emotional practice and emotions have been defined as ‘the heart of teaching’ (Hargreaves, 1998, p. 835). Emotions energise and are a vital part of teaching and learning (Fried, 1995; Goleman, 1995). To date, research has focused mainly on the negative side (e.g. Maslach, Scaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). For instance, it has been demonstrated that emotional exhaustion and lack of autonomy have negative influence on job satisfaction (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009). A few

studies, however, have considered the positive side. The Fredrickson (2001) ‘broaden and build’ theory suggests that positive affect broadens many cognitive functions, such as attention, creativity, memory (e.g., Corson & Verrier, 2007) and over time enlarges (builds) action repertoires, resources, motivation, expectations and resiliency in the face of adversity. Oatley (1991) examined happiness and found it to occur following achievement and when purposes are fulfilled. Moreover, research on high arousal emotions such as passion and enthusiasm has emphasised the importance of experiencing positive affect in teaching (Day, 2004). Passion can be conceived as an antidote to burnout and a way of achieving positive outcomes with students in terms of both motivational and emotional aspects, and of achievement. Passionate teachers seek ways to reach their students. However, a single definition of passion as an absorbing activity actually covers two types of passion: harmonious and obsessive. Harmonious passion is characterised by high positive affect, satisfaction, flow experience, vitality and purposeful control in choosing to start and halt an activity. Instead, obsessive passion is characterised by lack of positive affect, satisfaction, flow experience, the presence of shame, guilt or anxiety with forced effort to start an activity and difficulty in stopping. Working with a sample of teachers, Carbonneau et al. (2008) found that harmonious passion alone e but not obsessive passion e decreases burnout symptoms and has positive affect on work satisfaction. We hypothesised a positive relationship between teaching practice and positive affect, as found in previous research (Hargreaves, 1998). Moreover, research has shown that positive affect relates to job and home satisfaction (Judge & Ilies, 2004), and that positive affect relates to job satisfaction more strongly than negative affect (Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000). In our research we thus expected an influence of positive affect on job satisfaction. In summary, for the first time we have tested the joint relationships among job satisfaction, self-efficacy and positive affect with the aim of constructing a structural equation model. In particular, we expected to demonstrate that use of effective strategies and praxes is important but alone does not affect satisfaction; for this teachers must also experience self-efficacy and positive emotions. Our hypotheses are that teaching praxes and strategies do not have a direct relationship with job satisfaction; instead the relationship of teaching praxes and strategies with job satisfaction has to be mediated by positive affect and self-efficacy. We thus expected teaching praxes and strategies to influence positive affect and self-efficacy, which, in turn, affect job satisfaction: the more teachers perceive themselves as successful in managing the challenges of teaching (high self-efficacy) and the more they experience happiness and positive affect, the more satisfaction they derive from their work. 2. Method 2.1. Participants Participants in this study were 399 teachers, from 8 primary (n ¼ 74), 3 middle (n ¼ 140) and 5 high (n ¼ 185) schools located in various towns in northern Italy (a convenience sample). The sample contained 285 (71%) females. Age ranged from 25 to 63, with mean 46.05 years, SD ¼ 9.37. Average number of years in the teaching profession was 19.06, SD ¼ 10.54, range 1e39. 2.2. Instruments 2.2.1. Job satisfaction Job satisfaction can be assessed using a variety of instruments, developed during various studies: these include the Job Descriptive

A. Moè et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1145e1153

Index (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969) and the Work Satisfaction Scale (Hackman & Oldham, 1975) which have been used with teachers (e.g., Caprara et al., 2006; Klusmann et al., 2008). We chose to apply a revised version of the Satisfaction With Life Scale SWLS proposed by Diener, Emmons, Larsen, and Griffin (1985) since this gives a unitary assessment of the construct independent of specific circumstances. In fact, job satisfaction can be conceived as both an overall construct and a teacher-specific dimension dependent on circumstances (Evans, 1997). The context could influence satisfaction judgements and each teacher might evaluate it differently. In order to measure teachers' overall job satisfaction rather than satisfaction with specific circumstances we chose an instrument that is context- free and based on the personal comparison between the ideal self and the real self, i.e., between what one would like to be and what one perceives oneself as. An Italian version of the SWLS (Diener et al., 1985), adapted for teachers for the purposes of this present study, was used and denoted the Job Satisfaction scale. The items on the scale differ from those on the original Satisfaction With Life scale from which they were drawn in content (job rather than life) but not in underlying concept e satisfaction as the result of the closeness of ideal self to actual self (Pavot & Diener, 1993). According to this concept, the closer the actual self is to the ideal self, the more satisfied one is. The questionnaire is composed of five items that are measured on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 ¼ ‘strongly disagree’ to 7 ¼ ‘strongly agree’. A mean score was obtained by summing the five ratings given by participants and dividing by five. As can be seen in Table 2, the internal reliability of this adapted version is good: Cronbach's alpha ¼ .84. In comparison with the Satisfaction With Life scale, for items 1e4 ‘my life’ has been replaced by ‘my job’; item 5 ‘I would change almost nothing’ was replaced by ‘I would not change the choices made in my job’. A sample item is “I am satisfied with my job” (see Appendix for the whole scale). 2.2.2. Self-efficacy Of the various instruments available for assessing teacher selfefficacy (see for example Dellinger, Bobbett, Olivier, & Ellett, 2008) we used an Italian version of the Ohio State Teacher Efficacy Scale (OSTES: Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). This assesses teacher self-efficacy in three areas crucial considering both their central role in everyday teachers' activity and their postulated impact on job satisfaction. These are efficacy for (i) instructional strategies, (ii) classroom management, and (iii) student engagement. Two example items for each subscale are: ‘To what extent can you use a variety of assessment strategies?’, ‘How much can you do to adjust your lessons to the proper level for individual students?’; ‘How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules?’, ‘How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy?’; and ‘How much can you do to help your students think critically?’, ‘How much can you do to help your students value learning?’. Respondents were asked to indicate how able they felt in adequately managing each of the 24 typical challenging teaching experiences (8 for each subscale), using a 9-point scale, ranging from 1 ¼ ‘not at all able to manage’ to 9 ¼ ‘fully able to manage’. The analysis by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) revealed that a solution with three factors explained a total of 69% of the variance, while just a one-factor solution accounted for 75% of the variance. A reliability analysis showed that in considering the whole instrument, Cronbach's alpha was very high (.94). We therefore ran a factor analysis asking for a three-factor solution and found that the variance explained was 27%, 21% and 17% for the three subscales with a total variance explained of 65%, similar to that obtained in the English version of the instrument. The reliability values for the three subscales were .90, .90 and .89, respectively. To examine the appropriateness of calculating

1147

a total score, two methods were adopted. First, a reliability analysis was run on the whole instrument. Cronbach's alpha was .96, higher than that found by Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) and also higher than two of the three alphas found examining each subscale separately. Second, the intercorrelations among the three subscales were calculated, and found to be .67 (factor 1 with 3), .80 (factor 2 with 3) and .81 (factor 1 with 2), all p < .001, an increase sufficient to justify the use of just one overall self-efficacy score. All the analysis confirmed the goodness of the Italian version of the self-efficacy scale and demonstrated the appropriateness of using a single overall mean score, obtained by summing the values assigned by participants to each item and dividing by 24. 2.2.3. Affect Three instruments were used to assess affect (-as-trait; -asteacher; -during-teaching). For affect-as-trait, we used the trait dimension of the Italian version (Terracciano, McCrae, & Costa, 2003) of the Positive Affect Negative Affect Scale (PANAS: Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). This self-report scale assesses two independent dimensions of positive and negative affect. Ten items refer to positive emotions such as proud, determined, strong, excited, enthusiastic, while ten items refer to negative emotions, such as ashamed, hostile, irritable, upset, distressed. Participants were asked to rate how much they experienced each of the listed emotions on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 ¼ ‘very slightly’ to 5 ¼ ‘very much’. The Affect-asTeacher and Affect-during-Teaching scales were implemented using an ethnographic method. First, a large sample of teachers were asked to list all the possible positive and negative emotions teachers experience in their job. A list of 30 selected emotions (13 positive and 17 negative) was then chosen (see Appendix). As can be seen, some are clearly emotions (e.g., shame, anger, enthusiasm), while others are more complex experiences (e.g., sense of failure, enrichment, fulfilment). However, they were considered together as emotions, since they were examples most commonly reported by teachers on the basis of the ethnographic method applied. Respondents were asked to rate how frequently they felt each individual emotion (1) thinking about their role as a teacher, and (2) during teaching, on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 ¼ ‘almost never’ to 5 ¼ ‘almost always’ (see also Mega, Moè, Pazzaglia, Rizzato, & De Beni, 2007). Scores were calculated separately for positive and negative emotions and for each of the three scales by summing the scores given by participants and dividing by the number of items to give mean values. 2.2.4. Strategies and praxes These were assessed using two self-rating scales. We adopted self-report measurements rather than observing behaviours during teaching because we were interested in the perceived use of strategies and praxes rather than in their objective or student-rated use. What affects job satisfaction, self-efficacy and positive affect is subjective perception. Teachers are more satisfied, experience positive affect and feel self-efficacy the more they perceive that they are teaching effectively. The Strategy scale was implemented using an ethnographic method. First, a large sample of teachers were asked to list all the possible strategies teachers use during their teaching. A very large number of strategies were collected. A list of 30 strategies was then chosen (see Table 1). The Praxis scale was devised by an expert teacher who listed 25 good praxes (see Table 1), following a brainstorming session with colleagues. Respondents were asked to rate how frequently they used each strategy/praxis, on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 ¼ ‘almost never’ to 5 ¼ ‘almost always’. As can be seen in Table 1, all strategies and praxes received a medium to high score of self-rated use. For the Strategy scale, the minimum is 2.95, where 3 corresponds to ‘sometimes’, and the maximum is 4.41, where 4 corresponds to ‘often’. For the Praxis

1148

A. Moè et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1145e1153

Table 1 Items from the strategy and praxis scales. Mean values, standard deviations and item-to-total correlations.

Strategy scale 1. Ask students to take notes during the lesson 2. Dictate some definitions 3. Draw a graph or outline on the blackboard of the topics read in the book or explained 4. Summarize the content of a book orally 5. Invite students to ask questions during an explanation 6. Introduce the topic covered using a problem-solving strategy, i.e. by asking questions 7. Ask students to read aloud from the book 8. Summarize concepts already known on the topic and ask the students to discuss their ideas and/or what they know 9. Draw an outline, graph or table before the lesson 10. Use drama or show experiments in the classroom or lab 11. At the end of an explanation, ask students to summarize the main concepts orally or in writing 12. Summarize the concepts taught 13. Ask students to write down key words on the topic described 14. Introduce a new topic using familiar examples 15. Create links between different topics and subjects 16. Summarize previous topics before introducing new ones 17. At the beginning of the lesson, list the topics that are to be taught 18. Provide a summary chart of the main concepts, written out by yourself 19. Use multimedia, such as DVD, web navigation 20. Ask students if they are encountering any difficulties in studying the topic in question 21. Organise working groups during the lessons 22. Ask students to point out the main concepts in their books 23. Use pictures to illustrate a theoretical topic (slides, drawings, charts, and so on) 24. Give a brief explanation of the key concepts, then read them in the book 25. Build logical chains using temporal links 26. Read the book (teacher or students) and then explain 27. Note rules, formulas or properties on the blackboard 28. Provide summaries of topics to be taught, e.g. outline chart 29. Discuss study topics during lessons 30. Give indications about the content of the following lesson, or ask questions about possible developments of a topic Praxis scale 1. Before beginning a new topic, go through the goals of the lesson with the students 2. After each oral test, analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the responses together with the student 3. Split up a long topic into short units 4. Review topics to be covered in the following oral tests or written essays with the students 5. Come to an agreement with colleagues in order to avoid giving to much homework or essays on the same day 6. Create links with topics already explained when introducing a new one 7. Present lesson content in a stimulating way 8. Understand students' emotions, life experiences and motivations 9. Before students begin an essay, explain clearly the topics to be covered, the characteristics of the task, and how much time is to be allowed 10. Check homework systematically 11. Reflect study strategies used with the students 12. Always praise effort and good results 13. Stress the usefulness of note-taking 14. Encourage students who fail 15. Consider the relationship you have with your students carefully, aware that it influences achievement 16. During a lesson, make a short break or change topic if students appear tired 17. Ask students not paying attention to take responsibility 18. Let students know how much time is to be devoted to a particular topic 19. Be willing to accept students' questions asking clarification 20. Thinking that the students are happy to attend your lessons 21. Suggest ways for absent students to make up the lesson 22. Have confidence in your students' abilities 23. When encountering difficulties, question yourself about your teaching, and whether your approach is correct 24. Adhere to your professional duties (return written essays, keep to deadlines, be punctual.) 25. Before an essay, give exercises in class using activities similar to those to be tested

M

SD

r

3.76 3.34 3.85 3.62 4.41 4.06 3.74 3.96

1.21 1.04 .98 1.14 .77 .83 1.18 .94

.22 .40 .47 .47 .47 .47 .50 .57

3.72 3.30 3.48 3.51 3.29 3.85 3.97 4.26 4.12 3.31 2.95 3.82 3.01 3.62 3.35 3.61 3.31 3.62 3.84 3.33 3.99 3.44

1.04 1.17 1.12 1.11 1.24 .97 .86 .84 .92 1.14 1.09 .98 1.06 1.23 1.14 1.16 1.21 1.26 1.08 1.08 .91 1.02

.56 .40 .64 .57 .63 .54 .47 .49 .43 .51 .34 .46 .39 .62 .56 .63 .63 .53 .50 .55 .57 .55

4.13 4.08 4.53 4.46 3.61 4.55 4.16 4.22 4.42

.93 .95 .66 .86 1.27 .72 .74 .78 .84

.38 .48 .39 .47 .53 .48 .43 .48 .49

3.89 3.75 4.38 4.07 4.27 4.34 4.09 4.37 3.04 4.61 4.03 3.78 4.10 3.06 4.58 4.20

1.14 1.01 .72 1.18 .82 .77 .87 .72 1.26 .68 .74 1.06 .75 1.04 .65 1.02

.45 .65 .56 .39 .49 .48 .40 .40 .47 .32 .40 .56 .38 .20 .28 .46

Note. All correlations are significant at p < .01.

scale, mean values for each of the 25 praxes range from 3.04 to 4.61. Moreover, the item-to-total correlations showed them to be all representative strategies and praxes, giving their correlation at the significant level of p < .01 with the total score given by summing the 30 (Strategy scale) and 25 (Praxis scale) values assigned by each participant and then dividing by 30 and 25, respectively. We considered a large number of strategies and praxes, on condition they are all employed by teachers, as shown by their ratings (though obviously not even the best teacher can apply them all simultaneously and for every situation). Our interest was in the

underlying construct of ‘use of strategies’ and ‘use of praxes’, irrespective of the subject taught or individual student or teacher characteristics: using 30 strategies and 25 praxes enabled us to cover a wide range of situations. We thus obtained two scores, selfrated use of (i) strategies and (ii) praxes: these are indices of tendency to teach strategically and using good praxes. The higher the score the better the strategies or praxes selfrated use, because, as Table 1 shows, every strategy and praxis is theoretically a good one, while none can be considered the most or least useful in absolute terms. This depends on a wide range of

A. Moè et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1145e1153

factors, including subject taught, students' characteristics, lesson goals (e.g., introduce a new topic, summarize previous taught concepts, give examples of rules previously explained). On the basis of the situations and characteristics of both the students and the topics covered, a teacher must choose the best ones. However, the more teachers use good strategies and praxes in a large variety of situations the better their teaching. 2.3. Procedure Data were collected in several group sessions in the following order: job satisfaction, praxis, affect-as-teacher, affect-duringteaching, affect-as-trait, strategies, self-efficacy. The groups consisted of teachers all employed at one school. Data-collection was supervised in a quiet room at the school: this prevented teachers from taking the questionnaires away to complete at home. Instructions were written at the top of each instrument. No additional information was given. When the questionnaires were completed, they were collected and participants thanked. The questionnaires were presented in booklet form, the first page requesting age, gender, school where teaching, and the last page giving thanks for the participation. 2.4. Descriptive statistics Statistics for each scale are shown in Table 2. For the affect scales, in view of our hypothesis, we considered only the items relative to positive emotions. Internal reliability for each scale was verified by calculating Cronbach's coefficient alpha. As shown in Table 1, values ranged from .79 for affect-as-trait to .96 for self-efficacy, reflecting a high degree of internal reliability within the instruments of the study. 3. Results 3.1. Correlation analyses Correlations between all measures are given in Table 3. As expected, almost all the variables considered have significant correlations with job satisfaction, except for two (‘years of teaching’ and ‘strategies’). ‘Years of teaching’ showed no significant correlation with the other variables. We originally included ‘years of teaching’ because research has shown this can affect some of the variables we measured (e.g., Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009). This is not the case with our sample, and so ‘years of teaching’ is not considered further in the model. 3.2. Model estimation To verify how well the data fit the hypothesis that the relationship between teaching practice and job satisfaction is not direct but mediated by positive affect and self-efficacy, a structural equation model (SEM) was run using the LISREL 8.7 statistical

1149

Table 3 Correlation matrix for all variables.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Job satisfaction Years of teaching Praxes Strategies Self-efficacy Affect-as-trait Affect-as-teacher Affect-during-teaching

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

e

.01 e

.22* .10 e

.09 .01 .62* e

.33* .08 .54* .46* e

.35* .06 .26* .22* .32* e

.39* .01 .22* .15* .20* .40* e

.42* .02 .40* .35* .35* .47* .60* e

*p < .05.

package (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996), considering teaching practice, positive affect, self-efficacy and job satisfaction as latent variables. Teaching practice was given by the two observed variables, use of praxes and use of strategies. This represents the self-reported ‘usefulness’ ratings assigned by participating teachers to a wide range of strategies and praxes, and thus their tendency to use good teaching methods. The higher the score the better the teaching, provided that the large number of strategies and praxes considered cover a wide range of situations teachers have to handle. A high self-rated use of these approaches means that in a wide variety of situations teachers apply effective strategies and adopt useful praxes. Positive affect was represented by the three kinds of affect, i.e. -as-trait, -during-teaching and -as-teacher. This expresses the tendency to experience positive emotions in a wide range of situations. Self-efficacy was represented by just the observed variable ‘self-efficacy’, and job satisfaction by the observed variable ‘job satisfaction’. Owing to missing data for the scale on positive affectduring-teaching (some participants were not asked to fill in this questionnaire), the analysis was performed on 312 participants. Of the various fit indices, we considered the chi-squared test of significance, the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) as a descriptive measure of the overall model fit; the Bentler's Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), and the Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) as a descriptive measure of model parsimony. The values obtained were c2 (11) ¼ 23.62 (p ¼ .01), df ¼ 11, RMSEA ¼ .06, NNFI ¼ .97, CFI ¼ .99, GFI ¼ .98. For the c2-to-df ratio, values of less than three are considered adequate (Kline, 1998). For RMSEA a value of .06 or less reflects good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). For CFI, GFI and NNFI values greater than .90 are considered acceptable, higher than .95 indicates good fit to the data. Fig. 1 shows the model obtained, where the figures reported represent standardised effects. All the indices generally support a fit of the model with our data, with medium to good indices of fit, and support the expectation that teaching practice (a global measure of self-rated use of efficient teaching strategies and praxes) needs the mediation of motivational and emotional variables in order to positively influence job satisfaction. As expected, the relationship between efficient teaching and job satisfaction is mediated by the emotional and motivational

Table 2 Statistics of raw scores and reliability index (Cronbach's alpha) for all variables.

Scales Job satisfaction Years of teaching Praxes Strategies Self-efficacy Affect-as-trait Affect-as-teacher Affect-during-teaching

n

Range (minemax)

399 380 398 399 315 399 398 313

1e7 1e39 2.32e4.96 1.57e4.90 3.17e8.96 1.00e4.63 1.15e4.77 1.15e4.92

M

SD

4.94 19.06 4.11 3.65 7.09 3.53 3.19 3.46

1.10 10.54 .40 .53 .98 .56 .71 .63

Skewness

Kurtosis

Cronbach's alpha

.86 .22 .73 .41 1.11 .94 .39 .48

.73 1.12 1.27 .38 1.76 1.57 .10 .39

.84 .83 .90 .96 .79 .89 .89

1150

A. Moè et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1145e1153

.22

Whileteaching

.56

.71 Asteacher .32

.88 .66

Praxis .83

.52

Positive affect

Teaching practice .44

.75

As-trait

.54 .51 -.27

.67

Job satisfaction

Strategies .32

.00

Self-efficacy

.00 Fig. 1. The path analysis model tested in the study, where job satisfaction is in positive relation to teaching practice throughout the mediating effect of positive affect and selfefficacy. Figures are the standardised values. All betas p < .05.

variables considered. Good teaching does not affect job satisfaction directly: affect and self-efficacy are necessary. But there is more, in particular the turning negative of the relation between teaching practice and satisfaction, when the mediating role of self-efficacy and positive emotions is not considered e in fact, this is the most interesting and intriguing of all our findings. If the role of self-efficacy and positive affect is removed, using good teaching practices (i.e., applying effective strategies and adopting adequate praxes) can even be detrimental to job satisfaction. The better one teaches the less one is satisfied if the teaching is not accompanied by positive affect and the perception of being able to handle difficulties, i.e. to experience self-efficacy. As can be seen from Table 4, all the effects are significant given that the t-values are larger than 2. This means that all the variables considered are found to affect job satisfaction. The highest values are those of positive affect and self-efficacy. Perceiving to be able to teach effectively affects both self-efficacy and positive affect. These, in turn, largely mediate the relationship between teaching practice and job satisfaction. It is in fact worth noting that the indirect effect is larger than the direct effect. Self-efficacy and positive affect are important mediators of the relationship. In their absence, the effect is even negative: .27. However, as can be seen, the total effect is smaller, but even so significant. This confirms that good self-evaluation of teaching practice alone are not enough to guarantee job satisfaction: self-efficacy and positive affect are necessary. 4. Discussion Ask a group of teachers “what is success in teaching?” and perhaps satisfaction for what they do will emerge as a key aspect. What could give more pleasure than doing one's own work with satisfaction? Working with satisfaction means having success in

Table 4 Direct, indirect and total effects. In brackets the t-values. Teaching practice on

Direct

Indirect

Total

Job satisfaction Positive affect Self-efficacy

.27 .52 .66

.48 (5.95) e e

.21 (3.23) .52 (6.79) .67 (12.06)

working. This is perhaps true for all jobs, but is especially important for teachers since through their enthusiasm or sense of isolation, their self-efficacy or feeling of uncertainty or dissatisfaction, they can affect the enthusiasm and the motivation of their students. Being satisfied teachers is good for teachers but also for pupils. Students who have satisfied teachers better fulfil the three basic psychological needs proposed by the self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), and hence feel satisfied and motivated. The present research examined, for the first time, the joint influence of three aspects on a teacher's job satisfaction, namely positive affect, self-efficacy and teaching practice. To this end a structural equation model was tested to examine their reciprocal relationships. An indirect relationship between teaching practice and job satisfaction was hypothesised and has been confirmed. Teaching practice, given by self-rated use of strategies and praxes does not affect job satisfaction directly e the mediation of positive affect and self-efficacy is required. In other words, for there to be job satisfaction both positive affect and self-efficacy are required. Self-rated use of praxes correlates with job satisfaction, while use of strategies does not. When considered in together, i.e., using the latent variable ‘teaching practice’, it emerged that the relationship with job satisfaction turns negative, when the effects of the mediating variables (positive affect and self-efficacy) are taken into account. Teaching practice alone is even detrimental to job satisfaction. Teachers should also experience positive affect and feel self-efficacy in order for there to be a beneficial effect on job satisfaction from their perceived teaching well. However, the total effect is also significant. High perceived teaching practice alone is a good thing, but not sufficient to give teachers job satisfaction: feeling well (positive affect plus self-efficacy) is needed. This is a very intriguing and unexpected result. Importantly, it means that there are some teachers able to teach effectively but who think they are not capable, i.e., they lack self-efficacy. They are able, but believe otherwise. And there are others who teach well but fail to experience the positive affect generally experienced from doing well. They are consequently dissatisfied and the better they teach, the lower their satisfaction. There are a number of explanations for this counterintuitive finding. Notwithstanding their cognitive nature (Pavot & Diener, 1993), the judgements people gave depend on the emotions and

A. Moè et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1145e1153

self-confidence experienced. Matching the ideal self with the actual self is not simply rational: self-representations are not pure cognitive representations, but are filled with emotions, desires, hopes, willingness to achieve some personal standards, fear of failure, perceptions of ability to reach one's ideals and perhaps more. Indeed, our results showed clearly that job satisfaction depends on positive affect and on self-efficacy beliefs. The second explanation pivots on the individual meaning of satisfaction. Being satisfied implies that the actual self is perceived as close to the ideal self. Probably, teachers who teach well have a high self-concept and consequently expect to achieve high levels of satisfaction from their teaching. Otherwise e perhaps because they lack self-efficacy (the higher the self-imposed standards the higher the self-efficacy required) or positive affect (the better one teaches the more emotions one can expect to feel) e the relationship turns negative. Moreover, the distinction between harmonious and obsessive passion proposed by Vallerand et al. (2003) can help explain this negative relationship between teaching practice and job satisfaction. Harmonious passion implies that one can choose when to begin and when to stop the passionate activity. By contrast, an obsessive passion is accompanied by difficulty in stopping and by perception of a compulsive drive to continue, in spite of being overworked, excessive stress, fatigue and alternatives to the passionate activity. The greatest distinction between obsessive and harmonious passion concerns affect (Mageau & Vallerand, 2007). Harmonious passionate people experience positive affect when engaged in the passionate activity. Instead, obsessive passionate people experience negative affect when they are unable to engage in the passionate activity and are prevented from experiencing positive affect when engaging in it. This means that harmonious passionate people can experience positive affect more often than obsessive passionate people, a finding that can hold true for teachers. The negative relationship between teaching practice and job satisfaction suggests that teachers who can teach very well, but cannot experience positive affect and feel no selfefficacy, are not satisfied because their passion is of the obsessive kind. Instead, harmonious passionate teachers are those who can teach well but also experience positive affect, self-efficacy and job satisfaction. This is just one possible interpretation: future research should broaden assessment of this finding. Our research has important implications, both theoretical and practical. Considering the former, our data showed the importance of both positive affect and self-efficacy in shaping very important cognitive judgements such as job satisfaction. We then found that being able does not guarantee satisfaction if (despite the good practice) one fails to experience positive affect or feel self-efficient. This leads on to very important practical implications: our findings can help in the planning of effective training designed to increase job satisfaction, with particular emphasis on self-efficacy beliefs and positive affect. Teaching and teacher education can vary from country to country. However, as regards emotions felt and motivation to teach, cultural difference is trivial, except for some constructs, e.g., attributional style (Carr, Kurtz, Schneider, Turner, & Borkowski, 1989), for which socialization has been demonstrated to play a substantial role (Miller, 1995). These constructs have not been included in our study, and consequently it is reasonable to suppose that the resulting implications can be considered ‘context free’ and applicable on an international basis. Research has shown that beliefs, once established, appear resistant to change: people tend to interpret reality in accordance with beliefs and to recall belief-congruent information (Pajares, 1992). Old beliefs are very resistant to change even in the face of contradictory evidence, in contrast with newly established beliefs, which are difficult to maintain. However, mastery experience, vicarious experience, social persuasion, and ability to handle

1151

emotions such as anxiety appear to be the four ways to sustain selfefficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1982). In fact, change in beliefs follows change in behaviour, while the reverse is difficult to obtain (Guskey, 1988b). We believe that these principles can be generalised to teachers. For positive affect, it has been shown that autonomysupportive social environment where control is minimised favours the emergence of harmonious passion (Vallerand et al., 2003). No effect e not even detrimental e on job satisfaction can be expected by improving teachers' use of good practices and praxes without complementary action on positive affect and self-efficacy. Teachers are at risk of becoming very able to teach, but without feeling satisfied when they lack the support of these beliefs and emotions. In view of the cross-sectional design we used, causal inferences among the variables considered must be treated with caution. Longitudinal design or experimental manipulation could allow better assessment of the roles played by positive affect and self-efficacy in influencing job satisfaction. This could be achieved in various ways, for example through studying the effects of different types of training: on affect and self-efficacy alone, on teaching practice alone, or on both. This investigation forms part of a series of future studies. A further possible limitation concerns the self-rated nature of the dimensions assessed. When evaluating themselves, people use their own parameters and perhaps make implicit comparisons with personal standards. However, our concern was not whether teachers look enthusiastic or downbeat in the classroom, but if they perceive themselves as being in a good/bad mood. Similarly, we were not interested in the effective teaching practices (i.e., what teachers do during lessons), but if they are perceiving themselves as teaching well. We therefore did not evaluate the effective teaching methods by observing behaviours during lessons or interrogating students, but instead how much teachers perceive themselves as teaching well, i.e., using effective strategies and praxes. However, in our view, future research might consider student evaluations (perceptions or observations) as well as self-perceptions: this would allow a greater understanding of the relationships among satisfaction, self-efficacy, positive affect and teaching. We are aware that using self-reports rather than considering objective observations is a way to tap cognitions rather than behaviours, but this is precisely what we were interested in. In the same vein, our interest was to assess whether they perceive themselves as self-efficient, and not if they are objectively. Selfevaluations are usually used to assess what affects satisfaction (e.g., Klusmann et al., 2008; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2009). We therefore believe that e notwithstanding the correlational design and irrespective of the self-reported nature of the assessments e our findings have important implications and can feed into valuable future research, adding to our understanding of what really turn a good teacher into a satisfied teacher. 5. Conclusions Our data and their analysis imply that ‘good teaching’ is not enough. We need ‘good teachers’. We need teachers who teach well and adopt good strategies and praxes, but who also love their work, where ‘love’ means both ‘liking’, obtaining positive affect from working with students and colleagues, and at the same time ‘managing’, feeling capable and believing themselves able to overcome the difficulties encountered in teaching. No matter how much effort people make, this does not yield satisfaction if they do not love what they are doing. Acknowledgments We are very grateful to Dr. Gianna Friso for her insightful comments regarding preparation of the items for the Praxis scale.

1152

A. Moè et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1145e1153

Appendix

References

Job satisfaction scale

Allinder, R. M. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17, 86e95. Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman. Bandura, A. (1982). The psychology of chance encounters and life paths. American Psychologist, 37, 747e755. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117e148. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 164e180. Brady, K., & Woolfson, L. (2008). What teacher factors influence their attributions for children's difficulties in learning? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 527e544. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Steca, P. (2003). Efficacy beliefs as determinants of teachers' job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (4), 821e832. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers' self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students' academic achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 473e490. Carbonneau, N., Vallerand, R. J., Fernet, C., & Guay, F. (2008). The role of passion for teaching in intrapersonal and interpersonal outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 977e987. Carr, M., Kurtz, B. E., Schneider, W., Turner, L. A., & Borkowski, J. G. (1989). Strategy acquisition and transfer among American and German children: environmental influences on metacognitive development. Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 765e771. Connolly, J. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The role of affectivity in job satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 265e281. Corson, Y., & Verrier, N. (2007). Emotions and false memories. Valence or arousal? Psychological Science, 18(3), 208e211. Crosso, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability. Urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42, 512e535. Day, C. (2004). A passion for teaching. London: Routledge Falmer. Day, C., Fried, R. L., Patrick, B. C., Hisley, J., Kempler, T., & College, G. (2000). “What's everybody so excited about?”: the effects of teacher enthusiasm on student intrinsic motivation and vitality. Journal of Experimental Education, 68(3), 217e236. Dellinger, A. B., Bobbett, J. J., Olivier, D. F., & Ellett, C. D. (2008). Measuring teachers' self-efficacy beliefs: development and use of the TEBS-self. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 751e766. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71e75. Evans, L. (1997). Understanding teacher morale and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 831e845. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden-and-built theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56, 218e226. Fried, R. L. (1995). The passionate teacher. Boston: Beacon Press. Goleman, E. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books. Guskey, T. (1988a). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 63e69. Guskey, T. R. (1988b). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5e12. Hackman, J., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159e170. Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional practice of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14(8), 835e854. Hargreaves, A. (2001). Emotional geographies of teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1056e1080. Hargreaves, A. (2005). Educational change takes ages: life, career and generational factors in teachers' emotional responses to educational change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 967e983. Hatfiled, E., Cacioppo, J. R., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Emotional contagion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 96e99. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6, 1e55. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User's reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International. Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2004). Affect and job satisfaction: a study of their relationship at work and at home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 661e673. Kinman, G., & Jones, F. (2008). Effort-reward imbalance and over commitment: predicting strain in academic employees in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Stress Management, 15(4), 381e395. Kline, R. B. (1998). Principals and practice of structural equation modelling. New York: Guilford.

Below are five statements on your job satisfaction. Please indicate your agreement with each item using the following 1e7 scale: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

strongly disagree disagree slightly disagree neither agree nor disagree slightly agree agree strongly agree

In most ways my job is close to my ideal. _____ The conditions of my job are excellent. _____ I am satisfied with my job. _____ So far I have gotten the important things I want in my job. _____ If I could live my life over, I would not change the choices made in my job. _____

Affect-as-Teacher and Affect-during-Teaching scales Think about yourself as a teacher (in the classroom, with your colleagues, in the school institution) and during teaching. Please indicate how frequently you experience each of the listed emotions. Place a number in the columns below where: 1 2 3 4 5

¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼

almost never rarely sometimes often almost always

Emotions Cheerfulness Shame Anger Discomfort Inadequacy Temper Enthusiasm Affect Sympathy Admiration Exasperation Gratification Indignation Sadness Sense of failure Guilt Pleasure Annoyance Resignation Happiness Dislike Satisfaction Fulfilment Actualization Frustration Dejection Upset Joy Disappointment Enrichment

As a teacher I experience

During teaching I experience

A. Moè et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 1145e1153 Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2008). Teachers' occupational well-being and quality of instruction: the important role of selfregulatory patterns. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 702e715. Kunter, M., Baumert, J., & Köller, O. (2007). Effective classroom management and the development of subject-related interest. Learning and Instruction, 17, 494e509. Leroy, N., Bressoux, P., Sarrazin, P., & Trouilloud, D. (2007). Impact of teachers' implicit theories and perceived pressures on the establishment of an autonomy supportive climate. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 22(4), 529e545. Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2007). The moderating effect of passion on the relation between activity engagement and positive affect. Motivation and Emotion, 31, 312e321. Maslach, C., Scaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397e422. Mega, C., Moè, A., Pazzaglia, F., Rizzato, R., & De Beni, R. (2007). Emozioni nello studio e successo accademico. Presentazione di uno strumento. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 34(2), 451e463. Miller, S. A. (1995). Parent's attributions for their children's behavior. Child Development, 66(6), 1557e1584. Näring, G., Briët, M., & Brouwers, A. (2006). Beyond demand-control: emotional labour and symptoms of burnout in teachers. Work & Stress, 20(4), 303e315. Oatley, K. (1991). Best laid schemes: The psychology of emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O'Connor, K. E. (2008). “You choose to care”: teachers, emotions and professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 117e126. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307e332. Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 164e172. Poulou, M. (2007). Personal teaching efficacy and its sources: student teachers' perceptions. Educational Psychology, 27(2), 191e218. Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Students' approaches to learning and teachers' approaches to teaching in higher education. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 673e680. Ross, J. A. (1998). The antecedents and consequences of teacher efficacy. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching, Vol. 7 (pp. 49e74). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

1153

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68e78. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 611e625. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2009). Does school context matter? Relations with teacher burnout and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 518e524. Smith, P., Kendall, L., & Hulin, C. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction, in work and retirement: A strategy for the study of attitude. Chicago: Rand McNally. Stein, M. K., & Wang, M. C. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: the process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 171e187. Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Factorial and construct validity of the Italian positive and negative affect Schedule (PANAS). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19, 131e141. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783e805. Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202e248. Vallerand, R. J., Blanchard, C., Mageau, G. A., Koestner, R., Ratelle, C. F., Leonard, M., et al. (2003). Les passions de l’âme: on obsessive and harmonious passion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 756e767. Villanueva, D., & Djurkovic, N. (2009). Occupational stress and intention to leave among employees in small and medium enterprises. International Journal of Stress Management, 16(2), 124e137. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063e1070. Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 215e235. Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: separating evaluations, beliefs and affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review, 22, 173e194.