Affect and Job Performance The Effect of Daily Mood States On Employees' Overall and Contextual Performance

THE UNIVERSITY OF TULSA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
AFFECT AND JOB PERFORMANCE: THE EFFECT OF DAILY MOOD STATES ON
EMPLOYEES’ OVERALL AND CONTEXTUAL PERFORMANCE
by
Kevin E. Fox
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the discipline of Psychology
The Graduate School
The University of Tulsa
2006
THE UNIVERSITY OF TULSA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
AFFECT AND JOB PERFORMANCE: THE EFFECT OF DAILY MOOD STATES ON
EMPLOYEES’ OVERALL AND CONTEXTUAL PERFORMANCE
by
Kevin E. Fox
A DISSERTATION
APPROVED FOR THE DISCIPLINE OF
PSYCHOLOGY
By Dissertation Committee
, Chair
Dr. Robert Tett
Dr. Kurt Kraiger
Dr. Deidra Schleicher
Dr. Wendy Casper
ii
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT
Copyright © 2006 by Kevin E. Fox
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the author.
iii
ABSTRACT
Fox, E. Kevin (Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology)
Affect and Job Performance: The Effect of Daily Mood States on Employees’
Overall and Contextual Performance
Directed by Dr. Robert P. Tett

(232 pp. – Chapter 5)
(215 words)
The purpose of the current study is to further understanding of the role of daily
mood states, and their non-work antecedents, in influencing workplace task and
contextual job performance. Building on recent affective theory (Weiss & Cropanzano,
1996) and research (e.g., Fisher, 2000; Judge & Ilies, 2004) showing strong relationships
between affect and important workplace outcomes such as job attitudes and job
performance, two primary questions are addressed: (1) what is the effect of positive and
negative life events on mood experienced at work; and (2) what is the effect of daily
mood states on job performance. Data was collected using a longitudinal design whereby
74 employees of 7 organizations located in northern Thailand completed daily measures
of mood for 6 consecutive weeks. Supervisors correspondingly rated 5 dimensions of
daily job performance for each employee over the same interval. Analyses of both
within- and between-subjects effects were conducted using Multilevel Random
Coefficient Modeling (MRCM). Results were unexpectedly weak given previous
research findings. A follow-up exploratory survey was administered and exploratory
iv
analyses performed. Results of moderator analyses suggest the possibility that the effect
of daily mood states on job performance may be idiographic and thus situationally
determined. Findings are discussed regarding their applicability to both the scientific
study of affect at work and applied organizational practices.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my loving wife Somying for endless encouragements and
tireless support of this research effort. Without her help this study would have been
impossible to complete. I am also deeply grateful to my friend and advisor Robert Tett
for his willingness to supervise this project and the countless hours (years) that he has
spent sharing his knowledge and wisdom with me. He has helped me to become the
scientist that I am today.
Along the way there have been many people who have had a profound impact both
personally and professionally on me. Chief among these are Deidra Schleicher for her
unique style and inspiring professionalism and Wendy Casper for her dedication and
compassionate mentoring. I would also like to thank numerous others including Kurt
Kraiger, John Mathieu, Jim Farr, David Day, and Rick Jacobs for all having a large
impact on my development into the professional that I am today.
Finally, I would like to thank my friends Dave & Barbara, Chris & Tiffany, Stacy,
Charlie, Penny & Brad, Dawn & Dave, Sarah, Jackie, Bob & Ellen Sanborn, Mike, Tae,
Jason, Michelle, John, Andrew, Jill, Barbara Fleisher, Evette, Angie, Dayna and Shawn,
who have enriched my life with their intelligence and humor.
I am also grateful to my family Peter, Judy, Somchai, Parichat, Erika, Alexander &
Cola for their love and encouragement.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................... vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1

Emotion and Mood ...................................................................................... 1
Emotion Defined........................................................................................... 2
The Structure of Mood ................................................................................ 5
Theories of Mood ......................................................................................... 9
Affective Dispositions......................................................................... 10
Affect Infusion Model......................................................................... 12
Affective Events Theory...................................................................... 14
Current Findings in Workplace Affect Research ..................................... 16
Stress .................................................................................................. 16
Job Attitudes....................................................................................... 18
Withdrawal Behaviors ....................................................................... 21
Helping Behaviors ............................................................................. 22
Job Performance................................................................................ 24
Summary ............................................................................................ 28
Measurement ................................................................................................ 28
Limitations and Current Research............................................................. 30
The Current Study....................................................................................... 31
Hypotheses ......................................................................................... 33
CHAPTER 2: METHOD ......................................................................................... 36

Research Design ........................................................................................... 36
Sample Size ........................................................................................ 37
Participants................................................................................................... 38
Measures ....................................................................................................... 39
Mood .................................................................................................. 39
Life Events.......................................................................................... 39
vii
Job Performance................................................................................ 40
Single-Item Measures......................................................................... 41
Translation......................................................................................... 41
Procedure...................................................................................................... 42
Analyses ........................................................................................................ 42
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS ......................................................................................... 47

Data Cleaning & Descriptive Statistics ...................................................... 47
Hypotheses Testing ...................................................................................... 48
Between Subjects................................................................................ 48
Within (Pooled) Subjects.................................................................... 51
CHAPTER 4: EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION .......................................... 54

Overview ....................................................................................................... 54
Participants................................................................................................... 58
Measures ....................................................................................................... 58
Demographics .................................................................................... 58
Commitment ....................................................................................... 59
Emotional Labor ................................................................................ 59
Emotional Intelligence ....................................................................... 60
Procedure...................................................................................................... 61
Analysis ......................................................................................................... 61
Results ........................................................................................................... 61
OLS Regression Moderator Analyses ................................................ 63
MRCM Moderator Analyses .............................................................. 66
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION................................................................................... 68
Summary of Findings .................................................................................. 69
Hypothesized ...................................................................................... 69
Exploratory ........................................................................................ 72
Implications .................................................................................................. 78
Limitations.................................................................................................... 80
Directions for Future Research .................................................................. 83
Conclusions................................................................................................... 86
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 87
APPENDIX A............................................................................................................ 187

APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................ 188
APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................ 189
APPENDIX D............................................................................................................ 190
APPENDIX E ............................................................................................................ 215
APPENDIX F............................................................................................................. 217
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1: Summary of Workplace Affect Literature Review.................................... 104
Table 2: Demographic Variable Descriptive Statistics complete sample (N=73) ... 105
Table 3: Demographic Variable Descriptive Statistics final sample (N=50)........... 106
Table 4: Means, Standard Deviations, Alphas, and Intercorrelations Between

Individuals (N = 50)................................................................................... 107
Table 5: HLM Estimates of the Effect of Positive Daily Life Events on Daily
Mood .......................................................................................................... 108
Table 6: HLM Estimates of the Effect of Negative Daily Life Events on Daily
Mood .......................................................................................................... 109
Table 7: HLM Estimates of the Effect of Positive Daily Life Events on Discrete
Affective States.......................................................................................... 110
Table 8: HLM Estimates of the Effect of Negative Daily Life Events on Discrete
Affective States.......................................................................................... 111
Table 9: HLM Estimates of the Effect of Positive Mood on Discrete Affective

States .......................................................................................................... 112
Table 10: HLM Estimates of the Effect of Negative Mood on Discrete Affective
States .......................................................................................................... 113
Table 11: HLM Estimates of the Effect of Positive Mood and Affect on Job
Performance ............................................................................................... 114
Table 12: HLM Estimates of the Effect of Negative Mood and Affect on Job
Performance ............................................................................................... 115
Table 13: Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Between Individuals

(N = 50)...................................................................................................... 116
ix
Table 14: Moderator Analyses for the Positive Mood Commitment Relationship.... 117
Table 15: Moderator Analyses for the Positive Mood Job Effort Relationship......... 118
Table 16: Moderator Analyses for the Positive Mood Handling Stress
Relationship ............................................................................................... 119
Table 17: Moderator Analyses for the Positive Mood Helping Relationship............ 120
Table 18: Moderator Analyses for the Positive Mood Overall Job Performance
Relationship ............................................................................................... 121
Table 19: Moderator Analyses for the Negative Mood Commitment Relationship .. 122
Table 20: Moderator Analyses for the Negative Mood Effort Relationship.............. 123
Table 21: Moderator Analyses for the Negative Mood Handling Stress
Relationship ............................................................................................... 124
Table 22: Moderator Analyses for the Negative Mood Helping Relationship .......... 125
Table 23: Moderator Analyses for the Negative Mood Overall Job Performance
Relationship ............................................................................................... 126
Table 24: HLM Moderator Analyses for the Positive Mood Commitment
Relationship ............................................................................................... 127
Table 25: HLM Moderator Analyses for the Positive Mood Job Effort
Relationship ............................................................................................... 128
Table 26: HLM Moderator Analyses for the Positive Mood Handling Stress
Relationship ............................................................................................... 129
Table 27: HLM Moderator Analyses for the Positive Mood Helping Relationship .. 130
Table 28: HLM Moderator Analyses for the Positive Mood Overall Job
Performance Relationship.......................................................................... 131
Table 29: HLM Moderator Analyses for the Negative Mood Commitment
Relationship ............................................................................................... 132
Table 30: HLM Moderator Analyses for the Negative Mood Effort Relationship.... 133
Table 31: HLM Moderator Analyses for the Negative Mood Handling Stress
Relationship ............................................................................................... 134
x
Table 32: HLM Moderator Analyses for the Negative Mood Helping
Relationship ............................................................................................... 135
Table 33: HLM Moderator Analyses for the Negative Mood Overall Job
Performance Relationship.......................................................................... 136
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: The Circumplex of Emotion Valence to Activation Axes and the 45°
Rotation with Positive Affect to Negative Affect Axes........................... 137
Figure 2: Affective Events Theory: Macro Structure.............................................. 138
Figure 3: Theoretical Model of Affect in the Workplace........................................ 139
Figure 4: Measured Theoretical Model of Affect in the Workplace ....................... 140
Figure 5: Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Affective Commitment on the

Positive Mood Commitment Relationship............................................... 141
Figure 6: Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Observability on the Positive

Mood Effort Relationship ........................................................................ 142
Figure 7: Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Emotional Labor on the Positive
Figure 8: Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Age on the Positive Mood
Handling Stress Relationship................................................................... 144
Figure 9: Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Education on the Positive Mood
Handling Stress Relationship................................................................... 145
Figure 10: Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Normative Commitment on the
Positive Mood Handling Stress Relationship .......................................... 146
Figure 11: Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Emotional Labor on the Positive
Mood Helping Relationship..................................................................... 147
Positive Mood Helping Relationship ....................................................... 148
Figure 13: Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Sex on the Positive Mood Overall
Job Performance Relationship ................................................................. 149
xii
Positive Mood Overall Job Performance Relationship............................ 150
Figure 15: Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Age on the Negative Mood
Commitment Relationship ....................................................................... 151
Figure 16: Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Self Emotional Appraisal on
the Negative Mood Commitment Relationship ....................................... 152
Effort Relationship................................................................................... 153
Figure 18: Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Education on the Negative Mood
Figure 19: Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Sex on the Negative Mood
Figure 20: Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Overall Quality on the Negative
Figure 21: Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Continuance Commitment on the
Negative Mood Effort Relationship......................................................... 157
Handle Stress Relationship ...................................................................... 158
Figure 23: Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Education on the Negative
Mood Handle Stress Relationship............................................................ 159
Mood Handle Stress Relationship............................................................ 161
Figure 26: Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Self Emotional Appraisal on the
Negative Mood Handle Stress Relationship ............................................ 162
Figure 28: Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Normative Commitment on the
xiii
Helping Relationship ............................................................................... 165
Figure 30: Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Education on the Negative Mood
Mood Helping Relationship..................................................................... 168
Negative Mood Helping Relationship ..................................................... 169
Negative Mood Overall Job Performance Relationship .......................... 170
Figure 35: Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Age on the Positive Mood
Figure 36: Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Income on the Positive Mood
Figure 37: Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of How Well Know on the Positive
Mood Commitment Relationship............................................................. 173
Figure 38: Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Age on the Positive Mood Effort
Relationship ............................................................................................. 174
Figure 39: Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Emotional Labor on the Positive
Figure 40: Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Age on the Positive Mood
Overall Job Performance Relationship .................................................... 178
Figure 43: Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Emotional labor on the Positive
Mood Overall Job Performance Relationship.......................................... 179
xiv
Figure 44: Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Affective Commitment on the
Positive Mood Overall Job Performance Relationship............................ 180
Figure 45: Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Affective Commitment on the
Negative Mood Commitment Relationship ............................................. 181
Figure 46: Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Normative Commitment on the
Negative Mood Commitment Relationship ............................................. 182
Figure 47: Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Age on the Negative Mood
Figure 48: Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Overall Quality on the Negative
Figure 49: Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Regulation of Emotions on the
Negative Mood Effort Relationship......................................................... 185
Figure 50: Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Income on the Negative Mood
xv
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Emotion and Mood
The study of emotion in the workplace can currently be described as undergoing a
renaissance, from a position of relative investigative neglect to a major target of
innovative research (Fisher, 2002; Frijda, 1988; Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren &
Chermont, 2003; Weiss, 2001). Despite this renewed attention, however, current
research efforts have been hampered by definitional and methodological uncertainties
(Brief & Weiss, 2002). Among these important yet unresolved questions are: What do
labels such as mood, emotion, and affect mean (Russell & Barrett, 1999)? What is the
structure of emotional constructs (Watson, Wiese, Vaidya & Tellegen, 1999)? What
theory best explains how moods and emotions affect behavior and attitudes (George &
Jones, 1997; Rusting, 1998; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996)? And, finally, what empirical
research has yielded meaningful data relevant to address the critical inquiries of
researchers and practitioners (Fuller, Stanton, Fisher, Spitzmuller, Russell & Smith,
2003; Hirt, Melton, McDonald & Harackiewicz, 1996)? The current study was designed
to advance knowledge of the role of affect, and, more specifically, daily mood states, in
workplace behaviors and attitudes. Each of the preceding questions is addressed, in turn,
as a foundation for the current effort.
1
Emotion Defined
As in any research domain, the study of emotionally related constructs calls for
clear definitions of the subject matter. This deceptively simple task has proved daunting
in that there is no universally accepted definition of what an emotion is (Ashkanasy,
Hartel & Zerbe, 2000; Frijda, 1988). Illustrative of this point is a review by Plutchik
(1980), in which 28 different definitions are identified in the psychological literature.
Kleinginna and Kleinginna (1981) identified 92 from a broader collection of sources.
The scientific research of emotion can be traced back 134 years to Darwin’s (1873)
examination of the adaptive importance of emotional expression. Looking beyond
scientific study, the investigation of emotions by early philosophers predates western
civilization.
Given this long history of study, why is there so much variability among
contemporary researchers regarding the simple definition of something that most lay
people could describe? The problem lies in the types of theories that have spawned the
definitions of emotional constructs (Ashkanasy, et al., 2000). For example, different
theories of emotion have often focused on very specific aspects of emotional function or
classification. Whether it is theories of evolutionary adaptation (Darwin, 1873; Izard,
1971) or physiological function (LeDoux, 1995), great diversity exists among definitions.
Despite this theoretical diversity, Frijda (1988) argues the study of emotion need not be
slowed by this definitional morass. While he acknowledges that researchers might
“quarrel endlessly about the word” (1988, p. 351), such exercises are largely fruitless and
detract rather than contribute to our understanding of emotions. He suggests instead that
2
researchers focus on understanding the communalities of emotions and rigorously define
what they mean in the context of their own research efforts.
The label of emotion encompasses a wide range of phenomena including feelings,
changes in behavior and cognitions, the engagement of involuntary or impulsive behavior
and thoughts, relative tenacity of beliefs, changes in the relationship between a person
and his or her environment, and physiological changes not caused by physical conditions
(Frijda, 2000). As such, Frijda (1993) summarized the current consensus among emotion
researchers by defining emotions as composed of four aspects: (1) the experience of a
subjective valence state (e.g., positive), (2) experience that is related to something else
(e.g., person, object, or event), (3) an identifiable, discrete physiological change in the
person, and (4) specific experiences associated with distinct action tendencies (behavioral
or cognitive).
Given this general definition of emotion, it is important to distinguish what
differentiates emotion from other widely used labels such as mood and affect. Weiss
(2002) provides a useful framework for understanding the different constructs that fall
within this broad conceptual domain. In his framework, affective states refer to a family
of related entities he labels as Mood, Stress and Emotion. Under this definition, and as
adopted by others (e.g., Lord & Kanfer, 2002), affect is a general term used to describe
any emotion related term (e.g., mood, stress, and discrete emotions). Of the three
subcategories of affect, emotion and mood are the most closely related. Emotions are a
large class of discrete identifiable states such as anger, fear, and guilt. There are as many
emotions as can be identified by a given language. Russell (1997) suggests that there
may exist as many as 2,000 emotionally descriptive words in the English language alone.
3
Stress is distinguished from emotion by Weiss (2002) despite the belief by some that it
should be subsumed under the emotion label (Lazarus, 1993). This distinction of stress
as a separate aspect of emotion is widely endorsed, as evidenced by the proliferation of
stress specific research that makes little if any acknowledgement of a direct link to the
larger area of emotion (e.g., Dormann & Zapf, 2002; Florio, Donnelly & Zevon, 1998).
As a distinct construct, stress can be defined as an immediate negative psychological
and/or aroused physiological state arising from an individual’s experience of an aversive
environmental challenge (Jex, 2002; Weiss, 2002).
Moods, as contrasted to stress, are widely seen as being inexorably linked to
emotions (Lord & Kanfer, 2002; Plutchik & Conte, 1997; Russell & Barrett, 1999;
Watson, Wiese, Vaidya & Tellegen, 1999; Weiss, 2002). This point is evidenced clearly
among mood researchers by simple examination of a list of mood exemplars: happiness,
anger, fear, sadness, and surprise (Mayer & Gaschke, 1988). While emotions and moods
do share labels, there is a clear distinction between them. Emotions and moods are
primarily distinguished not in content, but rather by their degree of intensity and duration
(Frijda, 1993; Larson, 2000; Weiss, 2002). Relative to emotions, moods are defined as
being more diffuse, more enduring, and less related to specific environmental phenomena
(Lord & Kanfer, 2002). As an example of this distinction, emotion would be evidenced
by the statement “Seeing that movie made me angry,” while, “I’m feeling angry today”
would be indicative of a mood state. In both cases, anger is the defining affective label;
however, the behavioral and cognitive implications of anger emotion and anger mood are
different. A person feeling the emotion of anger might in a few minutes feel a
completely different emotion such as pleasure during a nice conversation, whereas a
4
person in an angry mood is likely to remain feeling angry well after any source of anger-
inciting stimuli has been removed. Thus, the defining distinctions between moods and
discrete emotions are that: (1) moods are more enduring than emotions; (2) moods are not
formed as distinct and immediate reactions to specific objects, people or events; and (3)
moods are more resistant to change than are emotions.
The Structure of Mood
The study of affect has bifurcated into two general perspectives (Larsen, Diener &
Lucas, 2002; Russell, 1997; Weiss, 2002), the Primary or Basic emotions perspective,
and the Circumplex perspective. The basic emotions perspective is built around the
notion that a small set of fundamental emotions exist and serve as the foundation on
which all other human emotions develop (Weiss, 2002). An important question that
arises from this perspective regards the determination of which emotions should be
considered basic emotions. A number of criteria have been proposed including three by
Izard (1992): (1) distinct and universally displayed facial expression; (2) innate and
unique neural substrates; and (3) unique feeling states associated with the emotion.
Additional proposed criteria include the display of emotion in primates, and automatic
appraisal (Ekman, 1994). Weiss (2002) notes that only two criteria, universality and
distinct physiology, seem to enjoy consensus as criteria for determining whether or not an
emotion should be considered basic.
Given the ongoing debate over what constitutes a “basic” emotion, it is not
surprising to find widespread disagreement as to a comprehensive list of basic emotions
appropriate for study. Ekman (1992) offers a list of six emotions (happiness, surprise,
5
fear, sadness, anger, and disgust), Russell (1991) offers five (anger, fear, sadness,
happiness, and disgust), and Larsen et al. (2002) summarize that multiple lists of basic
emotions exist, usually numbering between five and nine. Indeed, as if to personally
illustrate this point, Ekman offers a list of 17 emotions that could be classified as being
basic emotions two years after he suggested the above mentioned list of six (Ekman,
1994).
Despite this relative lack of agreement as to a comprehensive list of basic
emotions, the primary emotions view does offer a number of advantages. First, the
distinct nature of basic emotions allows the researcher to select one emotion to target in a
research effort and to exclude consideration of other emotions as irrelevant to the study at
hand (Larsen, et al., 2002). For example, if a researcher were interested in exploring the
role of fear in the workplace and adopted a basic emotions perspective, there would be no
need to examine the effect of other emotions such as anger or happiness. A second
advantage manifests in the theoretical conciseness of being able to link a single emotion
to specific behaviors or workplace outcomes.
In contrast to this relatively simplistic perspective, a growing body of research
supports a dynamic interplay among multiple affective dimensions (Barrett & Russell,
1998; Feldman, 1995; Plutchik & Conte, 1997; Reisenzein, 1994; Russell & Barrett,
1999; Russell, Lewicka & Niit, 1989; Russell, Weiss & Mendelsohn, 1989; Watson &
Clark, 1994; Watson & Tellegen, 1985; Watson, et al., 1999). Such circumplex models
of emotional structure offer a venerable perspective dating back to the early work of
Schlosberg (1941, 1954), Plutchik (1958), and Russell (1980). This perspective
postulates that the structure of affect is defined by two or three fundamental affective
6
dimensions orthogonally oriented to one another, and that all emotions are blends of these
core dimensions. This idea can be readily compared to the creation of colors (Plutchik,
1997), in that there are a limited set of primary colors that cannot be broken down further
into more distinct colors and that all other colors are derived as combinations of these
primary colors (e.g., mixing blue and red makes green, and mixing them in different
quantities produces distinct shades of green). The critical question then becomes: What
are the core dimensions of the circumplex model of affect?
The overwhelming consensus among circumplex researchers is that the two core
dimensions are valence (pleasant to unpleasant) and arousal (high activation to low
activation) (Reisenzein, 1994; Russell, 1980; Watson & Tellegen, 1985). Watson and
Tellegen (1985) shifted the emphasis of this original model from valence and arousal by
rotating the axes of the Circumplex 45° (Figure 1) and labeled the rotated axes Positive
Affect (PA) and Negative Affect (NA). Their modification subsequently gave rise to the
“big two” (Larsen, et al., 2002, p. 73) of affect research and formed the basis for nearly
20 years of renewed interest in workplace affect. Using this Circumplex, the specific
emotion of anger would be defined as a combination of high activation and high
unpleasantness, and contentment would be a combination of low activation and high
pleasantness. As such, the circumplex allows for the complete mapping of all emotions
within its circumference.
While the circumplex structure of affect has enjoyed widespread popularity, it has
not been without its detractors and a number of debates have arisen. Among the
criticisms are those of Izard (1977) and Schimmack, Oishi, Diener, and Suh (2000), who
argue that the circumplex structure of emotion is too broad and that merely summarizing
7
specific emotional states along the valence and activation axes ignores the benefits of
specificity offered by a basic emotion approach. Larsen et al. (2002) further expand on
this criticism to note that while it is possible to aggregate from a basic emotions approach
to a circumplex approach, it is not possible to do the reverse. Mitigating this concern,
however, is the practice of researchers to use measures that assess specific basic emotions
and then aggregate scores on those measures to examine the latent dimensions of valence
and activation (e.g., PANAS-X, Watson & Clark, 1994). Yet, this criticism would apply
to measures that directly assess the axes of the circumplex (e.g., Affect Grid, Russell, et
al., 1989) and as such, must be considered in research efforts using them.
Another lively debate to emerge over the last decade concerns whether the axes of
PA and NA represent truly independent dimensions as Watson and Tellegen (1985) and
others (Cacioppo, Gardner & Berntson, 1999; Watson, et al., 1999) suggest, or whether
they are bipolar ends of a single dimension (Green, Goldman & Salovey, 1993; Green,
Salovey & Truax, 1999; Russell & Carroll, 1999). At the core of this debate lies the issue
of whether PA and NA best represent the circumplex, or whether it is more appropriate to
use the original axes of valence and activation for defining the circumplex (Russell &
Carroll, 1999; Watson, et al., 1999). Reisenzein (1994) suggests that the activation and
valence dimensions best capture the basic components of emotions, while PA and NA
capture the major groups of affects composed of activation and valence. While Russell
and Barrett’s (1999) research has comprehensively demonstrated that the activation
valence dimensions are semantically better fits for the primary dimensions of affect, their
case has done little to undermine the value of research that conceptualized affect as PA
and NA. As Watson et al. (1999) acknowledge, PA and NA can be simply renamed as
8
“Negative Activation and Positive Activation” (p. 827) to provide more accurate
representation of their space within the activation – valence circumplex. To date, no
empirical or theoretical argument has been made that would invalidate the extensive
research findings of studies using the original PA and NA labels, and relabeling them
seems to resolve the debate (by aligning their dimension names more clearly within the
activation-valence structure). As such, Watson et al. (1999) encourage researchers to
continue to use PA and NA as explanatory constructs in future research, a position
advocated by others (Ilies & Judge, 2002; Lee & Allen, 2002; Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky,
Warren & Chermont, 2003; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).
Research on the structure of mood and emotions provides two distinct theoretical
approaches in its conceptualization: basic emotions and the circumplex. While the
circumplex seems to have attracted the preponderance of attention by organizational
mood researchers (Thoresen, et al., 2003), this trend is not without its detractors. Brief
and Weiss (2002), in their Annual Review of Psychology article on affect in the
workplace, lament that “the most glaring example of narrowness of organizational
research is the overemphasis of the study of mood at the expense of discrete emotions”
(p. 297). Seemingly then, to address this concern, both general affect (PA-NA) and
discrete moods should be assessed simultaneously.
Theories of Mood
There are three theoretical frameworks that the preponderance of researchers have
adopted in an effort to understand the role of moods and emotions in the workplace. The
oldest and most popular is affective disposition or trait theory (Cropanzano, James &
9
Konovsky, 1993; Iverson & Deery, 2001; Watson & Tellegen, 1985). Second, Forgas
(1995; Forgas & George, 2001) developed the Affect Infusion Model (AIM), a theory by
which mood and emotions affect cognitive processes, which, it turn, influence subsequent
attitudes and behaviors. Third, Weiss and Cropanzano’s (1996) Affective Events Theory
(AET) has enjoyed considerable attention in recent years, focusing on the immediate
timeframe and reversing the direction of the traditional causal relationship between
emotions and attitudes or behaviors. Each of these theoretical frameworks is compatible
with both the basic and circumplex structure of affect.
Affective Disposition
The affective disposition perspective stresses the critical difference between state
and trait affect as independent constructs playing distinct roles in determining workplace
behavior (Judge & Larsen, 2001; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Larsen et al. (2002)
point out four critical reasons why state and trait affect must be carefully conceptualized
and measured as distinct from one another: (1) mood states are more proximal than trait
affect and as such may have direct effects on specific behaviors and attitudes that trait
affect does not have; (2) the causal direction of mood states may be different from that of
traits (e.g., moods are influenced by events, while traits influence events); (3) because
trait affect is stable, it might allow for prediction of behavior and emotional reactions to
events; (4) researchers often confuse state and trait in the current literature (e.g.,
correlating trait affect and helping behavior, then claiming that people engage in more
helping behavior when they are in a good mood). Avoiding this conceptual confusion is
not difficult, but requires researchers to be mindful of the definition of the construct
under investigation and aligning measurement correspondingly. It should be noted that
10
all dispositional approaches to the study of affect must assume a trait perspective. It is
definitionally inconsistent to discuss mood states as being completely dispositional in
origin. While moods are certainly influenced by trait affect, by definition they are
general reactions to environmental events and as such are indivisibly linked to
environmental conditions and events. Thus, the distinction between trait and state affect
is defined by measuring how one feels generally versus how one feels during a specific
and relatively brief moment in time (e.g., today, or this week) (Watson, et al., 1988).
Yet, if PA and NA are to be considered as universal affective traits, evidence must
be provided to support the claim that they are universally prevalent, relatively stable
individual differences. Evidence of a biological origin of PA and NA would provide
strong evidence to support this claim as biological foundations underlie many of our most
widely studied individual differences (e.g., sex, race, ability). Evidence suggesting the
biological origin and stability of trait PA and NA has come from several sources. First,
Russell and Barrett (1999) summarized the neurophysiological research supporting
distinct brain activity differences between those high and low in PA and NA (Heller,
1993; Lang, Greenwald, Bradely & Hamm, 1993; Lane, Reiman, Bradley, Lang, Ahern,
Davidson & Schwartz, 1997). Second, in a compelling study examining the long term
stability of PA and NA over 23 years and crossing four generations in nearly 3,000
subjects, Charles, Reynolds and Gatz (2001) found that NA slowly decreased with age
while PA remained stable until old age when it decreased slightly. Third, Watson et al.
(1999) concluded that PA follows a circadian rhythm while NA remains fairly stable
across time. Taken as a whole, these studies provide evidence to justify the
conceptualization and existence of trait PA and NA as distinct affective traits.
11
Additionally, in their review of the extant literature on trait PA and NA Connolly and
Viswesvaran (2000) report that zero order correlations for these two constructs range
from -.05 (Brief & Roberson, 1989) to -.39 (Judge & Locke, 1993), providing empirical
support for the consideration of trait PA and NA as distinct constructs.
Research examining the role of trait affect in predicting workplace behavior has
generally taken one or both of two approaches. The first approach holds that trait affect
influences workplace attitudes and behaviors directly (Iverson & Deery, 2001; Kelley &
Hoffman, 1997; Lee & Allen, 2002), while the second approach suggests that trait affect
may have a more indirect effect by moderating or mediating the relationship between
situational variables (e.g., job characteristics) and outcomes (e.g., performance, stress)
(Larsen, 2000; Staw, Sutton & Pelled, 1994; Zerbe & Hartel, 2000). Additionally, it is
not uncommon for researchers to adopt both approaches in the same study (e.g.,
Cropanzano et al., 1993). Findings based on both of these perspectives support the view
that trait affect asserts both direct and indirect effects on workplace behaviors and
attitudes and are reviewed in detail in a later section.
Affect Infusion Model
The Affect Infusion Model or AIM (Forgas, 1995) was developed using an
information processing approach to understanding the role of moods in the workplace.
Essentially, AIM postulates that affective states motivate an individual to engage in
specific cognitive strategies and direct attention towards mood reinforcing information,
thus resulting in a specific affect congruent behavior or attitude (Forgas & George, 2001).
Appreciably, AIM offers a specific set of guidelines allowing researchers to identify
12
when cognitive processes are likely to be infused with affect and allowing for the
instance when affect may play no role (Erber & Erber, 2001).
Critical to determining the impact of affect on workplace outcomes are the types
of situational demands to which an individual must adapt and decisions that an individual
must make to successfully achieve his or her goals in the workplace. The reason for this
is that different types of cognitive processes allow different amounts of affect infusion
(i.e., less structured or routine cognitive processes allow for more affect infusion than do
more structured or repetitive cognitive tasks). It is essential, then, to understand what
type of situations and decisions result in specific levels of affect infusion.
Three characteristics influence the type of processing in which a person is most
likely to engage: (1) personal variables (e.g., personality, intelligence and mood); (2) task
characteristics (e.g., familiarity); and (3) situational features (e.g., level of scrutiny).
Once input is received, one of four types of processing will be engaged: (1) direct access
processing, (2) motivated processing; (3) heuristic processing; or (4) substantive
processing. Direct access processing results when an individual needs to perform a
habitual or routine task that follows a well-established set of actions or decisions (e.g.,
dialing a telephone, preparing a computer for normal use), and allows little if any
affective infusion. Motivated processing occurs when an individual is motivated to make
decisions designed to allow him or her to achieve a predetermined goal. In this case,
there is little opportunity for affect to influence cognitive processes as the individual has
already decided what to do (e.g., helping a supervisor in the month preceding promotion
or pay raise decisions). Heuristic processing is engaged when there are no preexisting
rules or motivational goals regarding a particular action. This processing strategy is most
13
commonly engaged when the individual has little or no investment in the outcome of an
action and allows moderate levels of affect infusion. For example, if asked “how are you
doing?” by an acquaintance, a person may respond positively, neutrally or negatively
depending on his or her current mood state rather than engage in a more cognitively
taxing thought process to determine how one is “really” doing. Finally, substantive
processing allows the greatest impact of current mood on thought processes. Substantive
processing occurs when individuals must uncover and process new information. This
open processing style frequently causes individuals to attend to affectively primed
information that is mood congruent and is often unconsciously incorporated into
judgments and planned behavior (Forgas, 1998). For example, when tasked with
developing recommendations on how to improve an organization’s relationship with
employees, an employee might focus his or her work on reducing bureaucracy because of
a recent negative experience with it, as opposed to addressing a potentially more critical
inequity such as below-market compensation.
By determining the personal, situational and task characteristics of an individual,
it is possible using AIM to predict when mood states should be likely to influence
workplace attitudes and behavior. While little research in the workplace to date has
utilized AIM for making predictions, it is clear that AIM provides a robust theoretical
framework for making specific and testable hypotheses about the role of affect in the
workplace (Forgas, 2001).
Affective Events Theory
Weiss and Cropanzano’s (1996) Affective Events Theory (AET) is distinct from
previous theories in two critical ways. First, rather than seeing emotions and moods as
14
antecedents of behavior and attitudes, it postulates that affect is often a reaction to, rather
than a cause of, workplace events. This is not to say that affect does not have a
subsequent effect on behavior, but rather to emphasize that events and affect interact in a
continuous cycle. Additionally, while trait affect and the AIM (Forgas, 1995) are
primarily assessed using the broad PA and NA constructs, AET has the potential to
further understanding of the role of specific emotional reactions to discrete workplace
events (e.g., being turned down for a promotion leads to the specific emotions of
rejection and anger, but not fear and disgust).
The second innovative aspect of AET is its consideration of the temporal nature
of emotion and the inherent ebb and flow of moods and emotions throughout the workday
as individuals are exposed to multiple affective stimulating events. Specifically, AET
builds on the widely accepted definition of emotions as experienced feelings in reaction
to objects, people and events (Frijda, 1993). As such, AET has formed the theoretical
basis for a number of recent workplace studies examining the dynamic relationship
between work events and affect within a single person during a work day (Fisher, 2002;
Fuller, et al., 2003; Ilies & Judge, 2002). This use of “experience sampling”
methodologies has allowed researchers to examine the independent effects of state affect
beyond trait affect in the context of an actual work sample (e.g., Fisher, 2002).
Finally, AET encompasses within its framework a model for understanding both
affective reactions to workplace events and the effect of trait affective dispositions. In
their original work, Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) offered a model in which workplace
characteristics lead to work events that, in turn, lead to affective reactions. Affective
reactions are moderated by trait affective dispositions, and the effect of trait dispositions
15
on work attitudes and behavior is mediated by affective dispositions (Figure 2). In the
original AET model, all affect-driven behaviors were considered the result of affective
reactions. Recently, however, Weiss (2002) added the further distinction that some
behaviors result from the affective state itself while other behaviors result from attempts
to regulate affective states. While not fundamentally altering the original model, this
addition opens the way for affective dispositions to directly influence subsequent affect
regulation behavior as the original model does not (see Figure 2).
Examination of trait affect theory, AIM, and AET provides a rich framework for
developing a theoretical understanding of the mechanisms through which affect influence
workplace attitudes and behaviors. Additionally, building on our understanding of these
theories, it is possible to develop a set of hypotheses that describe how affect influences
an individual’s workplace attitudes and behavior. Before advancing these hypotheses, a
review of the relevant workplace affect literature is offered.
Current Findings in Workplace Affect Research
The following review of the extant literature on affect in the workplace is
organized to address four key areas: (1) outcomes; (2) measurement issues; (3)
limitations of extant research; and (4) remaining questions. The first key area regards
what variables have been studied in the extant literature. Five general types of outcomes
were identified from the literature, as discussed below and summarized in Table 1.
Stress
Researchers examining the relationship between affect and stress/strain generally
focus on two distinct sets of issues. Underlying both of these research streams is the well
16
established and substantial correlations (ranging from .31 to .74) between measures of
trait NA and job stress and strain (Brief, Burke, George, Robinson, & Webster, 1988;
Chen & Spector, 1991; Fuller et al., 2003; Schaubroeck, Ganster & Fox, 1992; Spector,
Chen & O’Connell, 2000; Watson & Pennebaker, 1989; Williams, Gavin & Williams,
1996). The first and largest of these two lines of research concerns the role of NA as a
“third variable” or nuisance variable in the relationship between job stressors and
subsequent stress/strain (Brief et al., 1988; Burke, Brief, & George, 1993; Chen &
Spector, 1991). While early research tended to support the need to control NA in stress
related research (e.g., Watson & Pennebaker, 1989), more recent studies have suggested
that earlier findings were misleading and that NA has a negligible impact on the stress-
strain relationship (Schaubroeck, et al., 1992; Spector, et al., 2000; Williams, et al.,
1996). Summarizing this point, Spector et al. (2000) warn that removing trait NA
variance from the stressor-strain relationship is likely to do more harm than good by
removing valid variance. While interesting in its own right, this debate has served the
secondary purpose of providing a solid research base for establishing the strong and
enduring relationship between trait affect and work stress.
The second line of research, which has emerged more recently, concerns the
investigation of mood states as an affective reaction to the experience of stressful work
events. Three studies using longitudinal designs examined the effect of daily stress on
subsequent mood states in white collar workers (Van Eck, Nicolson & Berkhof, 1998),
accountants (Teuchmann, Totterdell & Parker, 1999) and administrative staff (Fuller et
al., 2003). In all those studies, a strong relationship was observed between current
stressors and mood states. In two of the studies (Teuchmann, et al., 1999; Van Eck, et al.,
17
1998), perceptions of controllability over the stressful event or conditions were found to
alleviate the subsequent negative mood states. Additionally, Van Eck et al. (1998)
reported that higher levels of trait NA resulted in increased reactivity of individuals to
stressful events; that is, individuals high in trait NA were more likely to experience
negative mood states when confronted with a stressful event than were individuals low in
trait NA. Taken together, both lines of research establish a reasonable foundation for
understanding the distinct impact of both trait affect and mood states on workplace stress.
Job Attitudes
Two of the most widely examined and well understood workplace attitudes are
job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Job satisfaction is most often defined as
“a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job
experiences” (Locke, 1976, p. 1300). However, this definition has created some
controversy as it mixes both a cognitive/evaluative component with an affective reaction
(Brief & Weiss, 2002), which has falsely led many researchers to mislabel job
satisfaction as “affect.” So pervasive and enduring is this misconception that some have
pleaded that “job satisfaction is not affect and it is time we stopped saying it is” (Weiss &
Cropanzano, 1996, p. 65). While differences exist as to the usefulness of job satisfaction,
researchers must be clear in their work that it is not the same as affect. Motowidlo (1996)
makes this distinction clear in his definition of job satisfaction as an assessment or
judgment about the favorability of the work environment. Moreover, exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis research has strongly supported the distinctiveness of trait
PA and NA from job satisfaction (Agho, Price & Mueler, 1992).
18
Research between trait PA and NA has developed to the point where meta-
analytic techniques have allowed for aggregation of the available research. Two meta-
analytic studies shed light on the affect – job satisfaction relationship. The first study, by
Connolly and Viswesvaran (2000), reported meta-analytic correlations of .49 (N = 3,326,
k = 15) between PA and job satisfaction and -.33 (N = 6,233, k = 27) between NA and job
satisfaction. Additionally, five moderator variables (e.g., measure, tenure, organizational
size, organizational size, and age) were found to be nonsignificant. In a more recent
comprehensive effort, Thoresen et al. (2003) examined state and trait affect separately in
relation to job satisfaction. They report that trait PA has a corrected meta-analytic
correlation of .33 (N = 22,148, k = 71) with job satisfaction (95% confidence interval =
.29 to .37), while state PA has a corrected meta-analytic correlation of .44 (N = 1,503, k =
10) with job satisfaction (95% confidence interval = .35 to .54). Trait NA has a corrected
meta-analytic correlation of -.37 (N = 52,120, k = 145) with job satisfaction (95%
confidence interval = -.36 to -.31), while state NA has a corrected meta-analytic
correlation of -.36 (N = 9,220, k = 40) with job satisfaction (95% confidence interval = -
.42 to -.31). Interestingly, there is greater variability in findings between state and trait
PA than there are for state and trait NA (as seen in the differences in 95% credibility
intervals between state and trait). This is consistent with prior research suggesting
greater stability for state NA than for state PA (Watson, 2000).
Organizational commitment is another widely studied job attitude referring to an
individual’s adoption of organizational goals and values as his or her own, as well as a
general sense of emotional attachment to the organization (Mowday, Porter & Steers,
1982). Increasingly, the most popular conceptualization of organizational commitment
19
has been Meyer and Allen’s (1997) three part model of affective, normative and
continuance commitment. Affective commitment refers to an individual’s emotional
identification with their organization and their desire to stay with it. Continuance
commitment focuses on an individual’s perception of the relative costs associated with
leaving their organization. Normative commitment reflects an individual’s sense of
obligation to stay with an organization. While all three commitment types are interesting
in their own right, affective commitment has enjoyed the majority of attention from
researchers (Wright & Bonett, 2002), and especially so in affect research (Thoresen, et
al., 2003).
In the extant literature, all investigations examining the relationship between
affect and organizational commitment have used trait measures of affect with the
exception of a single identified study (Fisher, 2002). Given this paucity, the effects of
mood states on organizational commitment remain an open question. Meta-analytic
investigations of the relationship between trait PA and organizational commitment have
yielded a correlation of .35 (N = 4,873, k = 15, 95% confidence interval =.25 to .45), and
for trait NA and organizational commitment a correlation of -.27 (N = 8,040, k = 27, 95%
confidence interval = -.32 to -.22). Results of Thoresen et al.’s (2003) meta-analysis
clearly support the relationship between affective organizational commitment and trait
affect.
In the only identified study investigating the role of affective reactions on
affective commitment, Fisher (2002) found support for the relationship using both zero
order correlations (r = . 28 for PA) and structural equation modeling ( .36 and .37 path
coefficients in an alternative and theoretical model, respectively, for PA). NA, was
20
unrelated to affective commitment. This study is of particular interest because it tests
AET’s (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) hypothesis that affective reactions completely
mediate the relationship between trait affect and job attitudes, for which Fisher found
only partial support. While the relationship between trait affect and organizational
commitment seems fairly well established, much work remains in fully examining how
moods relate to organizational commitment.
Withdrawal Behaviors
Withdrawal behaviors have the potential to have a negative financial impact on
organizations, yet little research has examined the potential for dispositional causes of
withdrawal behavior (Iverson & Deery, 2001). The study of affect and workplace
withdrawal is an exception to this relative neglect, and generally focuses on two types of
withdrawal behaviors: absenteeism and turnover intentions (Brief & Weiss, 2002; Forgs
& George, 2001). Findings from several studies suggest that both trait affect and moods
affect levels of employee absenteeism and tardiness (Forgas & George, 2001). Early
work by George (1989) examining the impact of mood on absenteeism among
salespeople found that positive mood had a negative correlation (r = -.28) while negative
mood was unrelated (r = -.03). Trait affect showed an opposite pattern of results in that
NA correlated positively (r = .25), while PA was uncorrelated (r = -.01). These findings
were supported in a subsequent study (Iverson & Deery, 2001), where trait NA correlated
.09 with absenteeism and trait PA did not correlate significantly (r = -.07, n.s.).
Interestingly, Iverson and Deery (2001) followed up this analysis by examining the
incremental impact of trait affect beyond demographic (e.g., sex, age), job related (e.g.,
coworker support, job satisfaction), and environmental variables (e.g., absence culture,
21
external responsibilities) and found that PA contributed uniquely (β = -.10), while NA
did not (β = .06, n.s.). Support for the mood relationships was provided by Pelled and
Xin (1999) as they report that positive mood correlated -.36 with absenteeism, while
negative mood correlated less strongly (r = .17) with absenteeism.
Next to job satisfaction, the turnover intention – trait affect relationship is one of
the most widely studied relationships in the affect – work outcomes literature. As such,
Thoresen et al’s (2003) meta-analysis provides an examination of the aggregated findings
from this literature. Trait PA correlates -.17 (N = 5,327, k = 18, 95% confidence interval
= -.25 to -.09) with turnover intentions. For NA comparisons are available between trait
affect and mood states in their relationships with turnover intentions. Trait NA,
correlates .24 (N = 6,741, k = 25, 95% confidence interval =.18 to .31) with turnover
intentions, and state NA correlates .42 (N = 2,041, k = 10, 95% confidence interval =.30
to .54) with turnover intentions. In a follow up analysis, Thoresen et al. (2003) show that
trait NA contributes to the prediction of turnover intentions beyond the effect of trait PA,
while trait PA does not add uniquely beyond the effect of trait NA. However, this
analysis is restricted by the lack of studies examining the impact of positive moods, and
only analyzes data based on trait affect. The potential for positive mood states to
contribute beyond negative mood states remains an open question for further
investigation.
Helping Behaviors
Helping behaviors have long been linked to positive affective states in the social
psychology literature as a review of experimental studies by Carlson, Charlin and Miller
(1988) demonstrate. Research into workplace helpfulness, an aspect of contextual
22
performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993), has generally shown a strong relation with
PA and weak or non-existent relations with NA (Brief & Weiss, 2002). Trait PA has
been shown to relate strongly to a variety of workplace helping behaviors including:
altruistic organizational citizenship (e.g., helping coworkers with work related problems;
George, 1991; Fisher, 2002; Kelley & Hoffman, 1997; Lee & Allen, 2002), customer-
directed service behavior (i.e., help provided with the customers’ best interests in mind;
Kelley & Hoffman, 1997), customer service (Fisher, 2002; George, 1991), organization
focused helping (Lee & Allen, 2002), and service quality (Kelley & Hoffman, 1997).
Much less research exists examining trait NA and helping behavior. What research that
does exit shows a non-significant relationship between NA and helping behaviors (Fisher,
2002; Lee & Allen, 2001).
Results of two studies examining the relationship between positive mood and
coworker focused helping behaviors supported the existence of a positive relationship as
evidenced by sizable positive correlations of r = .48 (Fisher, 2002), and r = .24 (George,
1991). In both studies negative moods correlated non-significantly with helping
behaviors. Further examination of the relationship between positive and negative
emotions and helping behaviors was conducted by Lee and Allen (2001) through use of
Watson and Clark’s (1994) PANAS-X measure. Lee and Allen (2001) examined the
correlations of three discrete positive emotions (attentiveness, joviality, self-assurance)
and four discrete negative emotions (fear, hostility, sadness, guilt) with organizational
citizenship behaviors focused on helping either the organization in general or coworkers.
Results were generally consistent with the overall PA and NA correlations, but did
demonstrate some variability. Overall PA correlated .18 with coworker helping and .24
23
with organizational support while the specific emotion correlations ranged from .12 to .19
and .15 to .25 respectively. Similar patterns between broad and specific constructs were
found for NA, where overall NA correlated -.02 with coworker helping and -.05 with
organizational support while specific negative emotion correlations ranged from -.08 to
.10 and -.08 to -.01 respectively. Noteworthy is the positive correlation of the specific
emotion of fear with coworker helping (r = .10) while all other negative emotions and
NA were negatively related to coworker helping. Lee and Allen (2001) cite this
distinctiveness as evidence warranting further examination of the usefulness of discrete
emotions in the prediction of workplace helping behaviors.
Job Performance
Few outcomes are considered more important to Industrial Organizational
psychologists than job performance. Often, widespread respect for a new (or reemerging)
area of study does not develop until a number of studies reveal a consistent relationship
with critical workplace outcomes such as job performance (e.g., personality, emotional
intelligence). Until such relationships are established, skeptics may simply dismiss
research in these areas as less important and of marginal value to organizations. Affect in
the workplace has recently reemerged as a hot topic for applied psychologists and
management researchers after a period when emotions were often considered “unwanted
influences which deflected us from the path of objectivity” (Muchinsky, 2000, p. 802)
and thus inappropriate for study in organizational settings. Moreover, Muchinsky (2000)
calls for the recognition of affect as an important construct in personnel selection and job
performance, a call echoed by others (Brief & Weiss, 2002).
24
Current research sheds light on the relationship between affect and job
performance through three approaches: (1) trait affect relates directly to job performance;
(2) mood states relate directly to job performance; and (3) the mood – performance
relationship is mediated by other constructs. Building on the previous research is
evidence suggesting that the strength and direction of the relationship between job
performance and moods may be more job specific than has been generally considered
(Au, Chan, Wang & Vertinsky, 2003), especially when compared to the relative stability
of trait affect – job performance relationships. Finally, findings from a counterproductive
behavior study indicate that discrete emotions may provide additional predictive value
when examining the affect – job performance relationship. Each of these points is
discussed, in turn, below.
Findings from studies examining trait PA and NA with job performance have
been generally supportive of a moderate correlation (Cropanzano, et al., 1993; Staw,
Sutton & Pelled, 1994; Van Yperen, 2003), while others been less supportive (Wright &
Cropanzano, 1998). Trait PA has achieved the most consistent support with nearly
identical correlations across three studies and five companies: Cropanzano et al. (1993)
reported a .32 correlation in a diverse sample of jobs in a medical laboratory company;
Staw et al. (1994) found a .31 beta weight across three companies (a hospital and two
auto accessory manufacturers); and Van Yperen (2003) reported a .32 correlation for a
sample of social service workers in the Netherlands. In contrast, Wright and Cropanzano
(1998) report a non-significant (r = -.04) relationship for trait PA and job performance in
a sample of 52 social welfare workers employed in California; however, given the small
sample size of their study, only limited weight should be given to their findings.
25
Evidence regarding the trait NA – job performance relationship is also supportive with
correlations including -.12 (Wright & Cropanzano, 1998), -.26 (Cropanzano et al., 1993),
and -.33 (Van Yperen, 2003). Taken as a whole, there is ample evidence to expect a
relatively stable relationship, across job contexts, between trait affect and job
performance.
The research exploring the relationship between job performance and mood states
is not as clear as research examining the relationship between trait affect and job
performance. The primary reason for this ambiguity is the paucity of workplace studies
examining moods and job performance, as well as the diversity of methodologies and
limitations of each study. Findings from three studies are germane to understanding the
targeted relationship. Totterdell (2000) examined the role of happy mood in professional
cricket players in relation to self ratings of performance and two objective indicators of
sports performance (batting and bowling average). Results indicated that all three aspects
of performance were related to positive mood (r = .50, .36, .26, for self rated, batting, and
bowling average respectively). In a more traditional workplace setting (supervisors and
social services workers), Wright, Cropanzano and Meyer (2004) conducted two studies to
examine the relationship between mood and past year performance, and mood and
current performance. Positive mood did not correlate significantly with performance in
either study (r = -.03 and .08 respectively), while negative mood did (r = -.26 and -.31
respectively). While encouraging, these findings must be considered with caution as the
sample size for each study was moderate (N = 45 and 72 respectively).
In an interesting study of affect and job performance, George (1991) examined
both trait PA and positive mood in a sample of 221 sales employees. Findings indicated
26
a .00 correlation for trait PA and objective monthly sales and .02 for customer service.
Positive mood correlated .10 (n.s.) with sales, but .26 with customer service. George
(1991) concluded that positive mood was a critical antecedent to good customer service,
which, in turn, resulted in improved objective sales (r = .20 for customer service and
monthly sales). While George (1991) did not specifically address the trait-mood
relationship, trait positive affectivity correlated .40 with positive mood, suggesting that
the effect of trait affect may be mediated by mood, which, in turn, is mediated by
customer service in relation to objective sales performance. To date, this question has not
been empirically addressed.
Two studies raise additional questions regarding the nature of the mood–job
performance relationship. Au et al. (2003) conducted a study in which 66 economics
students (all with real or simulated stock trading experience) participated in a foreign
exchange trading simulation. Using an experimental design and three induced moods
(positive, neutral, negative), differences in generated profit were examined. Findings
indicated that individuals in good moods performed poorest (negative profit) and made
the least accurate decisions while taking the biggest risks. Individuals in negative moods
made the most accurate trade decisions, but were risk adverse. Individuals in neutral
moods returned the greatest profit levels. These findings shed light on the complexities
of how mood states can affect cognitive processes and challenge the general notion that
positive moods are always beneficial to performance and that negative moods always hurt
performance; a point made by others in relation to personality and job performance (Tett
& Burnett, 2003; Tett, Jackson, Rothstein & Reddon, 1999). Finally, in a study
examining the relationship between discrete emotions and counterproductive work
27
behaviors (e.g., stealing), Lee and Allen (2002) reported substantial variability among
correlations between affect and counterproductive work behaviors (r = -.14 for PA and -
.09, -.11, and -.17 for self-assurance, attentiveness, and joviality respectively) and general
NA and discrete negative emotions (r = .14 for NA and .05, .07, .09, and .27 for guilt,
fear, sadness, and hostility respectively). While counterproductive behaviors are different
from job performance, it is reasonable to generalize the finding that discrete emotions
may have a unique pattern of relationships with specific work-related outcomes distinct
from general affect.
Summary
Review of the preceding sections provides a strong foundation for understanding
the role of affect in the workplace. While extensive research has examined aspects of
trait affect and mood in relation to stress, job attitudes, withdrawal behaviors, and
helping, less research has focused on understanding the effect of moods on supervisor
rated job performance in traditional work settings. As such, the current study seeks to
enhance our knowledge by examining the relationship between daily mood states and
supervisor ratings of daily job performance.
Measurement
Scientific measurement of mood, emotions and trait affect can be traced back
almost half a century (Zuckerman & Lubin, 1965) and most commonly uses some form
of adjective checklist (e.g., PANAS, Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988). Exceptions do
exist, such as Russell, Weiss and Mendelsohn’s (1989) Affect Grid (a single item grid
designed to simultaneously measure the two axes of valence and arousal comprising the
28
circumplex structure of emotion). The overwhelming majority of research examining the
role of affect in the workplace (and affect in general) adopts an adjective checklist
measurement approach, and as the literature reveals scant criticism of this approach, there
is little reason to adopt an alternative measurement approach.
Another measurement issue arises out of some researchers’ unfortunate decisions
to assume equivalence between measures of PA and NA with the big five (Digman,
1990) personality traits of extroversion and neuroticism, respectively (George, 1996;
Rusting & Larsen, 1997). While these construct pairs do correlate significantly, it would
be a critical mistake to call them equivalent (Judge & Larsen, 2001) and, use them
interchangeably as some researchers have done (Schaubroeck, et al., 1992). Two
compelling reasons support treating PA and NA independently of the big five.
First, both personality and affect constructs emerge from distinct theoretical
backgrounds (i.e., personality theory versus emotion theory) and while there is overlap in
their manifestation (e.g., individuals high in NA are likely to display behaviors similar to
those displayed by individuals high in neuroticism), clear conceptual and definitional
distinctions warrant their continued separation. Second, clear empirical evidence
suggests that these measures are not interchangeable. For example, research by Ilies and
Judge (2002) reported a correlation of .40 between extroversion and PA, and a correlation
of .25 between neuroticism and NA. Assuming perfect reliability, these relationships
leave 84% and 94% of the variance unaccounted for – hardly comprehensive overlap.
Thoresen et al. (2003) provide additional empirical evidence of the importance of
separating PA and NA from extraversion and neuroticism in their meta-analysis of affect
and job perceptions by comparing results of their meta-analysis including personality
29
traits as measures of PA and NA with results from personality traits alone. Their findings
indicate that, by adding “pure” measures of PA and NA, meta-analytic correlations
improved noticeably for both PA (e.g., PA with job satisfaction related .34, while
extraversion related .22) and NA (e.g., NA with turnover intentions related .28, while
neuroticism related .12). This evidence is consistent with recent calls by Brief and Weiss
(2002), Weiss and Cropanzano (1996), and Lord and Kanfer (2002) for researchers to be
precise in their definitions and measurement of affect. Moreover, it supports the use of
measures specifically constructed to assess affect and not similar but distinct personality
traits in future research efforts.
Limitations and Current Research
After review of the current literature examining the role of affect in the
workplace, a number of key limitations are identified that future researchers need to
address. The three limitations of particular concern are: (1) the widespread misuse of the
labels such as “mood,” “trait affect,” and “emotion,” (Larsen, Diener & Lucas, 2002); (2)
the relative lack of studies examining both state and trait affect (George, 1991); and (3) a
lack of longitudinal field studies (Fisher, 2002). By addressing these concerns, the
current study aims to advance current understanding in several key ways: (1) explore the
impact of trait affect and mood in relation to the important outcome of job performance;
(2) adopt an experience sampling methodology to examine both within-person and
between-person relationships; and (3) build on our current knowledge regarding the
impact of non-work life events on workplace mood and job performance. Results from
the current study are expected to provide valuable insight into the nature of how daily
30
mood affects workplace behavior, and allow for the development of a set of practical
recommendations as to how organizations might use this knowledge to better manage
their employees’ job performance.
Additionally, both broad measures of affect (PA & NA) and more narrow
measures of specific affective states are examined in the current study. Building on
discussions of lists of basic emotions (Ekman, 1994; Larsen et al., 2002; Russell, 1991), a
set of specific affective states were identified that were non-redundant with the 20
affective adjectives used in the PANAS scale (Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988). The
result of this review yielded two positive affective states (a) confidence and (b) happiness
and 4 negative affective states including (a) anger, (b) fatigue, (c) sadness, and (d) stress.
The Current Study
The current study seeks to build on extant knowledge of the role of affect in
workplace settings. Using AET (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) as a theoretical base, a
dynamic model of the process through which both trait affect and mood affect daily task
and contextual job performance is offered (Figure 3 & 4). The theorized model builds on
several critical aspects of AET including: (1) conceptualizing moods and discrete
affective states as reactions to environmental events; and (2) linking affective reactions to
environmental events which influence subsequent behaviors and attitudes. There are also
several key differences between the theorized model and AET including: (1) the direct
influence of trait affect on organizational behavior and attitudes; (2) the influence of non-
work events in creating moods that subsequently influence work behavior and attitudes;
31
and (3) temporal differences (i.e., AET focuses on proximal emotional episodes while the
offered model adopts a more distal timeframe by focusing on daily moods).
Reasons for the deviations from the original AET model are based on both insight
from recent empirical tests of AET and practical considerations. An example of an
empirical finding unsupportive of AET is research challenging AET’s exclusion of trait
affect as a direct antecedent of workplace behavior and attitudes (Fisher, 2002; George,
1991; Totterdell, 2000). In fact, given the number of studies (see previous review)
consistently reporting significant relationships between trait affect and workplace
behavior and job attitudes, Weiss and Cropanzano’s (1996) claim to the contrary is
somewhat unexpected. Not surprising, however, is Weiss’s (2002) recent
acknowledgement that trait affect does play a role in the prediction of some workplace
behaviors and attitudes.
Differences based on practical considerations exist largely because of the
difficulty in measuring the multitude of workplace events, affective reactions to them,
and the subsequent impact of affect on behavior and attitudes. While AET offers a rich
framework built on a deep understanding of the role of affect in the workplace, muting
this temporal specificity to examine the impact of daily moods (as opposed to immediate
emotions) offers a more practical measurement strategy from the criterion perspective
(i.e., measuring employees’ job performance in the last 15 minutes versus measuring job
performance over the course of a day). Additionally, by focusing on antecedent events
occurring prior to an employees’ arrival to work, practical implications may be drawn to
assist a company in improving performance should a link be established between daily
moods and performance. For example, finding that negative life events (e.g., financial,
32
family) lead to negative daily moods, which in turn, result in lowered job performance
could provide justification (or incentive) for a company to offer flexible benefits aimed at
reducing work family conflict (Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux & Brinley, 2005). For
these reasons, the modified AET model is adopted in preference to the original AET
model.
Two final notes must be made regarding the current revised AET model. First,
while the model provides a process by which work outcomes influence subsequent mood
states and non-work life events (Figure 3), the current study offers only a partial
assessment of the full model. Because the focus of the current study is on understanding
the role of affect in relation to daily job performance, examining the impact of
workplace-generated moods on non-work life is tangential to current aims and thus is
excluded from further consideration here. However, Judge and Ilies (2004) examined the
effect of workplace-generated moods on subsequent moods and emotions experienced at
home and found support for the relationship. Second, because trait affect was measured
by taking the average of individuals’ daily mood states, the relationship between trait
affect and mood does not reflect a true relation, but rather a statistical artifact, and as such
will not be reported or discussed. As such, given the preceding discussion and n light of
the modified AET model offered above, a set of hypothesized relationships is offered
below.
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: Across individuals, positive life events will have a positive effect on
positive daily mood.
Hypothesis 2: Across individuals, negative life events will have a positive effect on
negative daily mood.
33
Hypothesis 3: Across individuals, positive life events will have a positive effect on the
discrete affective states of (3a) confidence and (3b) happiness.
Hypothesis 4: Across individuals, negative life events will have a positive effect on the
discrete affective states of (4a) anger, (4b) fatigue, (4c) sadness, and (4d) stress.
Hypothesis 5: Across individuals, positive mood will have a positive effect on with the
discreet affective states of (5a) confidence and (5b) happiness.
Hypothesis 6: Across individuals, negative mood will have a positive effect on with the
discreet affective states of (6a) anger, (6b) fatigue, (6c) sadness, and (6d) stress.
Hypothesis 7: Across individuals, beginning of day positive mood will have a positive
effect on supervisors’ ratings of employee end of day job performance such that positive
mood will have a positive effect on (7a) commitment, (7b) effort, (7c) handling stress,
(7d) helping, (7e) overall, and (7f) contextual performance.
Hypothesis 8: Across individuals, beginning of day negative mood will have a negative
effect on supervisors’ ratings of employee end of day job performance such that negative
mood will have a negative effect on (8a) commitment, (8b) handling stress, (8c) overall,
and (8d) contextual performance.
Hypothesis 9: Across individuals, the positive discrete affective states of confidence and
happiness will have a positive effect on supervisors’ ratings of employee end of day job
performance such that positive affective states will have a positive effect on (9a, 9b)
commitment, (9c, 9d) effort, (9e, 9f) handling stress, (9g, 9h) helping, (9i, 9j) overall, and
(9k, 9l) contextual performance.
Hypothesis 10: Across individuals, the negative discrete affective states of anger, fatigue,
sadness and stress will have a negative effect on supervisors’ ratings of employee end of
day job performance such that negative affective states will have a negative effect on
(10a, 10b, 10c, 10d) commitment, (10e, 10f, 10g, 10h) handling stress, (10i, 10j, 10k,
10l) overall, and (10m, 10n, 10o, 10p) contextual performance.
Hypothesis 11: Within individuals, positive life events will have a positive effect on
positive daily mood.
Hypothesis 12: Within individuals, negative life events will have a positive effect on
negative daily mood.
Hypothesis 13: Within individuals, positive life events will have a positive effect on the
discrete affective states of (13a) confidence and (13b) happiness.
Hypothesis 14: Within individuals, negative life events will have a positive effect on the
discrete affective states of (14a) anger, (14b) fatigue, (14c) sadness, and (14d) stress.
34
Hypothesis 15: Within individuals, positive mood will have a positive effect on with the
positive discreet emotions of (15a) confidence and (15b) happiness.
Hypothesis 16: Within individuals, negative mood will have a positive effect on with the
negative discreet emotions of (16a) anger, (16b) fatigue, (16c) sadness, and (16d) stress.
Hypothesis 17: Within individuals, beginning of day positive mood will have a positive
effect on supervisors’ ratings of employee end of day job performance such that positive
mood will have a positive effect on (17a) commitment, (17b) effort, (17c) handling stress,
(17d) helping, (17e) overall, and (17f) contextual performance.
Hypothesis 18: Within individuals, beginning of day negative mood will have a negative
effect on supervisors’ ratings of employee end of day job performance such that negative
mood will have a negative effect on 18a) commitment, (18b) handling stress, (18c)
overall, and (18d) contextual performance.
Hypothesis 19: Within individuals, the positive discrete affective states of confidence and
happiness will have a positive effect on supervisors’ ratings of employee end of day job
performance such that positive affective states will have a positive effect on (19a, 19b)
commitment, (19c, 19d) effort, (19e, 19f) handling stress, (19g, 19h) helping, (19i, 19j)
overall, and (19k, 19l) contextual performance.
Hypothesis 20: Within individuals, the negative discrete affective states of anger, fatigue,
sadness and stress will have a negative effect on supervisors’ ratings of employee end of
day job performance such that negative affective states will have a negative effect on
(20a, 20b, 20c, 20d) commitment, (20e, 20f, 20g, 20h) handling stress, (20i, 20j, 20k,
20l) overall, (20m, 20n, 20o, 20p) contextual performance.
35
CHAPTER 2
METHOD
Research Design
The current study utilized a longitudinal design as data were collected from 74
individuals over 6 consecutive weeks. According to Cohen, Cohen, West and Aiken
(2003), there are three reasons to justify the use of longitudinal research designs. The
first is when the researcher is interested in changes over time per se. The second focuses
on examining changes in the relationship between variables and groups over time.
Neither of these first two reasons justify the longitudinal design in the present study as
the examined relationships are expected to be relatively stable over time. The third and
the primary reason a longitudinal research designs was adopted for the current study was
to address a fundamental weakness of cross-sectional designs that assume that between-
subject assessments are a valid proxy for understanding changes within an individual.
Longitudinal designs allow for data to be collected and analyzed within-subjects. As data
are collected following a time sequence, a stronger case can be made for assuming causal
relationships between predictors and outcomes (i.e., mood predicts performance). As
such, it is for this third reason that the current study will adopt a longitudinal design
rather than a traditional cross-sectional survey approach.
36
Sample Size
A critical issue that must be addressed in longitudinal research regards the
determination of the appropriate number of subjects to be sampled. Tabachnick and
Fidell (2001) recommend that for time series analysis a minimum of 50 subjects must be
sampled. Similarly, Wright et al. (2004) based on a power analysis, reported that a
minimum of 40 participants would be needed to detect a squared correlation of .25 with
power equal to .75 and alpha set at .05. They recommend this standard as detecting
squared correlations of .25 and larger would indicate the existence of meaningful effects
while implying that smaller effects, though interesting, may be of little practical
importance. However, the current longitudinal design is not a traditional time series
design in that time will not be a focus of subsequent analyses. Instead, using Multilevel
Random Coefficient Modeling (MRCM) analysis, a pooled within-class coefficient
(Cohen et al., 2003) was used to examine the relationships of interest both within and
across subjects. This analysis technique has been used by several researchers examining
relationships such as affect and job satisfaction (Fisher, 2002; Grandely, Tam, &
Brauburger, 2002; Ilies & Judge, 2002; Judge & Ilies, 2004; Totterdell, 2000). The total
number of subjects and number of data collections have varied considerably across
studies. In a review of studies using the same research design and analyses as the current
study, the following sample sizes and data collection lengths were reported: Grandey, et.
al. (2002) studied 36 participants for two weeks; Ilies and Judge (2002) examined 27
participants for four weeks; Judge and Ilies (2004) observed 52 participants for two
weeks; Teuchmann, Totterdell and Parker (1999) recorded seven participants for four
weeks; Totterdell (2000) studied 33 participants for four days; Weiss, Nicholas and Daus
37
(1999) examined 24 participants for 16 days; and Zoher, Tzischinski, and Epstein (2003)
observed 78 participants for 15 days across a two-and-a-half-year period. Thus, the
number of participants ranged from seven to 78 and the data collection periods ranged
from four days to two and a half years. The sample and data collection period for the
current study falls well within the range of extant studies as data were collected from 74
individuals over a period of 6 weeks (see results section for explanation, final usable
sample size N = 50). More specifically, the number of data points for the analyses is
2,220 (as previously noted, final data points = 1,500) for pooled within-subject analyses,
74 (50 as noted above) for averaged between-subject analyses, and 30 for within-subject
analyses, providing sufficient power to detect meaningful relationships.
Participants
Seventy four workers and eleven supervisors from seven organizations located in
Chang Mai, the second largest city in Thailand, provided complete surveys for this study.
Of these participants, 35 (47%) worked at a bank; nine (12%) worked at a teaching
institute; five (7%) worked as taxi drivers; 10 (14%) worked at a jewelry manufacturing
company; five (7%) worked at a bar; five (7%) worked at a newspaper/magazine printing
company; and five (7%) worked at a clothing retail store. The mean age of participants
was 36.5, with SD 8.8; 54 % female; 74% married; 71 % with one or more children;
mean job tenure is 10.19 years, with SD 8.9; 63.5% had an associates degree or higher;
and mean monthly income is $295, with SD $208. Summary demographic statistics by
organization are presented in Table 2.
38
Measures
Mood
The positive affect negative affect schedule or PANAS (Watson et al., 1988), a
20-item adjective rating list, was used to assess state PA and NA (i.e., daily mood). The
PANAS has two subscales (PA & NA), each composed of 10 adjectives (e.g., alert,
nervous). Participants were asked to rate the extent to which each adjective described
them “today.” Ratings were made on a 5 point Likert scale (1 = very slightly or not at all,
5 = extremely). Alpha reliability for PA and NA based on averaged within person scores
(n = 50) were .92 and .96 respectively, and based on averaged across days (n = 30) were
.84 and .72 respectively. Alpha reliabilities for PA and NA based on within person
scores (n = 1,500) were .78 and .83 respectively. Additionally, a subset of specific
affective states was rated using the same scale as the PANAS. These specific affective
states were Happy, Sad, Angry, Confident, Fatigue, and Stress.
Life Events
The occurrence of positive and negative events in the participants’ lives was
assessed in terms of seven categories (Almeida, Wethington, & Kessler, 2002; David,
Green, Martin & Suls, 1997) based on a comprehensive set of specific life experiences
described by Stone and Neale (1982; 1984). The seven categories include: (1) Health, (2)
Family, (3) Neighborhood (4) Friendships, (5) Education, (6) Leisure activities, and (7)
Financial. Using methodology described by David et. al. (1997), participants were asked
to rate on a three-point scale whether or not they experienced a positive or negative life
event in the above categories during the previous 24 hours. A score of 0 indicates that
39
they did not experience such a positive event, while scores of 1, 2, and 3 indicate that
they experienced such a positive event slightly, moderately, or very, respectively. Scores
of 0 through 3 indicate the same for negative events.
Job Performance
In addition to overall job performance, four dimensions of contextual job
performance were assessed in the current study as identified by Johnson (2001)
including: (1) interpersonal (i.e., helping); (2) organizational (i.e., commitment); (3) job-
task dedication (i.e., effort); and (4) stress management. These four aspects of contextual
performance reflect the refinement of the contextual performance domain as discussed by
Coleman and Borman (2000) and Van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996). Additionally, in a
sample of 2,308 ratees and 842 direct supervisors, Johnson (2001) found that the four
contextual performance dimensions listed above each contributed significantly to ratings
of overall performance beyond the effects of task performance in a sample of eight
diverse job families. As such, these four items used in the Johnson (2001) study of
contextual performance seem to represent unique and important aspects of performance,
and in addition to a composite comprised of all four items, were adopted for use in the
current study. The Alpha reliability of the composite contextual performance dimension
based on averaged within person scores (n = 50) was .92. Alpha reliability for the
composite contextual performance dimension based on within person scores (n = 1,500)
was .46. Additionally, a single item assessing overall job performance was also used.
Each of the performance ratings were made on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = well below
average, 3 = average, 5 = well above average).
40
Single-Item Measures
A number of the constructs in the current study are assessed using single-item
measures and as numerous researchers have noted, there are both advantages and
disadvantages to their use (Johnson, 2001; Wanous & Hudy, 2001; Wanous, Reichers &
Hudy 1997). Larsen et al. (2002) specifically detail these issues in relation to affect
measurement stating that “virtually any emotion term can anchor a single-item scale,
making this self-report technique vital for researchers targeting primary or discrete
emotions” (pg. 85). Noted disadvantages of single item scales include possible
relationship attenuation, diminished construct representativeness, and increased sampling
error. While these are all important concerns, in the case of repeated measure
longitudinal designs brief survey measures are of utmost importance so as to reduce
participant’s fatigue and willingness to complete measures on a daily basis. As such,
single-item measures advantages outweigh their disadvantages in the current study.
Translation
Use of measures written in English for a sample of Thai non-English speakers
required a procedure for creating accurate translations of all materials used in this study.
The procedure adopted for the current study used a two-stage approach similar to other
recent cross-cultural research efforts (Liu, Borg, & Spector, 2004). In the first stage, an
original translation of each measure was created by a native Thai speaker. This translator
was familiar with the nature of the study and each measure. This aspect is important as it
helps the translator ensure that words retain their context and reduces the likelihood of
errors due to misaligned literal translations. In the second stage, the translated measures
41
were back-translated into English by a second native Thai speaker who collaborated with
the first translator to resolve minor differences and fine-tuning the translations.
Procedure
Participants were recruited through the human resources departments at seven
Thai organizations. A brief meeting was scheduled with potential participants before the
start of their work shift. At this initial meeting, participants were briefed on the content
of the informed consent, purpose of the study, and costs/benefits of participating in the
study. Those wishing to participate were then provided with training on the data
collection methodology of the study. Data collection consisted of a brief (approximately
five-minute) survey to be completed upon arrival at work each day by the participants.
This survey included a measure of daily mood states and daily life events. Supervisors
were asked to record daily performance (using measures provided by the researcher) at
the end of each shift. Completed data were collected at the end of each work week over
six consecutive weeks.
Analyses
Analyses for this study were conducted in two phases. The first phase focused on
examining the data to ensure its overall quality by either removing bad cases or
performing corrections/adjustments. This examination included both visual inspection of
the data and performing statistical analyses. The second phase of the analysis revolved
around conducting specific statistical analyses to test hypotheses. To this end, correlation
42
and MRCM analyses were performed. Each of these two phases is discussed in more
detail below.
Errors in data can be attributed to a number of sources. To ensure that data entry
errors were minimized, the entire data set was printed into hard copy form and checked
against the original survey data by two independent checkers. A small number of errors
were identified and fixed. The entire data set was then reprinted into hard copy form and
rechecked against the original survey data by the same two independent checkers. No
additional errors were identified in the second review.
Another type of error can occur when survey respondents do not pay attention to
the survey and, while they do mark answers, the data they provide are non-meaningful.
To this end, each survey respondent’s individual data set was examined to ensure that the
responses were not obviously implausible (e.g., marking the same responses to the survey
questions every day over the course of a week or longer). Additionally, alpha reliabilities
were calculated to examine the internal consistency of scales (e.g., PA & NA) by
individual.
Supervisor performance ratings were also examined to assess the degree to which
there was differential leniency or severity in performance judgments. This was done by
examining mean scores of each performance behavior for each supervisor averaged
across his or her ratees (Guion, 1998). Due to noticeable differences across raters the
following process was used to remove rater effects: (1) the overall mean of the
supervisors' averages was calculated, (2) each supervisor’s average was subtracted from
the overall mean (i.e., positive differences indicating severity and negative differences
indicating leniency), and (3) this difference (per supervisor) was added to all performance
43
ratings for each of the given supervisor's ratees. The adjustment resulted in all
supervisors’ job performance ratings having the same overall mean (averaging across
daily ratings), but leaving individual differences among ratees within raters completely
unchanged.
Two types of analyses were used to test the hypotheses. To test hypotheses
examining the relationship of moods and specific affective states with job performance
between individuals, Pearson correlation coefficients were used. For these analyses,
averages (across all thirty days) were calculated (n = 50). The hypotheses examining
pooled within-subject effects (n = 1,500) were tested using MRCM analysis (Nezlek,
2001) via Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) version 6 software (Raudenbush, Bryk,
Cheong, & Congdon, 2004).
In recent years, MRCM has gained popularity with researchers because of its
advantages over traditional ordinary least squares (OLS) procedures in handling
multilevel data analysis (see the following for extended discussion of this issue:
Hofmann, 1997; Nezlek, 2001; Pollack, 1998). Chief among the MRCM’s advantages is
the way in which it handles variables nested within groups. In this study, individuals can
be considered similarly to naturally occurring groups; that is, each individual is observed
multiple times, and these multiple observations then can be clustered together to form
groups. These clusters of data can then be simultaneously regressed onto a criterion
variable yielding independent slopes and intercepts for each individual (Hofmann, 1997;
Ilies & Judge, 2002). This initial analysis is referred to as a level 1 analysis. The second
stage of the MRCM analysis is to use the estimated level 1 parameters to regress on level
2 variables (i.e., a variable that is common within a group, but different across groups).
44
If a level 2 variable is not entered, then the level 2 average is equivalent to a pooled
across-individual effect (Nezlek, 2001; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). This approach was
used to test for hypothesized pooled within-person effects.
In addition to the brief overview of MRCM provided above, three additional
issues related to the appropriate use and interpretation of MRCM results warrant brief
consideration. These issues are: (1) standardization, (2) centering, and (3) interpretation
of effect sizes. Standardization is a frequently discussed topic in the MRCM literature
with the primary decision of whether or not to standardize variables focusing on the
meaningfulness of the unstandardized or natural metrics. In cases where the
unstandardized metrics are not meaningful (e.g., days), and researchers desire to compare
relative effects sizes, then standardization is desirable (Nezlek, 2001). In this study,
following the approach used by Judge and Ilies (2004), all level one coefficients were
standardized by multiplying the slope coefficient by the within-individual standard
deviation of the independent variable by the within-individual standard deviation of the
dependent variable (i.e., β x (IVσ/DVσ)). Thus coefficients reported in the results
represent both unstandardized and standardized values for comparison purposes.
Centering of multilevel data in MRCM has important implications for the
interpretation of analyses (Hofmann & Gavin, 1998) and involves choosing between
three options: (1) no centering, (2) grand mean centering, (3) group mean centering. The
absence of centering is appropriate when the original metric has natural meaning. Grand
mean centering, where the grand mean is subtracted from each individual’s score on a
predictor variable, is useful for approximating OLS regression when looking for average
effects across individuals (Hofmann, 1997; Hofmann & Gavin, 1998; Pollack, 1998).
45
Group mean centering is where the group mean is subtracted from each group’s score
within the group. Using this approach centering, results indicate the relationship for
someone with a specified level on a predictor (Hofmann, 1997; Hofmann & Gavin,
1998). As such, the primary distinction between grand mean centering and group mean
centering is that grand mean centering removes between-subject variance while group
mean centering does not (Nezlek, 2001). In this research, between-subject effects are
expected, and as the data’s natural metric is not inherently meaningful, grand mean
centering will be used in the MRCM analysis.
The final issue to be addressed regards the interpretation of analysis effect sizes.
While the HLM 6 software produces coefficient estimates, standard deviations and a
significance test, it does not directly provide an indicator of variance accounted for (a
statistic analogous to the R2 statistic in regression) by a specified model. As such, Kreft
and Leeuw (1998) and others (Hofmann, Griffin, & Gavin, 2000; Snijders & Bosker,
1999) offer an alternative method for calculating an R2 statistic based on the difference
between a null (empty) model and the hypothesized model. While not perfectly
analogous, this approach has been frequently adopted with cautions noted (Nezlek, 2001;
Zohar, Tzischinski, & Epstein, 2003).
In sum, data analysis for the current study proceeded in two phases. First, data
was examined to ensure that there were no errors in data entry and that any cases
suspected of containing artificial data are removed. Second, correlation analysis were
used to test between-subject hypotheses and MRCM analyses were used to test pooled
within-subjects hypotheses. Results of these analyses are presented in the next chapter.
46
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
Data Cleaning & Descriptive Statistics
Results of the data cleaning analysis warranted the removal of 24 cases from the
final data set. In summary, cases were removed for four reasons: (1) one case was
removed because of suspected fake data (i.e., identical response patterns across several
consecutive days); (2) 15 cases were removed because of unusable supervisor ratings
(e.g., no variance in ratings); (3) two cases were removed because of incomplete data; (4)
six cases were removed because of suspected random responding (e.g., negative alphas
on both PA & NA scales). Sample characteristics from the final data set are presented in
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for averaged between-subject variables including the
means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations are presented in Table 4. Descriptive
statistics for within (pooled) individual variables including means, standard deviations,
and intercorrelations are presented in Table 13. Descriptive statistics for each individual
including means, standard deviations, internal consistencies, and intercorrelations are
presented in Appendix D.
Examination of the between-subject correlations in Table 4 reveals a surprising
positive relationship between PA and NA (r = .39). While unexpected, it should be noted
that this positive correlation is not unprecedented as Ilies and Judge (2002) report a
positive correlation (r = .18) between PA and NA obtained from a longitudinal sample
47
similar to the one in this study. In another study, Judge and Ilies (2004) report a positive
correlation (r = .11) using averaged daily PA and NA, while in the same study obtaining
a negative correlation (r = -.16) from a trait measure of PA and NA from the same
subjects. Additionally, Watson (2000) reports a number of studies in which averaged PA
and NA correlated positively (rs = .03 to .08). These correlations are interesting given
that Thoresen et al. (2003) report a -.36 meta-analytically determined correlation between
PA and NA. Mean levels of PA (M = 2.75) and NA (M = 1.91) are consistent with
previous research indicating that individuals usually report higher levels of PA than NA
(Watson, 2000). While it is unclear why between-subjects analyses yield negative
correlations between PA and NA, and within-subjects analyses show positive
correlations, one possible explanation could be that the positive correlation is reflective
of a shared response set (i.e., all positive keyed items leading to acquiescent responding).
Hypothesis Testing
Between-Subjects Hypotheses
Table 4 provides results relevant to hypotheses 1 through 10. Performance scores
corrected for supervisor rating effects are presented along the right side of Table 4.
Performance scores presented at the bottom of Table 4 are raw scores and are presented
for comparison purposes only. The occurrence of positive daily life events did not relate
with average daily mood (r = .09, ns), so hypothesis 1 was not supported. However, the
occurrence of negative life events did relate positively to individual’s experience of
negative mood (r = .27, p < .05), so hypothesis 2 was supported. Mixed support was
found for hypotheses 3 and 4. Hypothesis 3 was mostly supported in that positive life
48
events were related positively with the discrete affective states of confidence (hypothesis
3a, r = .23, p < .05) and happiness (hypothesis 3b, r = .18, ns) as expected, with
happiness approaching the critical value of r = .19, with n = 50 (one-tailed). Hypothesis
4 was partially supported as anger (hypothesis 4a, r = .42, p < .05) and sadness
(hypothesis 4b, r = .32, p < .05) were both significantly related to negative life events,
while fatigue (hypothesis 4c, r = -.07, ns) and stress (hypothesis 4d, r = .15, ns) were not.
Hypothesis 5 was strongly supported such that positive mood correlated positively with
the discrete affective states of confidence (hypothesis 5a, r = .57, p < .05) and happiness
(hypothesis 5b, r = .50, p < .05). Hypothesis 6 was also strongly supported in that
negative mood correlated positively with the discrete affective states of anger (hypothesis
6a, r = .91, p < .05), fatigue (hypothesis 6b, r = .58, p < .05), sadness (hypothesis 6c, r =
.90, p < .05), and stress (hypothesis 6d, r = .74, p < .05).
Hypotheses 7 through 10 focused on the relationships between mood and
affective states with supervisor ratings of employees’ job performance. Employee’s
positive mood was hypothesized (hypothesis 7a – 7f) to correlate positively with job
performance; however, no support was found for this hypothesis as all of the correlations
were of small effect size and non-significant. Hypothesis 8 received limited support as
negative mood negatively correlated with handling stress (hypothesis 8a, r = -.21, p <
.05), but non-significantly with commitment (hypothesis 8b, r = .02, ns) overall
performance (hypothesis 8c, r = -.08, ns) and contextual performance (hypothesis 8d, r =
-.09, ns). Hypothesis 9 was not supported as the affective state of confidence was non-
significantly correlated with commitment (hypothesis 9a, r = .06, ns), effort (hypothesis
9c, r = .16, ns), handling stress (hypothesis 9e, r = .10, ns), helping (hypothesis 9g, r =
49
.09, ns), overall performance (hypothesis, 9i, r = -.05, ns), and contextual performance
(hypothesis, 9k, r = .11, ns). The affective state of happiness correlated nonsignificantly
with commitment (hypothesis 9b, r = .10, ns), effort (hypothesis 9d, r = .16, ns), handling
stress (hypothesis 9f, r = .16, ns), helping (hypothesis 9h, r = .18, ns), overall
performance (hypothesis 9j, r = .05, ns), and contextual performance (hypothesis, 9l, r =
.17, ns). It is interesting to note that for both confidence and happiness, despite not
reaching effect sizes sufficient to obtain statistical significance, the overall pattern of
correlations supports the supposition that there is an overall positive relationship with
performance. Also, it is interesting to note that the effect sizes for these two positive
discrete affective states are noticeably larger than the effect sizes found between positive
mood and job performance dimensions. Hypothesis 10 received minimal support as none
of the affective states of anger, fatigue, sadness and stress correlated significantly with
commitment (hypothesis 10a,b,c,d, r = .11, .00, -.02, -.05 ns, respectively ). However,
fatigue and stress correlated significantly with handling stress (hypothesis 10f,h, r = -.21,
-.24, p < .05, respectively) while anger and sadness did not (hypothesis 10e,g, r = -.13, -
.17, ns, respectively). Anger, fatigue, sadness, and stress did not correlate significantly
with overall performance (hypothesis 10i,j,k,l, r = .01, -.12, -.16, -.16 ns, respectively) or
contextual performance (hypothesis 10m,n,o,p, r = -.01, -.13, -.07, -.14 ns, respectively).
Overall, the hypotheses examining the between-subject relationships received
only partial support. While the hypothesized relationships among daily life events,
moods and specific affective states have largely been supported (71%), the hypothesized
relationships with supervisor-rated performance have been found to be mostly
unsupported (8%). In particular, of 10 hypotheses between positive and negative daily
50
mood and job performance, only one relationship was supported (hypothesis 8a)
representing a success rate of 10%. Less support was found for the hypotheses
concerning the specific affective states and job performance, as indicated in the 7%
success rate (hypotheses 10f & 10h) for these hypotheses. As such, it seems there is scant
support for trait/averaged state level relationships between affect and averaged job
performance (Two caveats to this observation are: (a) the relatively small sample size (n
= 50) used in these analyses, and (b) many effect sizes were reported that just missed the
critical value corresponding to p < .05). The next set of results focus on findings
obtained from the MRCM analyses exploring pooled within-subjects relationships.
Within (Pooled) Subjects Hypotheses
Hypotheses 11 through 20 were tested using MRCM analysis and the HLM
version 6 software (Raudenbush et al., 2004). Results from these analyses are presented
in Tables 5 through 12. Hypothesis 11 stated that within individuals positive daily life
events would predict individuals’ daily mood, and was supported (hypothesis 11,
standardized β = .10, p < .01). Hypothesis 12 was also supported as negative daily life
events predicted concurrent negative daily mood (hypothesis 12, standardized β = .07, p <
.01). Results of these analyses are reported in Tables 5 and 6, respectively. Mixed
supported was found for hypotheses regarding the relationship between positive daily life
events and the discrete affective states (Table 7), as confidence was unrelated (hypothesis
13a, standardized β = .03, ns) and happiness was significantly predicted (hypothesis 13b,
standardized β = .12, p < .01) by positive daily life events. No support was found for
hypotheses 14 (Table 8) as negative daily life events were unrelated to discrete affective
states (hypothesis 14a,b,c,d, standardized β = .04, .01, .04, .01, ns, respectively). Table 9
51
reports the result of the analyses for hypotheses 15a and 15b. Strong support was found
for the relationship between positive daily mood and the affective states of confidence
(hypothesis 15a, standardized β = .30, p < .01) and happiness (hypothesis 15b,
standardized β = .49, p < .01). Table 10 reports the results of analyses for hypotheses 16a
through 16d. Strong evidence was found to support the relationships between negative
daily mood and the affective states of anger (hypothesis 16a, standardized β = .47, p <
.01), fatigue (hypothesis 16b, standardized β = .21, p < .01), sadness (hypothesis 16c,
standardized β = .58, p < .01), and stress (hypothesis 16d, standardized β = .31, p < .01).
Hypotheses 17 through 20 concern the relationships between daily affect and
daily job performance within individuals. Table 11 presents results of MRCM analyses
between positive mood, confidence, happiness and job performance. Hypothesis 17
received strong support as positive mood was predictive of effort (hypothesis 17b,
standardized β = .06, p < .05), helping (hypothesis 17d, standardized β = .08, p < .01),
overall job performance (hypothesis 17e, standardized β = .05, p < .05), and contextual
performance (hypothesis 17f, standardized β = .09, p < .01), while not significantly
related to commitment (hypothesis 17a, standardized β = .04, ns), and handling stress
(hypothesis 17c, standardized β = .04, ns). Hypothesis 19 also received partial support as
confidence was predictive of effort (hypothesis 19c, standardized β = .04, p < .05), and
happiness was predictive of overall performance (hypothesis 19j, standardized β = .06, p
< .05). All other relationships shown in Table 11, were non-significant.
Table 12 presents results of MRCM analyses between negative mood, anger,
fatigue, sadness, and stress with job performance. Hypothesis 18 received minimal
support as negative daily mood was negatively predictive of overall performance
52
(hypothesis 18c, standardized β = -.05, p < .05) as expected, but was unrelated to both
commitment (hypothesis 18a, standardized β = .04, ns) and handling stress (hypothesis
18b, standardized β = .01, ns). Hypotheses 20 was modestly supported as handling stress
was related to both sadness (hypothesis 20g, standardized β = -.04, p < .05) and stress
(hypothesis 20h, standardized β = -.04, p < .05). Overall performance was related to
fatigue (hypothesis 20j, standardized β = -.04, p < .05), sadness (hypothesis 20k,
standardized β = -.05, p < .05), and stress (hypothesis 20l, standardized β = -.06, p < .05).
Contextual performance was related to stress (hypothesis 20j, standardized β = -.05, p <
.05). All other relationships were non-significant, and are reported in Table 12.
Examination of the MRCM results supports the general notion that daily moods
and specific affective states are modestly related to supervisor ratings of daily contextual
and overall performance. However, across all of the results, the effect sizes are modest,
suggesting limited predictive value for moods and affective states on daily job
performance. While many of the hypothesized relationships were found to be statistically
significant, it would be hard to argue that effect sizes ranging from .04 to .09
(standardized) are practically meaningful. As such, a follow-up exploratory set of
analyses were conducted in an effort to identify potential moderators of the daily mood –
job performance relationship. An overview of the exploratory analyses and
corresponding results are presented in the next chapter, followed by an integrated general
discussion of the results and implications of both the initial and exploratory analyses.
53
CHAPTER 4
EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION
Overview
The primary purpose of the previous study was to examine the relationship
between daily mood states and daily contextual and overall job performance. Previous
studies, primarily using between-subjects designs, had established solid evidence of a
fairly consistent relationship between positive mood and helping behaviors (Thoresen et
al., 2003). While some researchers have discussed the possibility that negative mood
could have a positive or a negative relationship with organizational citizenship behaviors
(Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie, 2006), a number of researchers have shown negative
relationships between negative mood and valued job behaviors (Thoresen et al., 2003;
Wright et al., 2004). While no prior research has examined the relationship of daily
positive and negative mood with supervisor ratings of daily contextual and overall job
performance, the modest findings presented in the previous section, seem puzzling in
light of what is known about this topic.
Given the surprisingly weak relationships observed between mood and job
performance, despite credible studies suggesting that moderate relationships should exist,
an exploratory study was conducted in an effort to identify potential moderators that
could explain the lack of strong main effects. A review of the literature afforded little
clear direction regarding the identification of a list of potential moderators. However, a
54
number of potential moderators were identified for inclusion in the exploratory study by
selecting those with the relative highest frequency with which they coexisted in the
literature and occupy relevant overlapping theoretical domains. In addition to moderators
selected for their theoretical appeal, several supervisor perceptions were also identified as
practical moderators of the mood and job performance relationship.
A wide range of constructs have been studied in conjunction with positive and
negative mood including demographics, social relationships, health, perceptions of self
and others, sociability and activity, personality, well-being, creativity, and job attitudes
(Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005; Thoresen et al., 2003). Given that many
researchers have acknowledged both biological and situational factors as influencing both
the propensity and the experiencing of affect, inclusion of demographic characteristics
such as age and sex seem appropriate (Judge & Larsen, 2001). Additionally, numerous
researchers have discussed the role of situational context and the nature of work as
possible factors contributing to how affect influences our cognition and behaviors
(Forgas, 1995, Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). As such, differences in education levels and
compensation may influence the nature of the mood-job performance relationship.
Job attitudes have long been considered relevant to the experience and expression
of workplace affect and its consequences (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). One of the most
widely studied attitudes, consistent with links to positive and negative mood, is
organizational commitment (Thoresen et al., 2003). Use of the Meyer and Allen (1997)
three-part commitment model to examine the role of commitment as a moderator of the
mood-job performance relationship is reasonable given that it is reasonable to assume
that an employee’s mood may be influenced by their commitment towards their
55
organization. Thus, employees’ who arrive to work in a negative mood, but feel a strong
positive emotional attachment to the organization, may be more willing to give effort and
help other coworkers than employees who are in a bad mood and do not feel a strong
emotional attachment to the organization. It should be noted that the preceding example
is not offered as a hypothesis, but rather as an illustration of how organizational
commitment may moderate the relationship between mood and job performance.
Another job perception regards individuals’ assessments of how much affective
displays must be performed in order to successfully accomplish a job. Some employees
may be less willing to engage in compelled emotional “acting” than others. It may be
that for employees in negative moods and in jobs that require emotional labor, the
requirement that they “act” as if they were feeling positive may result in resentment and a
reduced desire to perform the job duties. As such, it is reasonable to explore the degree
to which the nature of a job requires emotional labor moderates the relationship between
mood and job performance.
Recent trends in affect research have suggested the importance of a set of
interrelated traits related to how individuals use and recognize affective information
(Law, Wong, & Song, 2004; Tett, Fox, & Wang, 2005) labeled emotional intelligence. In
a study by Wong and Law (2002) strong relationships were reported between a brief
measure of emotional intelligence and emotional labor, commitment and job
performance. By the very nature of some of the emotional intelligence constructs such as
regulation of emotions in the self, it is clear that differences in an employee’s levels of
emotional intelligence may influence their ability to focus on the job. For example, an
employee who is in a bad mood may want to give less effort than normal, but because
56
he/she is able to regulate his/her emotions, the employee is able to maintain appropriate
levels of effort on the job. In contrast, an employee without the ability to regulate his/her
emotions may be unable to focus effort on the job and thus his/her negative mood may
reduce subsequent job performance. Therefore, emotional intelligence may moderate the
relationship between mood and job performance.
Finally, three supervisor perceptions were included as potential moderators
because of their straightforward representation of factors that might influence a
supervisor’s ratings of an employee’s performance. These supervisor perceptions include
how well they know the given employee, how much opportunity they have had to
observe each employee’s job performance, and the supervisor’s rating of each
employee’s overall quality as an employee. To help justify the inclusion of each
supervisor perception, a plausible rationale to explain possible moderator effects of each
is offered. For supervisor’s who are more familiar with an employee and who are better
able to directly observe an employee’s job performance, they might better they might be
able to pick up on subtle variations in that employee’s performance, thus making more
accurate performance ratings which would enhancing the relationship (if one exists)
between affect and job performance by reducing criterion contamination (Guion, 1998).
Supervisors perceptions of an employee’s overall quality may influence their ratings of
that employee’s job performance such that when they observe an employee who they
consider to be a “high quality” to be in a good mood they may assume that everything is
going well and all the work that needs to be done is being done. For employees who are
considered to be of “lower quality” negative moods may indicate to the supervisor that
there are problems, and thus unconsciously the supervisor may begin to consider this
57
person’s performance in a slightly more negative light. While these rationales are not
offered as part of a comprehensive a-priori theory, they provide a sufficient basis to
warrant examination of these supervisor perceptions in an exploratory fashion.
Participants
Participants for this study were the same 50 individuals providing useable data in
the previous study. Sample characteristics are presented in Table 3.
Measures
All measures used in the previous study were retained for use in the current study.
Measures for mood, specific affective states, and job performance are identical to those
described previously, and will not be reviewed again here. The new measures, specific to
the exploratory study, are described below.
Demographics
Demographic characteristics examined in this study included participants’
education level, monthly income, age and sex. Education level was split into six levels
where: 1 = individuals with a sixth grade education or lower; 2 = individuals with up to a
ninth grade education; 3 = a high school education; 4 = some college up to an associates
degree; 5 = a bachelors level education; and 6 = a masters level or higher education.
Monthly income was converted from Thai Baht at a conversion rate of 40 to 1 to provide
a familiar reference point in US dollars. Sex was coded with females = 0 and males = 1.
58
Commitment
Participants’ job commitment was assessed using Meyer and Allen’s (1997) three-
part model of job satisfaction: (1) Affective, (2) Normative, and (3) Continuance. Each
was assessed using six-item scales yielding internal consistency reliabilities of .66, .59,
and .52 respectively. Review of each scale’s item-total statistics led to the removal of
one item from each scale and a subsequent improvement in each scale’s reliability to .75,
.70, and .73 respectively. Although compromising the content coverage offered by the
entire intact scale, the increase in reliability was judged more important because it would
reduce error in the criterion and increase the likelihood that relationships could be
detected. A possible reason for why these items performed differently in this sample
could be due to the nature of the international sample and an idiosyncratic interpretation
of an item’s content by members of the Thai culture as compared to western cultures.
Emotional Labor
The four item Emotional Labor (EL) scale used in this study was adopted from
Wong and Law (2002). Each item asks respondents to indicate the degree to which they
must do a particular activity in order to perform their job well. An example item is “To
perform my job well, it is necessary for me to hide my actual feelings when acting and
speaking with people.” Respondents indicated their agreement or disagreement with each
of these items using a five-point Likert scale. The coefficient alpha was .79, which
compares favorably to the .69 alpha reported by Wong and Law (2002).
59
Emotional Intelligence
Emotional Intelligence (EI) was assessed using Wong and Law’s (2002) 16-item
self-report measure of ability-based EI. This measure is comprised of four scales
representing the four dimensions of ability-based EI outlined by Mayer and Salovey
(1997). These four dimensions are: (1) Appraisal and expression of emotion in the self
(SEA); (2) Appraisal and recognition of emotion in others (OEA); (3) Regulation of
emotion in the self (ROE); (4) Use of emotion to facilitate performance (UOE). Each of
these dimensions was assessed using four positively keyed items. Example items from
each scale include: I really understand what I feel (SEA); I am a good observer of others’
emotions (OEA); I am a self-motivated person (UOE); I am quite capable of controlling
my own emotions (ROE). Reliability estimates (coefficient alphas) for SEA, OEA, ROE
and UOE were .37, .38, .59, and .52 respectively. Examination of item-total statistics led
to the removal of one item from the each of the SEA and OEA scales, thereby improving
their alphas noticeably (.69 & .56 respectively). It is worth noting that these estimates of
internal reliability are well below those reported elsewhere .76 to .89 (Wong & Law,
2002) and .78 to .86 (Law, Wong, & Song, 2004). The reason for the drop here is
unclear, but it may be due to the same cross-cultural issues cited above.
Supervisor Perceptions
Supervisors were asked to answer three questions regarding each employee
participating in the study. The first question asked how well the supervisor knew each
employee. The second asked to what extent was the supervisor able to observe each
employee’s job performance. The third question asked the supervisor to provide an
overall global rating of each employee’s total quality.
60
Procedure
Participants of the original study were contacted a few weeks after completing the
six-week data collection described previously. Participants were asked to complete a
brief 42-item measure (Appendix E). Supervisors were asked to complete a brief 3-item
measure for each employee who participated (Appendix F). Surveys were distributed,
completed and collected from participants at each company in a single session.
Analyses
As the design of this study is exploratory in nature, no a priori hypotheses were
specified beyond the general expectation that some of these constructs would prove to be
significant and meaningful moderators of the (positive & negative) mood with job
performance relationship. Correlations were used to examine between-subject
relationships of averaged variables and OLS hierarchical regressions were computed to
test for moderator effects at the between-subjects level (i.e., averaged daily scores &
single assessments). For exploratory analyses of the pooled within-subject effects,
MRCM analyses (HLM 6, Raudenbush et al., 2004) was be conducted using the follow
up survey’s variables as exclusive level two moderators (Hofmann, 1997; Judge & Ilies,
2004; Nezlek, 2001; Pollack, 1998). All variables were be grand mean centered to
provide estimates of average effects (Hofmann & Gavin, 1998).
Results
Means, standard deviations and inter-correlations are presented in Table 13.
Review of the averaged between-subject correlations revealed no significant correlations
between mood and the exploratory variables. Because of the possibility that supervisors’
61
attitudes may affect their evaluations of individual’s perceptions, the relationships among
the three supervisor perceptions are of particular interest. The only significant
correlation among the supervisor perceptions was between how well the supervisor
reported knowing a person and their perception of the person’s overall quality as an
employee (r = .40). Essentially, this suggests that the more familiar a supervisor is with
an employee, the more highly they regard that employee. Meanwhile, how well the
supervisor felt he or she was able to observe an employee was unrelated to either how
well they reported knowing that employee and their perception of that employee’s overall
quality. Interestingly, how well a supervisor reported knowing an employee was
positively related to all five dimensions of job performance, although the relationship was
only significant with overall job performance (r = .27, p < .05). Supervisors’ opportunity
to observe employees was also positively related to all aspects of job performance;
however, this time the only significant relationship was with ratings of employee effort (r
= .27, p < .05). The correlations between supervisors’ overall perception of quality and
job performance revealed no clear pattern and all of the correlations were non-significant.
The strongest correlation was with overall performance (r = .14, ns).
Examination of the correlations between the exploratory variables and supervisor-
rated job performance revealed mostly non-significant results; however, two variables
showed consistent patterns of significant or near significant correlations. The first
variable was the demographic variable of employee age. Age was consistently positively
correlated with supervisor ratings of job performance including commitment (r = .25, ns),
effort (r = .25, ns), handling stress (r = .13, ns), helping (r = .23, ns), and overall (r = .28,
p < .05). The second variable was the emotional intelligence subscale of use of emotions
62
(UOE). While all the correlations were non-significant at the p < .05 level, all were
positive and several approached significance. The correlations between UOE and
supervisor-rated job performance dimensions were r = .17, ns (commitment), r = .26, ns
(effort), r = .20, ns (handling stress), r = .22, ns (helping), and r = .23, ns (overall).
Taken together, it appears that, in this sample, individuals who were older and more self-
motivated received the highest job performance ratings by their supervisors.
OLS Regression Moderator Analyses
Results for the moderator analyses between positive mood and commitment are
presented in Table 14. Only affective commitment significantly moderated this
relationship (β = -.31, p < .05) as it accounted for an additional 9% of the variance
beyond the main effects of positive mood and affective commitment. A plot of this
moderator effect is presented in Figure 5. Results for the moderator analyses between
positive mood and effort are presented in Table 15. In this set of analyses, both
supervisors’ perceptions of how well they were able to observe an employee and the
employee’s perception of the job’s emotional labor were significant moderators of the
positive mood and effort relationship (β = .25, p < .10; β = -.32, p < .05, respectively).
This moderator effect accounted for an additional 5% of the variance in effort, beyond
the main effects of positive mood and observability and is plotted in Figure 6. The
moderator effect for emotional labor accounted for 9% additional variance beyond the
main effects of positive mood and emotional labor and is plotted in Figure 7.
Table 16 reports the results of the moderator analyses of the positive mood –
handling job stress relationship. Examination of these findings reveals three significant
moderators, including age (β = -.26, p < .10), education (β = -.30, p < .10), and normative
63
commitment (β = -.25, p < .10). Each of these moderators accounted for an additional
6% of the variance above their respective main effects. Each of these moderator
relationships were plotted and are presented in Figures 8 to 10.
Examination of Table 17, which shows the results of the moderator analyses for
the positive mood – helping relationship, reveals two significant moderator effects of
emotional labor (β = -.30, p < .05) and affective commitment (β = -.30, p < .05).
Emotional labor’s moderating effect is plotted in Figure 11, and accounts for an
additional 8% of the variance beyond the main effects. The moderator effect of affective
commitment also accounted for 8% additional variance beyond the main effects and the
relationship is plotted in Figure 12. Results of the moderator analyses of the positive
mood and overall job performance relationship are presented in Table 18. These analyses
indicated that sex (β = .26, p < .10) and affective commitment (β = -.26, p < .10) had
significant effects, each accounting for an additional 6% of the variance beyond the main
effects. The plot of the moderator effect of sex on the relationship of positive mood and
overall job performance is presented in Figure 13. The moderator effect of affective
commitment is presented in Figure 14.
Table 19 presents the results of the moderator analysis of the relationship between
negative mood and commitment. The two significant moderators are age (β = .28, p <
.10) and the emotional intelligence subscale of self emotional appraisal (β = -.29, p <
.10). The moderator effect of age accounted for an additional 5% of the variance beyond
the main effects of negative mood and age. The plot of this relationship is presented in
Figure 15. The moderator effect of self emotional appraisal accounted for 6% additional
variance beyond the main effects. The plot of this relationship is presented in Figure 16.
64
Examination of the results for the moderator analyses of the relationship between
negative mood and effort (Table 20) reveals five significant relationships. The five
significant moderator effects were age (β = .48, p < .05), education (β = .40, p < .05), sex
(β = -.29, p < .05), overall quality (β = .26, p < .05), and continuance commitment (β =
.40, p < .05). These moderator effects accounted for an additional 17%, 12%, 9%, 6%
and 18% variance beyond the main effects respectively. These relationships are plotted
in Figures 17 to 21 respectively. Results of the moderator analyses of the negative mood
and handling stress relationship are presented in Table 21. Review of Table 21 reveals
seven significant moderator effects including age (β = .38, p < .05), education (β = .38, p
< .05), sex (β = -.36, p < .05), overall quality (β = .36, p < .05), self emotional appraisal
(β = -.27, p < .10), continuance commitment (β = .47, p < .05), and normative
commitment (β = .22, p < .10). These moderator effects accounted for an additional
11%, 11%, 13%, 12%, 5%, 24%, and 6% variance beyond the main effects respectively.
Figures 22 to 28 plot these relationships.
Results of the moderator analyses examining the relationship between negative
moods and helping are presented in Table 22. Examination of this findings reveal five
significant moderator effects including age (β = .35, p < .05), education (β = .36, p < .05),
sex (β = -.34, p < .05), overall quality (β = .31 p < .05), and continuance commitment (β
= .42, p < .05). These moderator variables accounted an additional 9%, 10%, 11%, 9%,
and 19% variance beyond the main effects respectively. Figures 29 to 33 plot these
relationships. Table 25 reports the results of moderator analyses exploring the
relationship between negative mood and overall job performance. Continuance
commitment was the only significant effect (β = .24, p < .10), accounting for 6% of the
65
variance beyond the main effects of negative mood and continuance commitment. A plot
of the moderator effect of continuance commitment is presented in Figure 34.
MRCM Moderator Analyses
Results of the MRCM moderator analyses examining the relationship of positive
mood and commitment are presented in Table 24. Review of these results yields three
significant moderator effects for age (γ = .16, p < .001; note that γ represents a level 2
regression coefficient in MRCM analysis terminology), income (γ = .12, p < .05), and
supervisors’ perceptions of how well they know an employee (γ = .08, p < .05). The
moderator effects are plotted in Figures 35 to 37.
Table 25 presents the results for the moderator analyses of the positive mood and
effort relationship. Two variables, age (γ = .13, p < .05) and emotional labor (γ = -.13, p <
.05), significantly moderated this relationship. The moderator effects are plotted in
Figures 38 and 39. Results for the moderator analyses of the relationship between
positive mood and handling stress are presented in Table 26. Review of these results
shows only a single significant moderator effect for age (γ = -.09, p < .05). The
moderator effect for age is plotted in Figure 40. The results of the moderator analyses
examining the relationships between positive mood and helping are presented in Table
27. Review of this table yields the identification of one significant moderator effect for
income (γ = .14, p < .01). This moderator effect is plotted in Figure 41.
Table 28 presents the results for the moderator analyses of the relationship
between positive mood and overall job performance. Review of these results indicate
that three variables had significant moderator effects on the positive mood and overall job
performance relationship including: income (γ = .11, p < .01), emotional labor (γ = -.10, p
66
< .05), and affective commitment (γ = -.08, p < .05). These relationships are plotted in
Figures 42 to 44. The results of moderator analyses examining the relationship between
negative mood and commitment are presented in Table 29. Examination of these
analyses yields two significant moderator effects for affective commitment (γ = -.15, p <
.001) and normative commitment (γ = -.09, p < .05). The plot of these moderator effects
are presented in Figures 45 and 46.
Table 30 presents the results for the moderator analyses of the negative mood and
effort relationship. The three variables of age (γ = .15, p < .01), supervisor’s perception
of overall quality as an employee (γ = .11, p < .05), and employee’s ability regulate
emotions (γ = -.15, p < .01) significantly moderated the negative mood and effort
relationship. Figures 47 to 49 show the plots of these moderator effects.
Table 31 presents the results of the moderator analyses examining the negative
mood and handling stress relationship. Income (γ = -.10, p < .05) was the sole significant
moderator of this relationship and this moderator effect is plotted in Figure 50.
Results of the moderator analyses examining the negative mood and helping
relationship are presented in Table 32. No significant moderators were found. However,
several nearly reached significance including use of emotions (γ = -.16, ns), self
emotional appraisal (γ = -.14, ns), and normative commitment (γ = -.10, ns). Results of
the moderator analyses examining the negative mood and overall job performance
relationship are presented in Table 33. No significant moderators were found. However,
education (γ = .11, ns) came closest. Additional samples would need to be collected in
order to determine if these affects are real and not simply error.
67
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
The primary purpose of this study was to examine (1) the effect non-work daily
life events on daily moods and specific affective states, and (2) the effect of individual’s
daily mood states on subsequent daily contextual and overall job performance.
Specifically, the present study examined the relationships between positive and negative
mood, anger, confidence, fatigue, happiness, sadness and stress with supervisor ratings of
commitment, effort, handling stress, helping, and overall job performance. Building on
recent calls for more powerful longitudinal research designs and multiple data sources
(Ilies & Judge, 2004; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), this study sought to contribute to the
current literature by examining the role of moods in the workplace using a longitudinal
within-subjects research design and supervisor ratings of job performance.
Results of the initial analyses indicated mixed support for the hypothesized
relationships, and, while a number of the hypothesized relationships were significant, the
magnitude of these effect sizes was smaller than anticipated and suggestive of limited
practical implication. As such, an exploratory set of post-hoc analyses was conducted in
an effort to identify possible moderators of the hypothesized relationships between
positive and negative mood and job performance. These moderator analyses revealed
numerous significant effects indicating that the relationships between mood and
supervisor ratings of job performance may be less general and more idiosyncratic than
68
previous research has suggested. In the following sections, both the significant
hypothesized and exploratory results are summarized and interpreted.
Summary of Findings
Hypothesized Results
Overall, the results of this study offer mixed support for the hypothesized
relationships Of the 104 hypothesized relationships, 35 (33.6%) were statistically
significant (p < .05, one-tailed). In general, the relationships among daily life events,
mood, and discrete affective states were supported (67.9%), and both between- and
pooled within-subject hypotheses were substantiated at similar rates (71.4% & 64.3%,
respectively). However, notable differences emerged between the percentages of
hypotheses supported among the mood, discrete affective states, and job performance
relationships. Combining between- and pooled within-subject hypotheses, significant
findings were obtained for 21.1% of the relationships. Yet, between-subject hypotheses
among these variables received scant support, as only 7.9% were substantiated, and, in
contrast, 34.2% of pooled within-subject hypotheses among the same variables were
supported. Given these differences, it is not surprising to see that across all hypotheses,
pooled within-subject hypotheses were supported 42.3% of the time, while between-
subject hypotheses were only supported 25% of the time.
These percentages are important for a number of reasons. First, in all cases the
percentage of hypotheses was supported at rates higher than one would expect by chance
(e.g., 5%). Second, there was strong evidence for the relationships among daily life
events, mood and discrete affective states, as one might expect given the clear theoretical
overlap among these constructs and the results of extensive prior research (Watson,
69
2000). Third, while the majority of research examining the relationship between mood
and job performance has been conducted at the trait/between-subjects level, much
stronger support was found here for this relationship at the pooled within-subject level.
This suggests that current research using between-subjects designs may be systematically
underestimating the strength and nature of the relationships among moods and job
performance.
Given the preceding discussion, it is useful to separate the following discussion of
the results of the study into four sections, (a) hypotheses regarding between-subjects
relationships among daily life events, mood and discrete affective states, (b) hypotheses
regarding between-subjects relationships among mood, discrete affective states and job
performance, (c) hypotheses regarding pooled within-subjects relationships among daily
life events, mood and discrete affective states, and (d) hypotheses regarding pooled
within-subjects relationships among mood, discrete affective states and job performance.
Results from analyses examining the between-subjects relationships among daily
life events, mood and discrete affective states were mostly supported. Experiencing
negative daily life events was associated with increased levels of negative mood, anger
and sadness. However, they were unrelated to levels of fatigue and stress. This finding
is interpretable in that, when bad things happen in life, one is more likely to experience
negative moods and emotions. Negative mood was strongly associated with all four
negative discrete affective states as predicted. Experiencing positive daily life events was
not associated with either positive mood or happiness; however, it was related to
confidence. This suggests that, while positive daily life events may increase an
individual’s faith in his or her ability to succeed, the causes of general happiness and
70
positive mood may be more broadly focused (e.g., spirituality, biological dispositions,
social status). As expected, positive moods were related to the experience of confidence
and happiness.
Results from the between-subject analyses examining the relationships among
daily mood, discrete affective states and job performance were largely unsupportive of
hypothesized relationships. In fact, the low percentage (10% - 3 out of 30) of significant
relationships warrants caution in the interpretation of any of these findings given that
they may be more attributable to chance than evidence of a substantial relationship. That
caution noted, only three significant relationships were observed. Negative mood, fatigue
and stress were negatively related to an individuals’ supervisor-rated ability to handle
stress. Positive mood, confidence, and happiness were unrelated to all aspects of job
performance.
Examination of the pooled within-subjects results for the hypotheses among daily
life events, moods and discrete affective states showed that most of the relationships were
substantiated with significant effects. In contrast to the between-subjects analyses, daily
life events were predictive of both positive and negative mood. Another difference
between the between-subjects and the pooled within-subjects results is the relationship
between daily life events and discrete affective states. Positive daily life events are
related to happiness in the pooled within-subjects analysis and confidence in the between-
subjects analysis. Negative daily life events are unrelated to anger, fatigue, sadness, and
stress in the pooled within-subject analyses. However, all hypothesized relationships
among positive and negative mood and discrete affective states were supported in both
between-subjects and pooled within-subjects analyses. Consistency of results across
71
between- and within-subjects findings provides strong support for the relationships
between positive and negative moods and the studied discrete affective states.
Review of the results for the pooled within-subjects analyses of the hypotheses
regarding positive moods, confidence, happiness, and job performance revealed a modest
level of support. Positive mood related positively to effort, helping and overall job
performance, while negative mood related negatively with overall job performance.
Confidence related positively to effort and negatively with helping. This latter negative
relationship is counter to the hypothesized direction, and indicates that, as individuals’
became more confident they tried harder, but also were less likely to help their
coworkers. This opposite finding suggests that helping others was reduced because the
individual was directing greater effort towards their own job responsibilities. Happiness
was also related to overall job performance. Fatigue, sadness and stress were all
negatively related to supervisors’ perceptions of an employee’s overall job performance,
as hypothesized. Additionally, sadness and stress were both indicative of individuals
who were rated as handling stress less well than others by their supervisors. While these
findings are supportive, the overall modest effect sizes suggest that other constructs may
be influencing these relationships. As such, a set of exploratory moderator analyses was
conducted and the results are discussed below.
Exploratory Results
Given the weak findings for the between-subject analyses examining the
relationships between positive and negative mood and job performance, 15 potential
moderators were examined in an effort to better explain these results. Results of
moderator analyses conducted using between-subjects OLS regression are discussed first,
72
followed by discussion of the moderator analyses conducted using pooled within-subjects
MRCM. It should be noted as all moderator analyses were conducted using an
exploratory framework, all explanations of moderator effects are post-hoc and as such
should be considered as speculative rather than confirmatory.
Between-subjects. Review of the 15 potential moderators of the positive mood
and job performance relationships uncovered two constructs that were significant
moderators of at least two performance dimensions. Affective commitment moderated
the relationships between positive mood and supervisor-rated commitment, helping and
overall job performance. Surprisingly, for all three of these effects, the relationship
between positive mood and performance was negative for individuals high in affective
commitment and positive for individuals low in affective commitment. In other words,
for individuals who feel less affectively attached to their organizations, their positive
moods were associated with increases in commitment, helping and overall performance.
While it is not intuitively clear why this might be the case, one possible explanation is
that for low commitment employees, the employees’ positive moods resulted in greater
expressed enthusiasm for the organization and thus higher performance ratings. In
contrast, on days when these low commitment employees were not in a positive mood,
they behaved in less committed ways.
The other notable moderator of the positive mood - job performance relationship
was emotional labor. Emotional labor moderated the relationships between positive
mood and each of effort and helping. In both cases, individuals who rated their jobs as
requiring less emotional labor were more likely to give effort or help when they were in
positive moods. For individuals who rated their jobs as requiring more emotional labor,
73
being in a positive mood was associated with less effort and less helping. These findings
are consistent with an understanding of emotional labor as an undesirable type of
“acting.” That is, engaging in emotional labor entails acting like one is experiencing an
emotion that one is not (e.g., smiling and greeting customers and expressing concerns for
a client’s situation). Being able to express one’s true feelings and psychological
preferences is inherently desirable (Tett & Burnett, 2003) and, as such, workers in a more
positive mood state may be more intrinsically motivated to give effort and help others
when they feel that their emotional expressions are “honest” expressions of an internal
desire, rather than a compelled behavior.
The relationships between negative mood and job performance were moderated
by a larger set of constructs. In particular, continuance commitment moderated all of the
performance dimensions except for supervisor-rated commitment. In each case,
individuals who were high in continuance commitment were rated higher in performance
when they experienced higher levels of negative mood. Thus, for individuals high on
continuance commitment, increased negative mood led to higher levels of rated job
performance. For example, consider employees who only work at the job because they
cannot get a better job (high continuance commitment). As negative mood increases in
this individual, his/her willingness to give effort, help coworkers, handle stress, and
overall performance increases. These employees perceive that the costs associated with
leaving their jobs are high, and when in a bad mood, they may worry that unless they
perform better, they may lose their jobs (which they cannot afford to lose because they
are not confident that they will be able to obtain other jobs). For employees who could
get better jobs if they wanted to (low continuance commitment), they may feel more
74
comfortable in expressing their negative mood by putting in less effort, helping
coworkers less, not handling work related stress as well and focus less on doing their job.
The high continuance commitment employees may feel trapped and thus feel that they
must work harder at a job or risk termination because their negative mood increases their
anxiety and fears of potential job loss.
In addition to the moderating effect of continuance commitment, four other
constructs collectively moderated relationships of the performance dimensions of effort,
handling stress, and helping. These four additional were age, education level, sex and
supervisors’ perception of an employee’s overall quality. Younger workers who
experienced high levels of negative mood were seen by their supervisors as less
committed, giving less effort, not handling stress well, and offering less help.
Conversely, older workers who experienced higher levels of negative mood were more
likely to be seen by the supervisors as committed, giving effort, handling stress, and
helping coworkers. In a similar pattern, females, more educated and higher quality
employees performed better when experiencing higher levels of negative mood than did
their male, less educated and lower quality counterparts. Collectively, these results
suggest that employees who were older, female, more educated, and of higher quality
were able to use their negative moods to motivate his/her performance. For younger
workers, males, less educated, and employees perceived by their supervisors to be of
lower quality, negative moods distracted them from their ability to perform their jobs.
Pooled within-subjects. Review of the 15 potential moderators of the positive
mood - job performance relationships revealed two demographic characteristics
moderators of three performance dimensions. First, age moderated the relationship
75
between positive mood and supervisor ratings of commitment, effort and handling stress.
Older workers who experienced higher levels of positive moods were more likely than
younger workers to been seen by the supervisors as more committed, giving more effort,
and less able to handle stress. Younger workers were seen by their supervisors as less
committed and giving less effort as their positive moods increased, however, they were
seen as better able to handle stress as their positive moods increased. This finding fits
with the notion that, as younger workers are in a more positive mood, they will become
distracted from their work, while older workers who may be more emotionally invested
in their work become more focused on their jobs. The observation that older workers are
seen as not handling stress as well when they are in a good mood may be due to their
desire for work to be done a particular way, while younger workers are more willing to
be flexible.
The second demographic variable that moderated the relationships between
positive mood and commitment, helping and overall job performance was monthly
income. Employees more highly compensated were seen by their supervisors as more
committed, giving more effort, and performing overall at higher levels than were
employees less well compensated when they experienced higher levels of positive mood.
One possible explanation is that employees who are more highly compensated feel that
they need to do more work in order to justify their elevated levels of compensation. Such
an explanation would fall well within the bounds of the motivational theory regarding
equity in social exchange (Adams, 1965).
Emotional labor was also a significant moderator of the relationship between
mood and two dimensions of supervisor rated job performance: (a) effort, and (b) overall
76
job performance. As was the case in the between-subjects moderator analysis of
emotional labor on the relationship between positive mood and effort, individuals whose
jobs required less emotional labor gave more effort when in a positive mood than did
individuals in higher emotional labor jobs. Similarly, for individuals in low emotional
labor jobs, their levels of supervisor rated overall job performance were higher than
individuals in high emotional labor jobs when in a positive mood. These findings add
support to the previously discussed notion that individuals who are in a positive mood
enjoy expressing themselves through their work when their work does not require them to
act like they are experiencing emotions that they are not (i.e., high emotional labor).
No constructs emerged as a consistent moderator of the negative mood and job
performance relationships. Six constructs did significantly moderate the relationship
between negative mood and one aspect of job performance, but none moderated more
than one relationship. However, two of the moderators in this analysis were also
significant moderators of the same relationship in current analyses and the between-
subjects analyses. First, age moderated the relationship between negative mood and
effort in both cases. As in the previous case, older workers engaged in more effort when
at higher levels of negative mood than did younger workers. Second, supervisors’
ratings of an employee’s overall quality was also a significant moderator of the negative
mood and effort relationship. As previously noted, lower quality employees’ levels of
effort decreased as their level of negative mood increased, while higher quality
employees levels of effort increased or stayed the same.
77
Implications
A number of implications can be drawn from this study. Perhaps the most
fundamental is that results of pooled within-subjects analyses indicate that positive and
negative daily moods are related to subsequent daily job performance including effort,
handling stress, helping, overall, and contextual job performance. These findings are
important as they build on previous research showing the impact of daily mood states on
job attitudes/perceptions such as job satisfaction (Judge & Ilies, 2004), job beliefs (Weiss
et al., 1999) and goal regulation (Ilies & Judge, 2005). While understanding the role of
moods in determining job attitudes is important, to be able to demonstrate a direct effect
for moods on critical workplace behaviors increases the prominence of affect as a factor
for both academic researchers and practitioners to consider when seeking to understand
workplace behavior. Muchinsky (2000) noted previously that emotions have traditionally
been considered taboo to study or consider in the prediction of job performance and
selection. The current research suggests that such exclusions may be inappropriate and
provides a basis for future research into their role in determining workplace behaviors.
Another implication of the current study regards the inherent multilevel structure
of individual differences. To date, research examining the impact of moods on job
performance (excluding sport related performance) have been conducted exclusively at
the between-subjects level (e.g., Au et al., 2003; Cropanzano et al., 1993; Lee & Allen,
2002; Wright et al., 2004; Wright & Staw, 1999) and have missed the opportunity to
examine within-subjects effects. The disparate findings presented in this study,
contrasted in the between-subjects and pooled within-subjects analyses, indicate that
there is a possibility that the use of between-subjects designs may obscure important
78
within-subjects relationships that can only be uncovered using longitudinal designs. This
point has been noted by others (Weiss, 2002), although to date this question has not
empirically tested in the relationship between moods and job performance.
Findings from this study suggest that the relationship between daily moods and
job performance may be situationally specific or idiosyncratic in nature, and as such, call
for continued exploration of the role of potential moderators. For example, emotional
labor was a frequent moderator of the positive mood - job performance relationships, but
did not moderate any of the negative mood - job performance relationships. Age and
supervisors’ perceptions of an employee’s overall quality frequently moderated the
negative mood and job performance relationships, but not the positive mood and job
performance relationships. As this study did not utilize an a priori approach to the
prediction of moderator effects, it cannot conclusively determine why some moderators
are important to some relationships and not others. Future research should seek to
replicate current results and explore the psychological mechanisms that govern such
relationships.
Finally, an implication for practitioners derives from the pattern of relationships
that daily life events influence employee moods which, in turn, affect employee’s job
performance. While it would be unrealistic to imagine that employers could (or even
should) seek to control what happens in an employee’s life beyond the context of the
workplace, the current findings indicate that there may be some utility to training
supervisors to be able to identify employees who are in a poor or good mood. An
example of this type of information being put to use would be knowing that older
workers who experience higher levels of negative mood give less effort than older
79
workers experiencing lower levels of negative mood. As such, a supervisor who
recognized an older worker coming in with a bad mood may spend a few minutes with
that employee in an attempt to influence his/her mood and reduce its intensity.
Additionally, a company might offer a series of life skills courses or some work-life
balance programs aimed at improving their employees non-work quality of life in an
effort to reduce the negative events associated with many negative moods. Numerous
implications can be identified for the role of mood in the workplace, but more specific
research should be conducted to determine the specific effects of different managerial and
human resource practices on employee moods and behavior
Limitations
Results of this study should be considered in light of several limitations which
may have influenced the findings and the nature of the relationships reported. Most
prominent among these issues is the make-up of the study’s sample. The 50 individuals
who completed six weeks of daily mood surveys belonged to several different
organizations and had very different types of job duties and responsibilities. As such, the
heterogeneous nature of the jobs in this study’s sample may have had an effect on the
consistency of findings across disparate jobs. While not a problem per se (in fact this
variability could be considered a strength of the study as it increases generalizability),
this heterogeneity could manifest itself as a limitation of opportunity to engage in
performance behaviors by workers or in some jobs there may be little opportunity for
moods to impact job performance (e.g., manufacturing jobs requiring simple repetitive
physical labor), while other jobs may have tremendous opportunity for mood to impact
80
job performance (e.g., customer service, supervisors). As such, these differences in the
nature of jobs could mask what may be stronger effects in some jobs than in others.
Another aspect of the heterogeneous nature of the jobs limiting the likelihood of
observing strong effects has to do with the limited ability of supervisors to observe and
quantify employee’s job performance on a daily basis. For an employee in a
manufacturing job, it may be relatively straightforward for a supervisor to observe an
employee’s performance (e.g., are they at their work station working or not? How many
pieces did they produce in a shift?). For an employee whose job is to interact with clients
off-site or complete paperwork in an enclosed office, a supervisor may not be able to
accurately gauge that employee’s performance that day, only in a broader weekly or
monthly sense. Additionally, as the supervisors in this study were unaccustomed to
providing daily job performance ratings, some may have struggled to capture this daily
performance. This limitation may have been the reason for the several supervisors whose
performance ratings did not vary within employees across the length of the study. As
these supervisors were unable to determine and record daily variation in job performance,
their ratings and the daily mood ratings of their employees were excluded from
consideration.
National culture also may have played a role in the findings that are presented in
this study. As the sample was drawn from a number of organizations located in northern
Thailand, there may be distinct differences in the way mood affects job performance than
in another culture that like the modern western culture of the United States. A number of
large scale studies have shown that there are distinct characteristics on which many
countries differ (Hofstede, 2001; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman & Gupta, 2004). For
81
illustrative purposes the national cultural profiles of the United States and Thailand are
presented for consideration. Hofsted (2001) identifies five dimensions of culture
including (a) individualism vs. collectivism, (b) power distance, (c) uncertainty
avoidance, (d) masculinity vs. femininity, and (e) long-term vs. short-term orientation.
The three dimensions of national cultural that are substantially different between
the United States and Thailand are (a) individualism vs. collectivism, (b) masculinity vs.
femininity, and (c) long-term vs. short-term orientation. These are critical differences
which may have a profound impact on the way emotions and even work behavior is
understood. The United States is very individualistic (in fact according to Hofsted’s
research the USA is the world’s most individualistic culture) and Thailand is very
collectivistic. The United States is a very masculine culture meaning that there is a lot of
competition among individuals and an emphasis on technical work. Thailand, in contrast,
is a much more “feminine” culture where there is less focus on interpersonal
competitiveness and technical work. Finally, the United States is much more focused on
the bottom-line and immediate gratification (short-term orientation) than is Thailand
which is more focused on human relations as a source of satisfaction, delaying
gratification, and valuing building relationships over asserting current market values.
In total, while employees and supervisors in the United States may be used to
aggressive, self-focused, short-term market driven relations, employees and supervisors
in Thailand are much more accustomed to more collaborative, relationship enhancing,
and long term conditions. These differences are evidenced in the resistance employees
demonstrate towards changing jobs and supervisors’ willingness to compromise with
employees over workplace expectations and policies. Until research can be conducted in
82
another country with more similar cultures characteristics than Thailand, to some degree,
the findings of this study must be interpreted and generalized to employees in the United
States with caution.
Two additional limitations dealing with the research design of the current study
include the use of single-item measures and same source data for assessing the life events
– affect relationship. While longitudinal research designs makes the use of long surveys
impractical, future research could address the single item measures limitation by focusing
their research on a smaller subset of emotions and job behaviors than the current study,
and as such, be able to use multi-item scales for more robust assessment of constructs.
Obtaining other ratings of daily life events may be challenging, however, single source
rating bias could be reduced with the use of daily life events ratings provided by
significant others where possible.
Finally, while the sample size in this study would be considered fairly large when
compared to many of the current published studies using longitudinal designs, confidence
in the findings would be enhanced if the research were conducted using a larger sample
This concern is especially relevant for the between-subjects analyses. As such, the
conclusions based on the results of the between-subjects analyses should be considered
with a greater degree of skepticism than those obtained using the pooled within-subjects
analyses.
Directions for Future Research
Based on the preceding discussions, a number of suggestions are offered
regarding directions for future research seeking to further our understanding of the role of
moods in understanding and predicting job performance. Three suggestions relate to
83
issues of sampling. First, while this study indicates initial evidence for the existence of
mood based effects on job performance, future studies should seek to replicate these
findings in other cultures, specifically, with a sample of employees in the United States.
This will allow for direct comparisons of the findings of this study with other studies
done in the United States, and given that the overwhelming majority of extant research is
done in the United States, this is an important consideration. Second, in order to enhance
confidence in the results and allow for the possibility of statistically significant effects
that are of modest magnitude, a larger sample should be collected in future research.
This suggestion is even more critical for interpreting and comparing the result of
between-subjects analyses. Third, given the possibility that a sample of heterogeneous
jobs may introduce significant ‘noise,” into the sample, it is recommended that future
research should target specific jobs or job families in an effort to understand the role of
affect in meaningfully different types of jobs like customer service jobs or supervisory
jobs. It may be that affect plays a different role in different types of jobs, and as such,
identifying the fault lines that separate jobs would be of great value to researchers and
practitioners alike.
While results in the current study offer partial support for the relationships
between both general and facet level variables (e.g., PA with contextual performance;
confident & effort), future research might benefit from a more explicit examination of
same level variables (e.g.., state to state and facet to facet). Much as research in
personality has shown that facet level traits are better predictors of specific aspects of
performance, future workplace affect research should seek to examine facets of PA and
NA rather than focusing exclusively on general states.
84
Another direction for future research should be to follow up on the potential
moderators identified in the current study. As the moderators in this study were
examined and interpreted in a post-hoc fashion, future research would benefit by the
development of clear a-priori theory and hypotheses regarding the psychological
processes through which these constructs influence the relationship between mood and
job performance. Additionally, some of these moderators may overlap and future
research should seek to identify which moderators provide unique information, and which
are redundant.
As with all studies examining important constructs like job performance, it is
critical that researchers explore the full range of the criterion. To this end, future
research should investigate the impact of mood on aspects of task as well as contextual
performance. Additionally, counterproductive behaviors might be examined, including
absenteeism, theft, and inappropriate behavior. Some research has already been done
examining between-subjects relationships between affect and counterproductive
behaviors (Lee & Allen, 2002). To date, however, no longitudinal within-subjects
research has been conducted on this topic, and given the difficulties associated with
measuring many types of counterproductive behaviors, it may be a while before
researchers are able to examine these relationships.
Finally, in an effort to make this line of research applicable to industry and
managers, future research should seek to identify techniques and interventions for
identifying and influencing employee workplace affect. While much research has already
been done in both of these areas, increased understanding of the role of workplace affect
85
in determining workplace behaviors will allow these existing techniques to be used in
new ways that result in increased worker efficiency and productivity.
Conclusion
Results of this study contribute to the greater understanding of the role of daily
moods and specific affective states in determining multiple aspects of job performance.
The biggest contributions of this study are two-fold. First, it offers evidence supportive
of the relationship between daily moods and supervisor-rated job performance Second,
numerous moderators of this relationship were explored, results indicating that they may
offer critical information about the nature of the relationship between moods and job
performance. This study accordingly offers a foundation for continuing the examination
of the influence of affect on workplace behaviors, and the importance of using
longitudinal research designs in the study of affect in the workplace.
86
REFERENCES
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology, (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Agho, A. O., Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1992). Discriminant validity of measures of
job satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 185-196.
Almeida, D. M., Wethington, E., & Kessler, R. C. (2002). The daily inventory of stressful
events: An interview-based approach for measuring daily stressors. Assessment, 9,
41-55.
Ashkanasy, N. M., Hartel, C.E.J. & Zerbe, W. J. (2000). Emotions in the workplace:
Research, theory,and practice. In N. M. Ashkanasy, CE.J. Hartel, & W. J. Zerbe
(Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 3-18).
Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Au, K., Chan, F., Wang, D., & Vertinsky, I. (2003). Mood in foreign exchange trading:
Cognitive processes and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 91, 322-338.
Barrett, L. F., & Russell, J. A. (1998). Independence and bipolarity in the structure of
current affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 967-984.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include
elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.),
Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
87
Brief, A. P, Burke, M. J., George, J. M., Robinson, B. S., & Webster, J. (1988). Should
negative affectivity remain an unmeasured variable in the study of job stress?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 529-535.
Brief, A. P., & Roberson, L. (1989). Job attitude organization: An exploratory study.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 717-727.
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace.
Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279-307.
Burke, M. J., Brief, A. P., & George, J. M. (1993). The role of negative affectivity in
understanding relations between self-reports of stressors and strains: A comment
on the applied psychology literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 402-412.
Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1999). The affect system has parallel
and integrative processing components: Form follows function. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 839-855.
Carlson, M., Charlin, V., & Miller, N. (1988). Positive mood and helping behavior: A test
of six hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 211-229.
Charles, S. T., Reynolds, C. A. & Gatz, M. (2001). Age-related differences and change in
positive and negative affect over 23 years. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80, 136-151.
Chen, P. Y., & Spector, P. E. (1991). Negative affectivity as the underlying cause of
correlations between stressors and strains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,
398-407.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression /
correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
88
Coleman, V. I. & Boreman, W. C. (2000). Investigating the underlying structure of the
citizenship performance domain. Human Resource Management Review,10, 25-
44.
Connolly, J. J. & Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The role of affectivity in job satisfaction: A
meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 265-281.
Cropanzano, R., James, K., & Konovsky, M. A. (1993). Dispositional affectivity as a
predictor of work attitudes and job performance. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 14, 595-606.
Darwin, C. (1873). The expression of emotions in man and animals. New York: D.
Appleton and Company.
David, J. P., Green, P. J., Martin, R., & Suls, J. (1997). Differential roles of neuroticism,
extraversion, and event desirability of mood in daily life: An integrative model of
top-down and bottom-up influences. Journal of Personality and Social
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality Structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual
Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440.
Dormann, C., & Zapf, D. (2002). Social stressors at work, irritation, and depressive
symptoms: Accounting for unmeasured third variables in a multi-wave study.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 33-58.
Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005). Work and
family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature (1980 –
2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 124-197.
89
Ekman, P. (1992). Facial expressions of emotion: New findings, new questions.
Psychological Science, 3, 34-38.
Ekman, P. (1994). All emotions are basic. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson (Eds.), The
nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 15-19). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Erber, R. & Erber, M. (2001). The role of motivated social cognition in the regulation of
affective states. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), The handbook of affect and social cognition
(pp. 275-292). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Feldman, L. A. (1995). Valence focus and arousal focus: Individual differences in the
structure of affective experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
69, 153-166.
Fisher, C. D. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of real-time affective reactions at
work. Motivation and Emotion, 26, 3-30.
Florio, G. A., Donnelly, A. P., & Zevon, M. A. (1998). The structure of work-related
stress and coping among oncology nurses in high-stress medical settings: A
transactional analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 227-242.
Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM).
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 39-66.
Forgas, J.P. (1998). On feeling good and getting your way: Mood effects on negotiation
strategies and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 565-
577.
Forgas, J. P. (2001). Handbook of affect and social cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
90
Forgas, J. P. & George, J. M. (2001). Affective influences on judgments and behavior in
organizations: An information processing perspective. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 86, 3-34.
Frijda, N. H. (1988). The laws of emotion. American Psychologist, 43, 349-358.
Frijda, N. H. (1993). Moods, emotion episodes and emotions. In M. Lewis, & J. M.
Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 381-403). New York: Guilford Press.
Frijda, N. H. (2000). The psychologists’ point of view. In M. Lewis J. M. Haviland-Jones
(Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 59-74). New York: Guilford Press.
Fuller, J. A., Stanton, J. M., Fisher, G. G., Spitzmuller, C., Russell, S. S. & Smith, P. C.
2003). A lengthy look at the daily grind: Time series analysis of events, mood,
stress, and Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 1019-1033.
George, J. M. (1989). Mood and absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 317-324.
George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at
work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 299-307.
George, J. M. (1996). State and trait affect in K. Murphy (Ed.), Individual Differences
and Behavior in Organizations (pp. 145-171). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Experienceing work: Values, attitudes, and moods.
Human Relations, 50, 393-416.
Grandey, A. A., Tam, A. P., & Brauburger, A. L. (2002). Affective states and traits in the
workplace: Diary and survey data from young workers. Motivation and Emotion,
26, 31-55.
Green, D. P., Goldman, S. L., & Salovey, P. (1993). Measurement error masks bipolarity
in affect ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 1029-1041.
91
Green, D. P., Salovey, P., & Truax, K. M. (1999). Static, dynamic, and causative
bipolarity of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 856-867.
Guion, R. M. (1998). Assessment, measurement, and prediction for personnel decisions.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Heller, W. (1993). Neuropsychological mechanisms of individual differences in emotion,
personality, and arousal. Neuropsychology, 7, 476-489.
Hirt, E. R., Melton, R. J., McDonald, H. E. & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Processing
goals, task interest, and the mood-performance relationship: A mediational
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 245-261.
Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear
models. Journal of Management, 23, 723-744.
Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear
models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24,
623-641.
Hofmann, D. A., Griffin, M. A., & Gavin, M. B. (2000). The application of hierarchical
linear modeling to organizational research. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.),
Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations,
extensions, and new directions (pp. 467-511). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions,
and organizations across nations. 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
92
Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2002). Understanding the dynamic relationships among
personality, mood, and job satisfaction: A field experience sampling study.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 1119-1139.
Iverson, R. D., Deery, S. J. (2001). Understanding the “personological basis of employee
withdrawal: The influence of affective disposition on employee tardiness, early
departure, and absenteeism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 856-866.
Izard, C. E. (1971). The face of emotion. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. New York: Plenum.
Izard, C. E. (1992). Basic emotions, relations among emotions, and emotion cognition
relations. Psychological Review, 99, 561-565.
Jex, S. M. (2002). Organizational psychology: A scientist-practitioner approach. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Johnson, J. W. (2001). The relative importance of task and contextual performance
dimensions to supervisor judgments of overall performance. Journal of Applied
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, 661-673.
Judge, T. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). Dispositional affect and job satisfaction: A review
and theoretical extension. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 86, 67-98.
Judge, T. A., & Locke, E. A. (1993). Effect of dysfunctional thought processes on
subjective well-being and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
475-490.
93
Kelley, S. W., Hoffman, K. D. (1997). An investigation of positive affect, prosocial
behaviors and service quality. Journal of Retailing, 73, 407-427.
Kleinginna, P. R., & Kleinginna, A. M. (1981). A categorized list of motivation
definitions, with a suggestion for a consensual definition. Motivation and
Emotion, 5, 345-379.
Kreft, I., & Leeuw, J. D. (1998). Introducing multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Lane, R., Reiman, E. M., Bradley, M. M., Lang, P. J., Ahern, G. L., Davidson, R. J., &
Schwartz, G. E. (1997). Neuroanatomical correlates of pleasant and unpleasant
emotion. Neuropsychologia, 35, 1437-1444.
Lang, P. J., Greenwald, M. K., Bradely, M. M., & Hamm, A. O. (1993). Looking at
pictures: Affective, facial, visceral, and behavioral reactions. Psychophysiology,
30, 261-273.
Larsen, R. J. (2000). Toward a science of mood regulation. Psychological Inquiry, 11,
129-141.
Larsen, R. J., Diener, E. & Lucas, R. E. (2002). Emotion: Models, measures and
individual differences. In R. G. Lord, R. J. Klimoski & R. Kanfer (Eds.),
Emotions in the workplace (pp. 64-106). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Law, K. S., Wong, C., & Song, L. J. (2004). The construct and criterion validity of
emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89, 483-496.
Lazarus, R. S. (1993). From psychological stress to the emotions: A history of changing
outlooks. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 1-21.
94
LeDoux, J. E. (1995). Emotion: Clues from the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 46,
209-235.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace
deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
131-142.
Liu, C., Borg, I., & Spector, P. E. (2004). Measurement equivalence of the German job
satisfaction survey used in a multinational organization: Implications of
Schwartz’s culture model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1070-1082.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Lord, R. G., & Kanfer, R. (2002). Emotions and organizational behavior. In R. G. Lord,
R. J. Klimoski & R. Kanfer (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Understanding the
structure and role of emotions in organizational behavior (pp. 5-19). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect:
Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803-855.
Mayer, J. D., & Gaschke, Y. N. (1988). The experience and meta-experience of mood.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 102-111.
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey, & D.
Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational
implications (pp. 3-34). New York: Basic Books.
95
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and
application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (1989).
Organizational commitment and job performance: It’s the nature of the
commitment that counts. Journal of Applied psychology, 74, 152-156.
Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Orientation toward the job and organization. In K. R. Murphey
(Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 175-208). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Organizational linkages: The
psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Muchinsky, P. M. (2000). Emotions in the workplace: The neglect of organizational
behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 801-805.
Nezlek, J. B. (2001). Multilevel random coefficient analysis of event- and interval-
contingent data in social and personality psychology research. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 771-785.
Pelled, L. H., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Down and out: An investigation of the relationship
between mood and employee withdrawal behavior. Journal of Management, 25,
875-895.
Plutchik, R. (1958). Outlines of a new theory of emotions. Transactions of the New York
academy of sciences, 20, 394-403.
Plutchik, R. (1980). Emotion: A psychoevolutionary synthesis. New York: Harper &
Row.
96
Plutchik, R. (1997). The circumplex as a general model of the structure of emotions and
personality. In R. Plutchik & H. R. Conte (Eds.), Circumplex models of
personality and emotions (pp. 17-46). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Plutchik, R. & Conte, H. R. (1997). Circumplex models of personality and emotions.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Pollack, B. N. (1998). Hierarchical linear modeling and the “unit of analysis” problem: A
solution for analyzing responses of intact group members. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, 299-312.
Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data
analysis methods, Second Edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM 6 for windows.
Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Reisenzein, R. (1994). Pleasure-arousal theory and the intensity of emotions. Journal of
Riketta, M. (2002). Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 257-266.
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39, 1161-1178.
Russell, J. A. (1991). In defense of a prototype approach to emotion concepts. Journal of
97
Russell, J. A. (1997). How shall an emotion be called? In R. Plutchik & H. R. Conte
(Eds.), Circumplex models of personality and emotions (pp. 205-220).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Russell, J. A. & Barrett, L. F. (1999). Core affect, prototypical emotional episodes, and
other things called emotion: Dissecting the elephant. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 76, 805-819.
Russell, J. A. & Carroll, J. M. (1999). On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect.
Russell, J. A., Lewicka, M., & Niit, T. (1989). A cross-cultural study of a circumplex
model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 848-856.
Russell, J. A., Weiss, A. & Mendelsohn, G. A. (1989). Affect grid: A single-item scale of
pleasure and arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 493-502.
Rusting, C. L. (1998). Personality, mood, and cognitive processing of emotional
information: Three conceptual frameworks. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 165-196.
Rusting, C. L., & Larsen, R. J. (1997). Extraversion, neuroticism, and susceptibility to
positive and negative affect: A test of two theoretical models. Personality and
Individual Differences, 22, 607-612.
Schaubroeck, J., Ganster, D. C., & Fox, M. L. (1992). Dispositional affect and work-
related stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 322-335.
Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (2000). Facets of affective experiences:
A framework for investigations of trait affect. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 26, 655-668.
98
Schlosberg, H. (1941). A scale for the judgment of facial expressions. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 29, 497-510.
Schlosberg, H. (1954). Three dimensions of emotion. Psychological Review, 61, 81-88.
Snijders, T., & Bosker, R. (1999). Multilevel analysis. London: Sage.
Spector, P. E., Chen, P. Y., & O’Connell, B. J. (2000). A longitudinal study of relations
between job stressors and job strains while controlling for prior negative
affectivity and strains. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 211-218.
Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee positive emotion and
favorable outcomes at the workplace. Organization Science, 5, 51-71.
Stone, A. A., & Neale, J. M. (1982). Development of a methodology for assessing daily
experiences. In A. Baum & J. Singer (Eds.), Environment and Health, (Vol. IV,
pp. 49-83). New York: Erlbaum.
Stone, A. A., & Neale, J. M. (1984). Effects of severe daily events on mood. Journal of
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001) Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). New
York: Allyn and Bacon.
Tett, R. P. & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 30, 500-517.
Tett, R. P., Fox, K. E., & Wang, A. (2005). Development and validation of a self-report
measure of emotional intelligence as a multidimensional trait domain. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 859-888.
99
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., Rothstein, M., & Reddon, J. R. (1999). Meta-analysis of
bidirectional relations in personality-job performance research. Human
Performance, 12, 1–29.
Teuchmann, K., Totterdell, P., & Parker, S. K. (1999). Rushed, unhappy, and drained: An
experience sampling study of relations between time pressure, perceived control,
moods, and emotional exhaustion in a group of accountants. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 4, 37-54.
Thayer, R. E. (1996). The origin of everyday moods: Managing energy, tension, and
stress. New York: Oxford University Press.
Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R. & Chermont, K. D. (2003).
The affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic
review and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914-945.
Totterdell, P. (2000). Catching moods and hitting runs: Mood linkage and subjective
performance in professional sport teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 848-
859.
Van Eck, M., Nicolson, N. A., & Berkhof, J. (1998). Effects of stressful daily events on
mood states: Relationship to global perceived stress. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 75, 1572-1585.
Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal facilitation and job
dedication as separate facets of contextual performance. Journal of Applied
100
Van Yperen, N. W. (2003). On the link between different combinations of Negative
Affectivity (NA) and Positive Affectivity (PA) and job performance. Personality
and Individual Differences, 35, 1873-1881.
Wanous, J. P., & Hudy, M. J. (2001). Single-item reliability: A replication and extension.
Organizational Research Methods, 4, 361–375.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good
are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247–252.
Watson, D. (2000). Mood and temperament. New York: Guilford.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule –
Expanded form. University of Iowa.
Watson, D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Health complaints, stress, and distress:
Exploring the central role of negative affectivity. Psychological Review, 96, 234-
254.
Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief
measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of
Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two general activation
systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and
psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76,
820-838.
101
Weiss, H. M. (2001). Introductory comments. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 86, 1-2.
Weiss, H. M. (2002). Conceptual and empirical foundations for the study of affect at
work. In R. G. Lord, R. J. Klimoski, & R. Kanfer (Eds.), Emotion in the
workplace: Understanding the structure and role of emotions in organizational
behavior. (pp. 20-63). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective Events Theory: A theoretical
discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at
work. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational
Behavior, 18, 1-74.
Weiss, H. M., Nicholas, J. P., & Daus, C. S. (1999). An examination of the joint effects
of affective experiences and job beliefs on job satisfaction and variations in
affective experiences over time. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision
Processes, 78, 1-24.
Williams, L. J., Gavin, M. B., & Williams, M. L. (1996). Measurement and
nonmeasurement processes with negative affectivity and employee attitudes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 88-101.
Wong, C., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence
on performance and attitude: An exploratory study. Leadership Quarterly, 13,
243-274.
Wright, T. A., & Bonett, D. G. (2002). The moderating effects of employee tenure on the
relation between organizational commitment and job performance: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1183-1190.
102
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job
performance and voluntary turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 486-493.
Wright, T. A., Cropanzano, R., & Meyer, D. G. (2004). State and trait correlates of job
performance: A tale of two perspectives. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18,
365-383.
Wright, T. A., & Staw, B. M. (1999). Affect and favorable work outcomes: Two
longitudinal tests of the happy-productive worker thesis. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 20, 1-23.
Zerbe, W. J., & Hartel, C.E.J. (2000). Commentary: Emotions as mediators and
moderators. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C.E.J. Hartel, & W. J. Zerbe (Eds.), Emotions in
the workplace: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 156-161). Westport, CT:
Quorum Books.
Zohar, D., Tzischinski, O. & Epstein, R. (2003). Effects of energy availability on
immediate and delayed emotional reactions to work events. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 1082-1093.
Zuckerman, M., & Lubin, B. (1965). The Multiple Affect Adjective Check List. San
Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
103
Table 1
Summary of Workplace Affect Literature Review
Trait State
Outcomes Positive Negative Positive Negative
Stress n/a r = .31 to .748 See sources See sources
Job Attitudes 1
Job Sat. r = .49 ; 1
Job Sat. r = -.33 ; 11
Job Sat. r = .44 ; Job Sat. r = -.3611;
Job Sat. r = .3311; Job Sat. r = -.3711; Org. Comitt. r = .283 Org. Comitt. r = -.12 n.s. 3;
Org. Comitt. r = .3511; Org. Comitt. r = -.2711;
Withdrawal Behaviors Absenteeism r =-.10 n.s. 4; Absenteeism r =.08 n.s. 4; Absenteeism r = -.284; Absenteeism r =-.03 n.s. 4;
Absenteeism r = -.07 n.s. 6; Absenteeism r =.096; Turnover Absenteeism r = -.369; Absenteeism r = .179;
Turnover Intent r = -.1711; Intent r = .24 ; Turnover Intent r Turnover Intent r = -.384;
11
Turnover Intent r = .4211;
Turnover Intent r = -.-.014; = .254; Turnover Intent r = .174;
Helping Behaviors Helping Bx. r = .413; Helping Bx. r = .09 n.s. 3; Helping Bx. r = .483; Helping Bx. r = -.01 n.s. 3;
Helping Bx r = .10 n.s. 5; Coworker Helping r = -.02 n.s.7; Helping Bx. r = .245;
Coworker Helping r = .187; Org. Support r = -.05 n.s. 7;
Org. Support r = .247;
Job Performance Performance r = .322; Performance r = -.1213; Performance r = -.03 n.s. 14; Performance r = -.2614;
Performance β = .3110; Performance r = -.262; Performance r = .08 n.s. 14; Performance r = -.3114;
Performance r = .3212; Performance r = -.3312; Montly Sales r = .10 n.s. 5;
Performance r = -.04 n.s. 13; Customer Service r = .265;
Monthly Sales r = .00 n.s. 5;
Customer Service r = .02 n.s. 5;
1: *Connolly & Viswesvaran (2000); 2: Cropanzano et al. (1993); 3: Fisher (2002); 4: George (1989); 5: George (1991): 6: Iverson & Deery (2001); 7: Lee &
Allen (2001); 8: Multiple studies, see text; 9: Pelled & Xin (1999); 10: Staw et al. (1994); 11: *Thoresen et al. (2003); 12: Van Yperen (2003); 13: Wright &
Cropanzano (1998); 14: Wright et al. (2004)
* = Meta Analysis
104
Table 2
Demographic Variable Descriptive Statistics complete sample (N=73)
Source Demographic N Min Max M SD
Bank employees
Age 34 20 54 36.06 7.83
% Male 34 – – 29% –
Tenure (months) 34 0 27 11.80 7.12
Education level 34 1 6 4.44 .99
% married 34 – – 76% –
# of children 34 0 3 1.06 .92
Monthly income 34 108 1150 328.31 219.26
Teachers
Age 9 39 56 47.33 5.22
% Male 9 – – 22% 44%
Tenure (months) 9 16 35 25.11 6.01
% married 9 – – 100% 0%
# of children 9 1 3 1.89 .60
Monthly income 9 400 800 575.00 119.24
Taxi drivers
Age 5 32 42 37.20 3.90
% Male 5 – – 100% 0%
Tenure (months) 5 1 5 2.30 1.79
% married 5 – – 100% 0%
# of children 5 1 2 1.60 .55
Monthly income 5 150 175 165.00 10.46
Jewelry manufacturers
Age 10 22 48 33.00 9.13
% Male 10 – – 60% 52%
Tenure (months) 10 0 5 1.92 1.43
% married 10 – – 60% 52%
# of children 10 0 1 .50 .53
Monthly income 10 98 375 181.50 88.87
Bar employees
Age 5 22 28 25.00 2.24
% Male 5 – – 100% 0%
Tenure (months) 5 1 2 1.10 .55
Education level 5 2 5 3.60 1.14
% married 5 – – 20% 45%
# of children 5 0 1 .20 .45
Monthly income 5 80 140 113.50 27.59
Newspaper employees
Age 5 38 50 42.80 4.76
% Male 5 – – 20% 45%
Tenure (months) 5 8 16 11.40 3.85
% married 5 – – 100% 0%
# of children 5 1 3 2.20 .84
Monthly income 5 100 300 202.50 79.25
Clothing retailers
Age 5 26 45 31.00 8.09
% Male 5 – – 80% 45%
Tenure (months) 5 2 8 4.00 2.55
% married 5 – – 40% 55%
# of children 5 0 1 .40 .55
Monthly income 5 95 180 136.50 39.35
105
Table 3
Demographic Variable Descriptive Statistics final sample (N=50)
Source Demographic N Min Max M SD
Bank employees
Age 28 20 54 35.86 8.28
% Male 28 – – 36% –
Tenure (months) 28 0 27 11.47 7.33
% married 28 – – 75% –
# of children 28 0 3 .96 .92
Monthly income 28 108 1150 340.27 239.26
Teachers
Age 7 39 56 48.29 5.12
% Male 7 – – 29% –
Tenure (months) 7 16 35 26.14 6.20
% married 7 – – 100% –
# of children 7 1 3 1.86 .69
Monthly income 7 400 800 596.43 125.36
Jewelry manufacturers
Age 10 22 48 33.00 9.13
% Male 10 – – 60% –
Tenure (months) 10 0 5 1.92 1.43
% married 10 – – 60% –
# of children 10 0 1 .50 .53
Monthly income 10 98 375 181.50 88.87
Bar employees
Age 2 24 28 26.00 2.83
% Male 2 – – 100% –
Tenure (months) 2 1 2 1.50 .71
% married 2 – – 50% –
# of children 2 0 1 .50 .71
Monthly income 2 88 140 113.75 37.12
Newspaper employees
Age 3 38 50 42.67 6.43
% Male 3 – – 33% –
Tenure (months) 3 8 15 11.00 3.61
% married 3 – – 100% –
# of children 3 1 3 2.33 1.16
Monthly income 3 100 250 187.50 78.06
Note. All cases in Taxi (N = 5) and Clothing retailer (N = 5) groups were droped due
to one ore more of the exclusion criteria
106
Table 4
Means, Standard Deviations, Alphas, and Intercorrelations Between-Subjects (N = 50)
Mood Emotions Life Events Work Outcomes
Variable M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
Mood
1. PA 2.75 .43 – – – – – – – – – – -.03 .07 .02 .03 -.01 .03
2. NA 1.91 .47 .39 – – – – – – – – – .02 -.07 -.21 -.04 -.08 -.09
Emotions
3. Angry 1.91 .53 .37 .91 – – – – – – – – .11 .00 -.13 .02 .01 -.01
4. Confident 2.99 .60 .57 .27 .21 – – – – – – – .06 .16 .10 .09 -.05 .11
5. Fatigue 2.44 .48 .30 .58 .56 .25 – – – – – – .00 -.15 -.21 -.08 -.12 -.13
6. Happy 3.29 .57 .50 .00 -.06 .52 .18 – – – – – .10 .16 .16 .18 .05 .17
7. Sad 1.87 .49 .30 .90 .82 .36 .44 -.02 – – – – -.02 -.04 -.17 -.01 -.16 -.07
8. Stress 2.28 .49 .43 .74 .76 .24 .75 .02 .68 – – – -.05 -.11 -.24 -.09 -.16 -.14
Non-work life
9. Positive DLE 1.69 .22 .09 .02 -.15 .23 .01 .18 .00 -.11 – – -.08 -.12 -.08 -.11 -.09 -.11
10. Negative DLE 0.07 .12 -.03 .27 .42 -.12 -.07 -.16 .32 .15 -.45 – .21 .21 .18 .17 .14 .21
Job Performance
11. Commitment 3.55 .30 -.10 .15 .15 .11 -.09 .09 .16 -.07 .06 .35 – .82 .53 .75 .77 .83
12. Effort 3.62 .35 -.05 .02 .05 -.02 -.14 -.05 .04 .00 -.06 .24 .79 – .79 .87 .65 .95
13. Handle Stress 3.63 .39 .08 -.19 -.17 .07 -.15 .13 -.16 -.13 .06 .06 .55 .78 – .82 .44 .89
14. Helping 3.69 .46 -.10 .03 .02 .12 -.10 .07 .10 -.07 .10 .17 .80 .84 .79 – .63 .95
15. Overall 3.49 .29 -.24 .00 .07 -.12 -.20 -.21 .02 -.12 -.11 .41 .76 .69 .49 .77 – .67
16. Contextual Perf 3.62 .34 -.04 .00 .00 .08 -.13 .07 .03 -.08 .05 .21 .85 .94 .87 .96 .75 –
Note. DLE = Daily Life Events. Values greater than .19 = p <.05 (One-tailed). Values above the diagonal are corrected for supervisor
rating effects
107
Table 5
HLM Estimates of the Effect of PDLEs on Daily mood
Positive Mood
2
Estimate β ΔR
Intercept (β0) 2.75**
PDLEs (β1) .03
Unstandardized coefficient .02**
Standardized coefficient .10**
Note . PDLE = Positive Daily Life Events. This
model is based on 50 individuals and 1,500 data
points. PDLEs were centered at the individuals' mean
to eliminate between-individual variance. ** p <. 01.
108
Table 6
HLM Estimates of the Effect of NDLEs on Daily mood
Negative Mood
2
Estimate β ΔR
Intercept (β0) 1.91**
NDLEs (β1) .01
Unstandardized coefficient .02**
Standardized coefficient .07**
Note . NDLE = Negative Daily Life Events. This
model is based on 50 individuals and 1,500 data
points. NDLEs were centered at the individuals' mean
to eliminate between-individual variance. ** p <. 01.
109
Table 7
HLM Estimates of the Effect of PDLEs on DAS
Confidence Happiness
2 2
Estimate β ΔR β ΔR
Intercept (β0) 2.99** 3.29**
PDLEs (β1) .02 .04
Unstandardized coefficient .01 .04**
Standardized coefficient .03 .12**
Note . PDLE = Positive Daily Life Events. DAS = Discrete Affective
States. This model is based on 50 individuals and 1,500 data points.
PDLEs were centered at the individuals' mean to eliminate between-
110
Table 8
HLM Estimates of the Effect of NDLEs on DAS
Anger Fatigue Sadness Stress
2 2 2 2
Estimate β ΔR β ΔR β ΔR β ΔR
Intercept (β0) 1.91** 2.44** 1.87** 2.28**
NDLE (β1) .00 .00 .00 .00
Unstandardized coefficient .02 .01 .03 .01
Standardized coefficient .04 .01 .04 .01
Note. NDLEs = Negative Daily Life Events. DAS = Discrete Affective States. This model is based on 50
individuals and 1,500 data points. Mood was centered at the individuals' mean to eliminate between-individual
variance. ** p <. 01.
111
Table 9
HLM Estimates of the Effect of Mood on DAS
Confidence Happiness
2 2
Estimate β ΔR β ΔR
Intercept (β0) 2.99** 3.29**
Positive Mood (β1) .11 .17
Unstandardized coefficient .54** .89**
Standardized coefficient .30** .49**
Note. DAS = Discrete Affective States. This model is based on 50
individuals and 1,500 data points. Mood was centered at the
individuals' mean to eliminate between-individual variance. ** p <. 01.
112
Table 10
HLM Estimates of the Effect of Mood on DAS
Anger Fatigue Sadness Stress
2 2 2 2
Intercept (β0) 1.91** 2.44** 1.87** 2.28**
Negative Mood (β1) .12 .07 .18 .09
Unstandardized coefficient .77** .37** .94** .53**
Standardized coefficient .47** .21** .58** .31**
Note. DAS = Discrete Affective States. This model is based on 50 individuals and 1,500 data points. Mood
was centered at the individuals' mean to eliminate between-individual variance. ** p <. 01.
113
Table 11
HLM Estimates of the Effect of Mood and DAS on Job Performance
Commitment Effort Handling Stress Helping Overall Perf. Contextual Perf.
Estimate β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2 β ΔR2

Intercept (β0) 3.54** 3.53** 3.63** 3.58** 3.46** 3.54**
Positive Mood (β1) .01 .03 .01 .03 .01 .03
Unstandardized coefficient .03 .05* .04 .08** .04* .05**
Standardized coefficient .04 .06* .04 .08** .05* .09**
Intercept (β0) 3.54** 3.53** 3.63** 3.58** 3.46** 3.54**
Confidence (β1) .00 .00 .00 .01 .01 .00
Unstandardized coefficient .00 .02* .01 -.02 -.01 .00
Standardized coefficient .00 .04* .03 -.04 -.03 .01
Intercept (β0) 3.54** 3.53** 3.63** 3.58** 3.46** 3.54**
Happiness (β1) .00 .01 .00 .01 .02 .01
Unstandardized coefficient .01 .01 .00 .00 .02* .00
Standardized coefficient .03 .03 -.01 -.01 .06* .01
Note. DAS = Discrete Affective States. This model is based on 50 individuals and 1,500 data points. Mood and DASs were centered at the individuals' mean
to eliminate between-individual variance. * p < .05, ** p < .01, df = 49.
114
Table 12
HLM Estimates of the Effect of Mood and DAS on Job Performance
Commitment Handling Stress Overall Perf. Contextual Perf.
2 2 2 2
Intercept (β0) 3.54** 3.63** 3.46** 3.54**
Negative Mood (β1) .01 .00 .01 .02
Unstandardized coefficient .04 .01 -.04* .00
Standardized coefficient .04 .01 -.05* .01
Intercept (β0) 3.54** 3.63** 3.46** 3.54**
Anger (β1) .01 .00 .00 .02
Unstandardized coefficient .02 -.01 -.01 .00
Standardized coefficient .03 -.02 -.03 .01
Intercept (β0) 3.54** 3.63** 3.46** 3.54**
Fatigue (β1) .00 .00 .00 .01
Unstandardized coefficient .01 .00 -.02* .00
Standardized coefficient .02 .00 -.04* .01
Intercept (β0) 3.54** 3.63** 3.46** 3.54**
Sadness (β1) .01 .00 .01 .00
Unstandardized coefficient .01 -.02* -.03* .00
Standardized coefficient .01 -.04* -.05* -.01
Intercept (β0) 3.54** 3.63** 3.46** 3.54**
Stress (β1) .00 .00 .01 .01
Unstandardized coefficient .01 -.02* -.03* -.02*
Standardized coefficient .01 -.04* -.06* -.05*
Note. DAS = Discrete Affective States. This model is based on 50 individuals and 1,500 data points.
Mood and DASs were centered at the individuals' mean to eliminate between-individual variance.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, df = 49.
115
Table 13
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Between Individuals (N = 50)
Mood Demographics S. Perceptions Org Commit. Emotional Intelligence E.L. Work Outcomes
M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
Mood
1. PA 2.75 .43 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
2. NA 1.91 .47 .39 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Demographics
3. Age 37 9.34 .12 .07 – – – –
4. Education 3.90 1.47 -.05 .16 .08 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
5. Income 326 230 .07 .16 .57 .52 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
6. Sex .42 .50 .14 .04 -.07 -.05 .22 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Supervisor Perceptions
7. How well Know 3.58 .57 -.08 -.05 .09 -.10 -.01 -.23 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
8. Observe 3.48 .58 .03 .16 .02 -.16 .02 .14 -.18 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
9. Overall Quality 3.64 .48 -.14 .05 .23 -.02 -.01 -.12 .40 -.10 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Org Commitment
10. Affective 3.84 .83 -.01 -.10 .11 .46 .16 -.18 -.08 -.02 .03 – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
11. Continuance 3.61 .87 -.11 .19 .18 .29 .20 -.07 .17 -.20 .33 .30 – – – – – – – – – – – – –
12. Normative 3.42 .75 -.20 .03 -.03 .31 .03 -.02 .11 -.15 .23 .63 .54 – – – – – – – – – – – –
Emotional Intelligence
13. SEA 4.23 .55 .14 -.04 .08 -.06 .04 -.18 .09 .04 -.02 .29 .09 .21 – – – – – – – – – – –
14. OEA 3.33 .78 .07 -.04 -.15 .01 -.18 -.13 .36 -.14 .23 .07 .01 .27 .16 – – – – – – – – – –
15. UOE 4.21 .56 .05 -.01 -.06 .26 .24 -.10 .27 -.14 .19 .24 .29 .20 .50 .07 – – – – – – – – –
16. ROE 3.93 .58 -.08 -.05 -.19 .14 -.14 -.26 .26 -.10 -.03 .26 .00 .38 .24 .39 .42 – – – – – – – –
Emotional Labor
17. EL 3.01 1.07 -.30 -.04 -.39 -.06 -.36 -.12 .18 -.21 .22 -.01 -.05 .29 -.09 .55 -.02 .36 – – – – – – –
Work Outcomesa
18. Commitment 3.54 .20 -.03 .02 .13 -.08 .25 .10 .15 .19 .07 -.09 .23 -.09 .02 .02 .17 -.19 -.12 – – – – – –
19. Effort 3.53 .23 .07 -.07 -.02 -.04 .25 .18 .21 .27 -.07 -.07 -.01 -.12 .08 .08 .26 -.04 -.18 .82 – – – – –
20. HandleStress 3.51 .28 .02 -.21 -.10 -.07 .13 .07 .18 .22 -.10 .10 -.10 -.03 .21 .18 .20 .03 -.14 .53 .79 – – – –
21. Helping 3.58 .27 .03 -.04 .03 -.09 .23 .07 .23 .24 .06 -.01 -.01 -.06 .20 .21 .22 -.08 -.09 .75 .87 .82 – – –
22. Overall 3.46 .15 -.01 -.08 .20 -.08 .28 .27 .27 .03 .14 .00 .25 .02 .13 .04 .23 -.25 -.01 .77 .65 .43 .63 – –
23. Contextual Perf. 3.62 .34 .03 -.09 .00 -.08 .23 .11 .22 .26 -.02 -.01 .02 -.08 .15 .15 .23 -.07 -.15 .83 .95 .89 .95 .67 –
Note. Values greater than .19 = p <.05 (One-tailed). aValues corrected for supervisor effects
116
Table 14
Moderator Analyses for the Positive Mood – Commitment Relationship
Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
Variable entered β R2 β ΔR2 Variable entered β R2 β ΔR2
1. Positive Mood -.05 .02 -.04 – 1. Positive Mood -.04 .00 .00 –
1. Age .14 .02 .13 – 1. Self Emotional Appraisal .03 .00 .01 –
2. PA x Age – – .07 .01 2. PA x Self Emotional Appr. – – -.21 .05
1. Positive Mood -.04 .01 -.04 – 1. Positive Mood -.04 .00 -.04 –
1. Education -.08 .01 -.08 – 1. Other Emotional Appraisal .03 .00 .03 –
2. PA x Education – – .01 .00 2. PA x Other Emotional Appr. – – .02 .00
1. Income .26* .07 .25* – 1. Use of Emotions .17 .03 .17 –
2. PA x Income – – .19 .00 2. PA x Use of Emotions – – -.16 .02
1. Sex .11 .01 .11 – 1. Regulation of Emotions -.19 .04 -.20 –
2. PA x Sex – – .18 .03 2. PA x Reg. of Emotions – – -.20 .03
1. Positive Mood .09 .05 .09 – 1. Positive Mood -.03 .01 .01 –
1. How well know .22 .05 .24* – 1. Affective Commitment -.09 .01 -.08 –
2. PA x How well know – – .12 .02 2. PA x Affective Commit. – – -.31** .09**
1. Observe .19 .04 .25* – 1. Continuance Commitment .23 .05 .24* –
2. PA x Observe – – .20 .03 2. PA x Continuance Commit. – – -.12 .01
1. Overall Quality .07 .01 .07 – 1. Normative Commitment -.10 .01 -.08 –
2. PA x Overall Quality – – .02 .00 2. PA x Normative Commit. – – -.08 .01
1. Positive Mood -.08 .02 -.09 –
1. Emotional Labor -.14 .02 -.11 –
2. PA x Emotional Labor – – -.21 .04
Note. β = standardized coefficients. * p < .10 (two tailed), ** p < .05 (two tailed).
117
Table 15
Moderator Analyses for the Positive Mood –Effort Relationship
1. Positive Mood .08 .01 .07 1. Positive Mood .06 .01 .06
1. Age -.03 .01 -.02 1. Self Emotional Appraisal .07 .01 .07
2. PA x Age -.04 .00 2. PA x Self Emotional Appr. .01 .00
1. Education -.04 .01 .00 1. Other Emotional Appraisal .08 .01 .08
2. PA x Education -.22 .03 2. PA x Other Emotional Appr. .16 .02
1. Income .24* .06 .24* 1. Use of Emotions .26* .07 .26*
2. PA x Income .14 .01 2. PA x Use of Emotions .04 .01
1. Positive Mood .05 .03 -.02 1. Positive Mood .07 .01 .06
1. Sex .17 .03 .17 1. Regulation of Emotions -.04 .01 -.04
2. PA x Sex .16 .02 2. PA x Reg. of Emotions -.07 .00
1. How well know .22 .05 .24* 1. Affective Commitment -.07 .01 -.07
2. PA x How well know .12 .02 2. PA x Affective Commit. -.21 .04
1. Positive Mood .07 .08 -.09 1. Positive Mood .07 .01 .09
1. Observe .26* .08 .33** 1. Continuance Commitment .00 .01 .01
2. PA x Observe .25* .05* 2. PA x Continuance Commit. -.09 .01
1. Overall Quality -.06 .01 -.06 1. Normative Commitment -.11 .02 -.08
2. PA x Overall Quality -.10 .01 2. PA x Normative Commit. -.16 .02
1. Positive Mood .02 .03 .00
1. Emotional Labor -.18 .03 -.13
2. PA x Emotional Labor -.32** .09**
118
Table 16
Moderator Analyses for the Positive Mood – Handling Stress Relationship
1. Positive Mood .03 .01 1. Positive Mood -.01 -.02
2. PA x Age -.26* .06* 2. PA x Self Emotional Appr. .04 .00
1. Positive Mood .02 .02 1. Positive Mood .01 -.03
1. Education -.07 .01 -.03 1. Other Emotional Appraisal .18 .03 .18
2. PA x Education -.30* .06* 2. PA x Other Emotional Appr. .18 .03
1. Positive Mood .03 .02 1. Positive Mood .01 .00
1. Income .13 .02 .13 1. Use of Emotions .20 .04 .20
2. PA x Income -.06 .00 2. PA x Use of Emotions .03 .00
1. Positive Mood .01 -.02 1. Positive Mood .02 .03
1. Sex .06 .00 .07 1. Regulation of Emotions .03 .00 .03
2. PA x Sex .09 .01 2. PA x Reg. of Emotions .07 .00
1. How well know .19 .04 .21 1. Affective Commitment .10 .01 .10
2. PA x How well know .11 .02 2. PA x Affective Commit. -.19 .03
1. Observe .22 .05 .26* 1. Continuance Commitment -.10 .01 -.08
2. PA x Observe .15 .02 2. PA x Continuance Commit. -.16 .03
1. Overall Quality -.10 .01 -.08 1. Normative Commitment -.03 .00 .02
2. PA x Overall Quality -.17 .03 2. PA x Normative Commit. -.25* .06*
1. Positive Mood -.02 -.04
2. PA x Emotional Labor -.23 .05
119
Table 17
Moderator Analyses for the Positive Mood – Helping Relationship
1. Age .03 .00 .06 1. Self Emotional Appraisal .20 .04 .20
2. PA x Age -.20 .03 2. PA x Self Emotional Appr. -.04 .00
2. PA x Income -.03 .00 2. PA x Use of Emotions -.05 .00
2. PA x Sex .14 .02 2. PA x Reg. of Emotions -.02 .00
1. How well know .24* .06 .27* 1. Affective Commitment -.01 .00 -.01
2. PA x How well know .16 .03 2. PA x Affective Commit. -.30** .08**
1. Observe .24* .06 .30** 1. Continuance Commitment -.01 .00 .01
1. Overall Quality .06 .01 .07 1. Normative Commitment -.05 .00 -.01
2. PA x Overall Quality -.14 .02 2. PA x Normative Commit. -.19 .03
1. Positive Mood .00 -.01
2. PA x Emotional Labor -.30** .08**
120
Table 18
Moderator Analyses for the Positive Mood – Overall Job Performance Relationship
1. Positive Mood -.03 -.03 1. Positive Mood -.03 .01
2. PA x Age .05 .00 2. PA x Self Emotional Appr. -.21 .05
1. Positive Mood -.01 -.01 1. Positive Mood -.01 -.05
1. Positive Mood -.07 -.04 1. Positive Mood -.02 .01
1. Income .28** .08 .28** 1. Use of Emotions .23 .05 .23
2. PA x Income .15 .01 2. PA x Use of Emotions -.13 .01
1. Positive Mood -.05 -.54 1. Positive Mood -.03 -.04
1. Sex .28* .07 .28** 1. Regulation of Emotions -.25* .06 -.25*
2. PA x Sex .26* .06* 2. PA x Reg. of Emotions -.15 .02
1. Positive Mood .01 .01 1. Positive Mood -.10 .03
1. How well know .28* .08 .32** 1. Affective Commitment -.01 .00 .00
2. PA x How well know .18 .04 2. PA x Affective Commit. -.26* .06*
1. Positive Mood -.01 -.06 1. Positive Mood .02 .03
1. Observe .03 .00 .06 1. Continuance Commitment .25* .06 .26*
1. Positive Mood .01 .02 1. Positive Mood -.01 .02
1. Overall Quality .14 .02 .13 1. Normative Commitment .02 .00 .04
2. PA x Overall Quality .12 .01 2. PA x Normative Commit. -.08 .01
1. Positive Mood -.01 -.02
1. Emotional Labor -.01 .00 .02
2. PA x Emotional Labor -.17 .02
121
Table 19
Moderator Analyses for the Negative Mood – Job Commitment Relationship
1. Negative Mood .02 .13 1. Negative Mood .03 .05
2. NA x Age .28* .05* 2. NA x Self Emotional Appr. -.29* .06
2. NA x Education .26 .05 2. NA x Other Emotional Appr. -.03 .00
1. Negative Mood -.02 .06 1. Negative Mood .03 .01
1. Income .26* .07 .19 1. Use of Emotions .17 .03 .15
2. NA x Income .25 .03 2. NA x Use of Emotions -.15 .02
2. NA x Sex -.08 .01 2. NA x Reg. of Emotions -.13 .03
1. Negative Mood .03 .03 1. Negative Mood .02 -.07
1. How well know .15 .02 .15 1. Affective Commitment -.08 .01 -.05
2. NA x How well know .04 .00 2. NA x Affective Commit. -.18 .04
1. Negative Mood -.01 -.03 1. Negative Mood -.02 .00
1. Observe .19 .04 .20 1. Continuance Commitment .24 .05 .25*
2. NA x Observe .03 .00 2. NA x Continuance Commit. .16 .03
2. NA x Overall Quality .17 .03 2. NA x Normative Commit. .00 .00
1. Negative Mood .02 .02
2. NA x Emotional Labor .01 .00
122
Table 20
Moderator Analyses for the Negative Mood – Job Effort Relationship
1. Negative Mood -.07 .13 1. Negative Mood -.07 -.06
1. Age -.01 .01 .00 1. Self Emotional Appraisal .08 .01 .07
2. NA x Age .48** .17** 2. NA x Self Emotional Appr. -.14 .01
2. NA x Education .40** .12** 2. NA x Other Emotional Appr. .00 .00
1. Negative Mood -.11 -.05 1. Negative Mood -.07 -.08
1. Income .26* .07 .21 1. Use of Emotions .26* .07 .25*
2. NA x Sex -.29** .09** 2. NA x Reg. of Emotions -.05 .00
2. NA x How well know .00 .00 2. NA x Affective Commit. .07 .01
1. Observe .29** .08 .28* 1. Continuance Commitment .00 .01 .05
2. NA x Observe -.01 .00 2. NA x Continuance Commit. .40** .18**
2. NA x Overall Quality .26* .06* 2. NA x Normative Commit. .19 .05
1. Negative Mood -.08 -.09
123
Table 21
Moderator Analyses for the Negative Mood – Handling Job Stress Relationship
2. NA x Age .38** .11** 2. NA x Self Emotional Appr. -.27* .05*
2. NA x Education .38** .11** 2. NA x Other Emotional Appr. -.04 .00
1. Negative Mood -.24* -.22 1. Negative Mood -.21 -.22
1. Sex .07 .05 .08 1. Regulation of Emotions .02 .04 .03
2. NA x Sex -.36** .13** 2. NA x Reg. of Emotions -.05 .00
1. How well know .17 .07 .18 1. Affective Commitment .08 .05 .06
2. NA x How well know -.03 .00 2. NA x Affective Commit. .09 .01
1. Negative Mood -.25* -.19 1. Negative Mood -.20 -.13
1. Observe .27* .11* .24* 1. Continuance Commitment -.06 .05 .00
1. Negative Mood -.20 -.23* 1. Negative Mood -.21 -.17
2. NA x Overall Quality .36** .12** 2. NA x Normative Commit. .22* .06*
1. Negative Mood -.21 -.23*
124
Table 22
Moderator Analyses for the Negative Mood – Helping Relationship
2. NA x Age .35** .09** 2. NA x Self Emotional Appr. -.24 .04
2. NA x Education .36** .10** 2. NA x Other Emotional Appr. -.04 .00
1. Income .24* .06 .22 1. Use of Emotions .22 .05 .20
2. NA x Sex -.34** .11** 2. NA x Reg. of Emotions .00 .00
1. Negative Mood -.08 -.07 1. Negative Mood -.04 .02
1. Observe .26* .07 .25* 1. Continuance Commitment .00 .00 .05
2. NA x Overall Quality .31** .09** 2. NA x Normative Commit. .17 .04
125
Table 23
Moderator Analyses for the Negative Mood – Overall Job Performance Relationship
2. NA x Age .19 .03 2. NA x Self Emotional Appr. -.20 .03
2. NA x Education .18 .03 2. NA x Other Emotional Appr. .03 .00
1. Income .30** .10* .24 1. Use of Emotions .23 .06 .22
1. Sex .27* .08 .27* 1. Regulation of Emotions -.25* .07 -.21
2. NA x Sex -.06 .00 2. NA x Reg. of Emotions -.12 .02
1. How well know .27* .08 .27* 1. Affective Commitment -.01 .01 .02
1. Observe .05 .01 .05 1. Continuance Commitment .27* .08 .30**
2. NA x Observe .03 .00 2. NA x Continuance Commit. .24* .06*
1. Overall Quality .14 .03 .15 1. Normative Commitment .03 .01 .03
2. NA x Overall Quality .15 .02 2. NA x Normative Commit. -.02 .00
126
Table 24
HLM Moderator Analyses for the Positive Mood – Job Commitment Relationship
a b 2
Variable β0 β1 (PA) γ11 γ11 σ τ00
1. Age 3.54*** .03 .01*** .16*** .26205 .03409
2. Education 3.55*** .03 .01 .03 .26450 .03479
3. Income 3.54*** .03 .00* .12* .26514 .03085
4. Sex 3.53*** .01 .03 .03 .26426 .03444
5. How well Know 3.55*** .02 .08* .08* .26439 .03353
6. Observe 3.55*** .03 .00 .00 .26423 .03344
7. Overall Quality 3.55*** .02 .11 .09 .26472 .03464
8. Emotional Labor 3.55*** .02 - .01 - .02 .26438 .03427
9. Self Emotional Appraisal 3.55*** .03 - .01 - .01 .26450 .03499
10. Other Emotional Appraisal 3.55*** .03 - .03 - .05 .26447 .03505
11. Use of Emotions 3.55*** .02 .04 .04 .26428 .03441
12. Regulation of Emotions 3.55*** .03 - .01 - .01 .26459 .03340
13. Affective Commitment 3.55*** .03 .04 .05 .26404 .03606
14. Continuance Commitment 3.55*** .02 .07 .11 .26426 .03371
15. Normative Commitment 3.55*** .02 .05 .07 .26442 .03520
Note . *** p < .001, ** p < .01, *p < .05. a = Moderator variable entered at level 2. b = Standardized
coefficient.
127
Table 25
HLM Moderator Analyses for the Positive Mood Job Effort Relationship
a b 2
1. Age 3.52*** .05 .01* .13* .27018 .04621
2. Education 3.52*** .04 .02 .06 .27040 .04662
3. Income 3.52*** .05 .00 .13 .27034 .04251
4. Sex 3.52*** .05 .12 .11 .27095 .04441
5. How well Know 3.52*** .04 .02 .02 .27073 .04322
6. Observe 3.52*** .04 - .02 - .03 .27067 .04296
7. Overall Quality 3.52*** .04 .06 .05 .27058 .04601
8. Emotional Labor 3.52*** .04 - .07* - .13* .27082 .04305
9. Self Emotional Appraisal 3.52*** .04 .05 .05 .27052 .04584
11. Use of Emotions 3.52*** .04 .04 .04 .27048 .04208
15. Normative Commitment 3.52*** .04 - .03 - .04 .27070 .04513
coefficient.
128
Table 26
HLM Moderator analyses for the Positive Mood Handling Stress Relationship
a b 2
1. Age 3.52*** .03 - .01* - .09* .29725 .06119
2. Education 3.51*** .04 .02 .05 .29727 .06409
3. Income 3.51*** .04 .00 .03 .29747 .06169
4. Sex 3.51*** .04 .10 .08 .29782 .06226
5. How well Know 3.51*** .04 - .04 - .04 .29745 .06109
6. Observe 3.51*** .04 .01 .01 .29773 .05927
7. Overall Quality 3.51*** .04 - .04 .03 .29774 .06226
8. Emotional Labor 3.51*** .04 .00 .01 .29709 .06278
9. Self Emotional Appraisal 3.51*** .04 .03 .03 .29743 .05993
11. Use of Emotions 3.51*** .04 .06 .05 .29700 .06018
15. Normative Commitment 3.51*** .04 .04 .05 .29727 .06425
coefficient.
129
Table 27
HLM Moderator analyses for the Positive Mood Helping Relationship
a b 2
1. Age 3.60*** .08* .00 .06 .32464 .07002
2. Education 3.60*** .08* .02 .05 .32490 .06948
3. Income 3.60*** .08* .00** .14** .32492 .06561
4. Sex 3.60*** .07 .00 .00 .32469 .06854
5. How well Know 3.60*** .07 .04 .03 .32508 .06490
6. Observe 3.60*** .07 - .07 - .06 .32460 .06487
7. Overall Quality 3.60*** .07 .11 .08 .32460 .07011
8. Emotional Labor 3.60*** .07 - .02 - .04 .32477 .06756
9. Self Emotional Appraisal 3.60*** .07 - .01 .01 .32470 .06581
11. Use of Emotions 3.60*** .07 .08 .07 .32472 .06627
13. Affective Commitment 3.60*** .07 - .02 - .02 .32481 .06878
coefficient.
130
Table 28
HLM Moderator analyses for the Positive Mood Overall Job Performance Relationship
a b 2
1. Age 3.45*** .03 .00 .08 .22196 .01433
2. Education 3.45*** .03 .01 .03 .22196 .01532
3. Income 3.45*** .03 .00** .11** .22180 .01321
4. Sex 3.45*** .03 .06 .06 .22240 .01329
5. How well Know 3.45*** .03 .07 .08 .22221 .01272
6. Observe 3.45*** .03 .01 .01 .22201 .01520
7. Overall Quality 3.45*** .03 .04 .04 .22197 .01442
8. Emotional Labor 3.45*** .03 - .04* - .10* .22211 .01513
10. Other Emotional Appraisal 3.45*** .03 .08 .12 .22194 .01620
11. Use of Emotions 3.45*** .03 .07 .08 .22209 .01521
12. Regulation of Emotions 3.45*** .03 - .02 .03 .22180 .01334
13. Affective Commitment 3.45*** .03 - .05* - .08* .22250 .01451
coefficient.
131
Table 29
HLM Moderator analyses for the Negative Mood Commitment Relationship
a b 2
Variable β0 β1 (NA) γ11 γ11 σ τ00
1. Age 3.54*** .03 - .00 - .05 .26569 .03278
2. Education 3.55*** .04 - .03 - .09 .26529 .03338
3. Income 3.55*** .03 - .00 - .08 .26530 .03125
4. Sex 3.55*** .03 .05 .05 .26596 .03138
5. How well Know 3.55*** .03 .06 .06 .26572 .03064
6. Observe 3.55*** .04 - .04 - .04 .26601 .03007
7. Overall Quality 3.55*** .03 .01 .01 .26602 .03145
8. Emotional Labor 3.55*** .03 .00 .00 .26584 .03102
11. Use of Emotions 3.55*** .04 - .03 - .03 .26622 .02950
13. Affective Commitment 3.54*** .03 - .10*** - .15*** .26529 .02988
15. Normative Commitment 3.55*** .04 - .06* - .09* .26569 .03196
coefficient.
132
Table 30
HLM Moderator analyses for the Negative Mood Effort Relationship
a b 2
1. Age 3.53*** - .03 .01** .15** .27713 .03852
2. Education 3.52*** - .06 .05 .12 .27733 .04016
3. Income 3.52*** - .05 .00 .11 .27673 .03837
4. Sex 3.53*** - .05 .01 .01 .27684 .03988
5. How well Know 3.53*** - .05 - .06 - .06 .27686 .04168
6. Observe 3.53*** - .05 .05 .05 .27682 .03823
7. Overall Quality 3.53*** - .05 .13* .11* .27656 .04032
8. Emotional Labor 3.53*** - .05 - .03 - .06 .27672 .04132
9. Self Emotional Appraisal 3.53*** - .05 - .05 - .05 .27710 .04224
10. Other Emotional Appraisal 3.53*** - .05 - .04 - .05 .27687 .04272
11. Use of Emotions 3.53*** - .05 .02 .02 .27709 .03915
12. Regulation of Emotions 3.53*** - .05 - .15** - .15** .27602 .04439
13. Affective Commitment 3.53*** - .05 - .00 - .00 .27695 .04224
14. Continuance Commitment 3.53*** - .05 .04 .06 .27738 .04025
15. Normative Commitment 3.53*** - .05 .01 .01 .27704 .04148
coefficient.
133
Table 31
HLM Moderator analyses for the Negative Mood Handling Stress Relationship
a b 2
1. Age 3.50*** - .01 .00 .00 .29744 .05872
2. Education 3.50*** - .01 .02 .04 .29777 .05732
3. Income 3.51*** .00 - .00* - .10* .29844 .06900
4. Sex 3.50*** - .01 - .05 - .04 .29759 .05668
5. How well Know 3.50*** - .01 - .06 .06 .29730 .05646
6. Observe 3.50*** - .01 - .01 - .01 .29745 .05549
7. Overall Quality 3.50*** - .01 .00 .00 .29737 .05853
8. Emotional Labor 3.50*** - .01 .03 .05 .29751 .05724
11. Use of Emotions 3.50*** .00 - .09 - .08 .29737 .05756
15. Normative Commitment 3.50*** - .01 .03 .03 .29764 .05780
coefficient.
134
Table 32
HLM Moderator analyses for the Negative Mood Helping Relationship
a b 2
1. Age 3.60*** .01 .01 .09 .31767 .05553
2. Education 3.60*** .01 - .01 - .03 .31705 .05724
3. Income 3.60*** .00 - .00 - .09 .31743 .05332
4. Sex 3.60*** .01 - .05 .04 .31731 .05527
5. How well Know 3.60*** .01 - .01 - .01 .31753 .05435
6. Observe 3.60*** .00 .05 .05 .31692 .05128
7. Overall Quality 3.60*** .01 - .04 - .03 .31741 .05699
8. Emotional Labor 3.60*** .01 - .04 - .07 .31724 .05687
11. Use of Emotions 3.60*** .01 - .18 - .16 .31731 .05538
13. Affective Commitment 3.60*** .01 - .05 - .07 .31734 .05663
14. Continuance Commitment 3.60*** .01 - .01 - .01 .31742 .05690
coefficient.
135
Table 33
HLM Moderator analyses for the Negative Mood Overall Job Performance Relationship
a b 2
1. Age 3.45*** - .04 .00 .06 .22124 .01171
2. Education 3.45*** - .04 .04 .11 .22132 .01333
3. Income 3.45*** - .05 .00 .07 .22079 .01027
4. Sex 3.45*** - .04 .01 .01 .22145 .01124
5. How well Know 3.45*** - .04 .01 .01 .22156 .01196
6. Observe 3.45*** - .04 - .02 - .02 .22149 .01361
7. Overall Quality 3.45*** - .04 .01 .01 .22153 .01322
8. Emotional Labor 3.45*** - .04 .00 .01 .22152 .01355
11. Use of Emotions 3.45*** - .04 .03 .04 .22131 .01216
12. Regulation of Emotions 3.45*** - .04 - .03 - .03 .22145 .01193
13. Affective Commitment 3.45*** - .04 - .04 - .06 .22169 .01321
15. Normative Commitment 3.45*** - .04 - .03 - .04 .22148 .01357
coefficient.
136
Figure 1
The Circumplex of Emotion Valence to Activation Axes and the 45° rotation with
Positive Affect to Negative Affect Axes
High Activation High Positive Affect
High Positive Affect High Negative Affect Pleasantness High Activation
Pleasantness Unpleasantness Low Negative Affect High Negative Affect
Low Negative Affect Low Positive Affect Low Activation Unpleasantness
Low Activation Low Positive Affect
137
Figure 2
Affective Events Theory: Macro Structure
Work Environment Judgment-Driven

Features Behaviors
Affective Work Affective Work

Events Reactions Attitudes
Individual Affect-Driven
Differences Behaviors
138
Figure 3
Theoretical Model of Affect in the Workplace
Trait
PA and NA
Non-work Mood +/- Work Mood

Life events States Outcomes States
+/- Work
Events
Mood Mood
State State
+/- Work
Events
139
Figure 4
Measured Theoretical Model of Affect in the Workplace
Non-work Mood +/- Work

Life events States Outcomes
140
Figure 5
Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Affective Commitment on the Positive Mood –
Commitment Relationship
High AC Low AC
.50
.40
.30
Commitment
.20
.10
.00
-.10
-.20
-.30
-.40
-.50
Low PA Hi PA
141
Figure 6
Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Observability on the Positive Mood – Effort
Relationship
High Observe Low Observe

.60
.40
.20
Effort
.00
-.20
-.40
-.60
-.80
Low PA Hi PA
142
Figure 7
Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Emotional Labor on the Positive Mood – Effort
Relationship
High Emotional Labor Low Emotional Labor

.50
.40
.30
.20
.10
Effort
.00
-.10
-.20
-.30
-.40
-.50
Low PA Hi PA
143
Figure 8
Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Age on the Positive Mood – Handling Stress
Relationship
High Age Low Age

.40
.30
.20
Handle Stress
.10
.00
-.10
-.20
-.30
-.40
Low PA Hi PA
144
Figure 9
Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Education on the Positive Mood – Handling Stress
Relationship
High Education Low Education

.40
.30
.20
Handle Stress
.10
.00
-.10
-.20
-.30
-.40
Low PA Hi PA
145
Figure 10
Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Normative Commitment on the Positive Mood –
Handling Stress Relationship
High Normative Commitment Low Normative Commitment

.40
.30
.20
Handle Stress
.10
.00
-.10
-.20
-.30
-.40
Low PA Hi PA
146
Figure 11
Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Emotional Labor on the Positive Mood – Helping
Relationship
High Emotional Labor Low Emotional Labor

.40
.30
.20
.10
Helping
.00
-.10
-.20
-.30
-.40
Low PA Hi PA
147
Figure 12
Helping Relationship
High Affective Commitment Low Affective Commitment

.50
.40
.30
.20
Helping
.10
.00
-.10
-.20
-.30
-.40
-.50
Low PA Hi PA
148
Figure 13
Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Sex on the Positive Mood – Overall Job
Performance Relationship
Male Female
.80
.60
Overall Job Performance
.40
.20
.00
-.20
-.40
-.60
-.80
-1.00
-1.20
Low PA Hi PA
149
Figure 14
Overall Job Performance Relationship
High Affective Commitment Low Affective Commitment

.40
.30
.20
.10
.00
-.10
-.20
-.30
-.40
Low PA Hi PA
150
Figure 15
Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Age on the Negative Mood – Commitment
Relationship
High Age Low Age

.60
.50
.40
.30
Commitment
.20
.10
.00
-.10
-.20
-.30
-.40
Low NA High NA
151
Figure 16
Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Self Emotional Appraisal on the Negative Mood –
High Self Emotional Appraisal Low Self Emotional Appraisal

.40
.30
.20
Commitment
.10
.00
-.10
-.20
-.30
-.40
Low NA High NA
152
Figure 17
Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Age on the Negative Mood – Effort Relationship
High Age Low Age

.80
.60
.40
.20
Effort
.00
-.20
-.40
-.60
-.80
Low NA High NA
153
Figure 18
Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Education on the Negative Mood – Effort
Relationship

.60
.40
.20
Effort
.00
-.20
-.40
-.60
Low NA High NA
154
Figure 19
Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Sex on the Negative Mood Effort – Relationship
Male Female
.60
.40
.20
Effort
.00
-.20
-.40
-.60
Low NA High NA
155
Figure 20
Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Overall Quality on the Negative Mood – Effort
Relationship
High Overall Quality Low Overall Quality

.50
.40
.30
.20
.10
Effort
.00
-.10
-.20
-.30
-.40
Low NA High NA
156
Figure 21
Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Continuance Commitment on the Negative Mood –
Effort Relationship
High Continuance Commitment Low Continuance Commitment

.50
.40
.30
.20
.10
Effort
.00
-.10
-.20
-.30
-.40
-.50
-.60
Low NA High NA
157
Figure 22
Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Age on the Negative Mood – Handle Stress
Relationship
High Age Low Age

.60
.40
.20
Handle Stress
.00
-.20
-.40
-.60
Low NA High NA
158
Figure 23
Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Education on the Negative Mood – Handle Stress
Relationship

.60
.50
.40
.30
Handle Stress
.20
.10
.00
-.10
-.20
-.30
-.40
-.50
Low NA High NA
159
Figure 24
Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Sex on the Negative Mood – Handle Stress
Relationship
Male Female
.80
.60
.40
Handle Stress
.20
.00
-.20
-.40
-.60
Low NA High NA
160
Figure 25
Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Overall Quality on the Negative Mood – Handle
Stress Relationship

.80
.60
.40
Handle Stress
.20
.00
-.20
-.40
-.60
Low NA High NA
161
Figure 26
Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Self Emotional Appraisal on the Negative Mood –
Handle Stress Relationship
High Self Emotional Appraisal Low Self Emotional Appraisal

.70
.60
.50
.40
Handle Stress
.30
.20
.10
.00
-.10
-.20
-.30
-.40
Low NA High NA
162
Figure 27

.80
.60
.40
Handle Stress
.20
.00
-.20
-.40
-.60
-.80
Low NA High NA
163
Figure 28
Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Normative Commitment on the Negative Mood –
High Normative Commitment Low Normative Commitment

.50
.40
.30
.20
Handle Stress
.10
.00
-.10
-.20
-.30
-.40
Low NA High NA
164
Figure 29
Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Age on the Negative Mood – Helping Relationship
High Age Low Age

.60
.40
.20
Helping
.00
-.20
-.40
-.60
Low NA High NA
165
Figure 30
Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Education on the Negative Mood – Helping
Relationship

.60
.40
.20
Helping
.00
-.20
-.40
-.60
Low NA High NA
166
Figure 31
Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Sex on the Negative Mood Helping – Relationship
Male Female
.50
.40
.30
.20
.10
Helping
.00
-.10
-.20
-.30
-.40
-.50
Low NA High NA
167
Figure 32
Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Overall Quality on the Negative Mood – Helping
Relationship

.40
.30
.20
.10
Helping
.00
-.10
-.20
-.30
-.40
-.50
Low NA High NA
168
Figure 33
Helping Relationship

.60
.40
.20
Helping
.00
-.20
-.40
-.60
Low NA High NA
169
Figure 34

.60
.40
.20
.00
-.20
-.40
-.60
-.80
Low NA High NA
170
Figure 35
Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Age on the Positive Mood – Commitment
Relationship
3.69
Low Age
High Age
3.62
Commitment
3.55
3.48
3.41
-1.32 -0.68 -0.03 0.62 1.27
Positive Mood
171
Figure 36
Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Income on the Positive Mood – Commitment
Relationship
3.75
Low Income
High Income
3.68
Commitment
3.60
3.52
3.44
-1.75 -0.75 0.25 1.25 2.25
Positive Mood
172
Figure 37
Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of How Well Know on the Positive Mood –
3.70
Low Know
High Know
3.64
Commitment
3.58
3.52
3.46
-1.75 -0.75 0.25 1.25 2.25
Positive Mood
173
Figure 38
Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Age on the Positive Mood – Effort Relationship
3.77
Low Age
High Age
3.65
Effort
3.54
3.43
3.31
-1.75 -0.75 0.25 1.25 2.25
Positive Mood
174
Figure 39
Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Emotional Labor on the Positive Mood – Effort
Relationship
3.71
Low Emotional Labor
High Emotional Labor
3.63
Effort
3.55
3.47
3.39
-1.75 -0.75 0.25 1.25 2.25
Positive Mood
175
Figure 40
Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Age on the Positive Mood – Handle Stress
Relationship
3.72
Low Age
High Age
3.64
Handle Stress
3.56
3.47
3.39
-1.75 -0.75 0.25 1.25 2.25
Positive Mood
176
Figure 41
Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Income on the Positive Mood – Helping
Relationship
3.96
Low Income
High Income
3.82
Helping
3.68
3.53
3.39
-1.75 -0.75 0.25 1.25 2.25
Positive Mood
177
Figure 42
Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Income on the Positive Mood – Overall Job
Performance Relationship
3.65
Low Income
High Income
3.57
3.50
3.43
3.35
-1.75 -0.75 0.25 1.25 2.25
Positive Mood
178
Figure 43
Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Emotional labor on the Positive Mood – Overall
Job Performance Relationship
3.57
Low Emotional Labor
High Emotional Labor
3.51
3.46
3.41
3.35
-1.75 -0.75 0.25 1.25 2.25
Positive Mood
179
Figure 44
Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Affective Commitment on the Positive Mood –
3.56
Low Affective Commitment
High Affective Commitment
3.51
3.47
3.42
3.37
-1.75 -0.75 0.25 1.25 2.25
Positive Mood
180
Figure 45
Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Affective Commitment on the Negative Mood –
3.77
Low Affective Commitment
High Affective Commitment
3.69
Commitment
3.62
3.54
3.46
-0.91 0.09 1.09 2.09 3.09
Negative Mood
181
Figure 46
Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Normative Commitment on the Negative Mood –
3.80
Low Normative Commitment
High Normative Commitment
3.72
Commitment
3.65
3.57
3.49
-0.91 0.09 1.09 2.09 3.09
Negative Mood
182
Figure 47
Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Age on the Negative Mood – Effort Relationship
3.64
Low Age
High Age
3.53
Effort
3.42
3.31
3.20
-0.91 0.09 1.09 2.09 3.09
Negative Mood
183
Figure 48
Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Overall Quality on the Negative Mood – Effort
Relationship
3.67
Low Quality
High Quality
3.54
Effort
3.41
3.27
3.14
-0.91 0.09 1.09 2.09 3.09
Negative Mood
184
Figure 49
Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Regulation of Emotions on the Negative Mood –
Effort Relationship
3.61
Low Regulation of Emotions
High Regulation of Emotions
3.52
Effort
3.43
3.33
3.24
-0.91 0.09 1.09 2.09 3.09
Negative Mood
185
Figure 50
Plot of the HLM Moderator Effect of Income on the Negative Mood – Handle Stress
Relationship
3.59
Low Income
High Income
3.54
Handle Stress
3.48
3.43
3.38
-0.91 0.09 1.09 2.09 3.09
Negative Mood
186
APPENDIX A
Informed Consent Form

for research conducted under the auspices of The University of Tulsa
Descriptions of Study
The purpose of this research is to examine the relationship between daily mood states and job performance.
Additionally, the relationship between non-work life events and daily moods will be examined.
Risks and Benefits

Participation in this study will take approximately 5 minutes each work day over a period of 4 weeks.
During this time participants are asked to complete a short questionnaire asking about their current mood
state and the occurrence of positive or negative non-work life events in the past 24 hours. Details of non-
work life events is not required, the only specification requested is in the form of 7 broad categories.
There are no known physical, emotional, or psychological risks associated with this study beyond normal
risks associated with thinking about and reporting your current mood and non-work life events of the
previous 24 hours. However, the research does require your supervisor to make available your daily job
performance ratings to the researchers. As such, if you consent to participate, you are agreeing to allow
researchers access to your supervisor’s ratings of your daily job performance. Supervisors will be agreeing
to keep any knowledge of a specific participant’s involvement in this study strictly confidential.
Assurances
All information gathered during this study will be kept confidential within the research group. Your scores
on the daily mood survey will be kept confidential and will be used solely for the research purpose of this
study. Identifying information will be used only to link daily mood data to daily job performance ratings.
Participant’s daily mood ratings will not be made available to the organization under any circumstances and
once it has been linked to job performance ratings, identifying information will be removed from the
database. All records will be kept in a safe location and will remain confidential.
Your participation in this study is voluntary, and declining to participate will not result in any penalty.
Additionally, should you consent to participate in this study, you are free to end your participation at any
time. All personal information collected during the study will be kept confidential and all written records
will be maintained in a safe location. To participate in this study you must be at least 18 years of age.
Additional Information
If you have any questions about this specific study, please contact: Kevin Fox, The University of Tulsa, 918-
406-4647, or via email at Kevin-Fox@utulsa.edu; or Dr. Robert Tett, The University of Tulsa, 918-631-
2737, or via email at Robert-Tett@utulsa.edu.
If you have any questions concerning your rights as a research participant, please contact Debbie Newton,
Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, The University of Tulsa, 918-631-2192, or via email at Debbie-
Newton@utulsa.edu.
I hereby consent to participate in the above-described research. I understand my participation is voluntary

and that I may withdraw at any time without penalty or loss of benefits. I am at least 18 years of age.
__________________________________________ ______________________
Signature Date
__________________________________________
Please print your name
187
APPENDIX B
Informed Consent Form - Supervisor

for research conducted under the auspices of The University of Tulsa
Descriptions of Study
The purpose of this research is to examine the relationship between daily mood states and job
performance. Additionally, the relationship between non-work life events and daily moods will be
examined.
Risks and Benefits

Participation in this study will take approximately 15 minutes each work day over a period of 4 weeks.
During this time you will be asked to report participating employees’ daily job performance ratings.
There are no known physical, emotional, or psychological risks associated with this study beyond normal
risks associated with rating and recording participant’s daily job performance ratings. As such, if you
consent to participate, you are agreeing to keep any knowledge of a specific participant’s involvement in
this study strictly confidential.
Assurances
All information gathered during this study will be kept confidential within the research group. Your
ratings of employees’ daily job performance will be kept confidential and will be used solely for the
research purpose of this study. Identifying information will be used only to link daily mood data to daily
job performance ratings. Participant’s daily mood ratings will not be made available to the organization
under any circumstances and once it has been linked to job performance ratings, identifying information
will be removed from the database. All records will be kept in a safe location and will remain
confidential.
Your participation in this study is voluntary, and declining to participate will not result in any penalty.
Additionally, should you consent to participate in this study, you are free to end your participation at any
time. All personal information collected during the study will be kept confidential and all written records
will be maintained in a safe location. To participate in this study you must be at least 18 years of age.
Additional Information
If you have any questions about this specific study, please contact: Kevin Fox, The University of Tulsa,
918-406-4647, or via email at Kevin-Fox@utulsa.edu; or Dr. Robert Tett, The University of Tulsa, 918-
631-2737, or via email at Robert-Tett@utulsa.edu.
If you have any questions concerning your rights as a research participant, please contact Debbie Newton,
Office of Research and Sponsored Programs, The University of Tulsa, 918-631-2192, or via email at
Debbie-Newton@utulsa.edu.
I hereby consent to participate in the above-described research. I understand my participation is

voluntary and that I may withdraw at any time without penalty or loss of benefits. I am at least 18 years of
age.
__________________________________________ ______________________
Signature Date
__________________________________________
Please print your name
188
APPENDIX C
Participant ID_____________________________________ Today’s date: __________________
Please answer the following questions as accurately and honestly as you can.
This scale consists of a number of words and phrases that describe different feelings and emotions.
Read each item and then mark the appropriate answer in the space next to that word. Indicate to what
extent you feel this way today. Use the following scale to record your answers.
1 2 3 4 5
very slightly a little moderately quite a bit extremely
or not at all
_____ Interested _____ Excited _____ Strong _____ Scared _____ Enthusiastic
_____ Distressed _____ Upset _____ Guilty _____ Hostile _____ Proud
_____ Irritable _____ Ashamed _____ Nervous _____ Attentive _____ Active
_____ Alert _____ Inspired _____ Determined _____ Jittery _____ Afraid
_____ Fatigue _____ Angry _____ Sad _____ Happy _____ Confident
_____ Stress
Using the following list, please mark (e.g., ;) whether or not you have experienced a positive or
negative event in the past 24 hours. Use the scale to indicate how positive or negative the event was
for you. For example, if your neighbor’s house was burglarized, you might mark the “Neighborhood”
event in the “moderately” negative column. If you went out to a restaurant with friends you would
mark the “Friendships” event in the “slightly” positive column. Please mark as many events as you
feel you experienced, however only mark one box for each event, choosing the box that you feel is
most appropriate. If you leave an event unmarked, that indicates nothing happened in that area.
Positive Event Negative Event

very moderately slightly very moderately slightly
positive positive positive negative negative negative
Health F F
Family F F
Neighborhood F F
Friendships F F
Education F F
Leisure activities F F
Financial F F
189
APPENDIX D
Table 6
Unadjusted Means, Standard Deviations, Alphas, and Intercorrelations Within
Individuals (K = 74, N = 30) 1-3
Subject 1 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 3.18 .49 .71
2. NA 2.03 .39 .00 .70
Emotions
3. Angry 2.57 .90 -.04 .37
4. Confident 2.03 .74 .23 -.17 .08
5. Fatigue 2.63 .81 .22 -.18 -.23 .23
6. Happy 3.23 .73 -.05 .13 .37 .06 .62
7. Sad 3.23 .78 .08 .47 .63 -.06 -.14 .19
8. Stress 2.83 .38 .17 -.01 -.22 -.04 .02 -.10 -.39
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 1.73 1.31 .04 -.32 .04 -.40 -.10 -.04 -.13 .25 -
11. Finacial 1.53 1.57 .04 -.23 -.03 -.41 -.14 -.20 -.09 .15 - .79
12. Friendship 1.63 1.30 .06 -.32 -.05 -.43 -.07 -.13 -.16 .22 - .87 .71
13. Health 1.80 1.24 .03 -.34 .01 -.40 -.25 -.21 -.19 .22 - .94 .85 .83
14. Leisure 1.40 1.67 .05 -.24 -.11 -.41 -.07 -.16 -.10 .11 - .73 .89 .82 .79
15. Neighborhood 1.80 1.35 -.02 -.39 .01 -.40 -.07 -.02 -.17 .27 - .98 .70 .86 .90 .65
16. Daily Life 1.65 1.29 .04 -.33 -.03 -.44 -.12 -.14 -.15 .22 - .95 .90 .92 .96 .89 .91
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.97 .18 -.01 .06 -.09 -.07 -.09 -.20 .03 -.08 - -.04 .55 -.05 .12 .50 -.17 .19
18. Effort 3.93 .25 -.04 .13 .17 -.10 -.12 -.10 .05 -.12 - -.16 -.17 -.18 -.15 -.18 -.14 -.18 -.05
19. Handle Stress 3.77 .43 .35 .05 .09 -.20 .24 .18 .10 .18 - .50 .34 .64 .43 .47 .45 .51 -.10 -.15
20. Helping 4.13 .78 .23 .27 .28 -.48 -.03 .07 .37 .08 - .34 .36 .39 .28 .30 .29 .36 .03 .05 .61
21. Overall 3.90 .31 .01 .06 -.16 -.12 -.01 -.20 -.09 -.15 - -.07 .26 -.10 -.05 .22 -.13 .04 .56 .36 -.18 -.09
Subject 2 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.71 .45 .35
2. NA 2.33 .47 -.08 .38
Emotions
3. Angry 2.23 1.30 .01 .08
4. Confident 4.20 1.27 .00 -.12 .16
5. Fatigue 2.30 .70 .60 -.10 .41 .20
6. Happy 3.37 1.38 .48 .00 -.07 -.08 .24
7. Sad 2.73 1.44 .39 .21 .13 .11 .18 .21
8. Stress 2.53 1.14 .36 .17 .05 -.22 .05 .11 .43
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 1.87 1.38 .13 -.06 -.19 -.26 .04 .12 -.16 -.08 -
11. Finacial 1.40 1.79 .16 -.24 .02 .08 -.04 -.03 -.05 .06 - .29
12. Friendship .83 2.15 .28 -.21 -.26 -.14 -.03 .15 .15 .22 - .54 .60
13. Health 1.47 2.05 .28 .01 .00 .02 .02 .10 -.01 .10 - .53 .29 .54
14. Leisure 1.43 1.72 .23 -.14 .12 .09 .03 .03 .06 .20 - .07 .87 .56 .18
15. Neighborhood 1.63 1.50 .04 -.11 -.34 -.23 -.06 .00 .02 .12 - .83 .31 .63 .41 .12
16. Daily Life 1.44 1.31 .27 -.17 -.14 -.09 -.01 .09 .02 .15 - .70 .77 .89 .68 .65 .71
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 4.03 .18 -.09 .03 .11 .12 .19 -.05 .30 -.09 - .02 -.36 -.34 -.41 -.38 .05 -.35
18. Effort 4.17 .38 -.07 .01 .13 .29 .32 -.06 .21 .11 - .04 -.05 .04 -.10 -.06 .17 .00 .42
19. Handle Stress 4.00 .26 .09 -.11 .10 .00 .19 .00 .18 .00 - -.09 .00 .00 .00 -.08 .00 -.03 .00 .35
20. Helping 4.53 .57 .22 -.16 .01 .18 .10 .14 .10 .02 - .05 .36 .05 .19 .21 .12 .22 -.18 .05 .46
21. Overall 3.93 .25 .03 -.10 -.26 -.17 -.08 -.13 .14 .01 - -.12 -.09 -.15 -.14 -.17 -.07 -.17 .05 .12 .52 .49
Subject 3 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.54 .58 .64
2. NA 2.34 .43 .10 .33
Emotions
3. Angry 2.60 1.30 .27 -.12
4. Confident 2.63 1.33 .21 -.03 -.19
5. Fatigue 2.50 1.07 .42 .15 .07 -.08
6. Happy 2.83 1.49 .34 .06 -.20 .14 .16
7. Sad 2.50 1.46 -.11 .43 .00 .08 -.23 .02
8. Stress 2.43 1.19 .24 .30 .58 .13 .01 -.11 .29
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 1.83 1.60 -.60 -.02 -.12 -.31 -.21 -.22 -.14 -.16 -
11. Finacial 1.47 2.03 -.27 -.01 -.15 -.10 -.06 -.03 -.44 -.19 - .68
12. Friendship 1.40 1.71 -.48 -.06 -.28 -.18 -.13 -.09 -.30 -.29 - .78 .88
13. Health 1.77 1.61 -.02 .10 .12 -.35 .11 -.15 -.29 -.02 - .51 .41 .41
14. Leisure 1.57 1.76 -.31 .18 .16 -.29 -.08 -.37 -.28 .14 - .77 .73 .64 .62
15. Neighborhood 1.63 1.43 -.55 .06 -.08 -.38 -.15 -.18 -.06 -.19 - .94 .67 .80 .47 .72
16. Daily Life 1.61 1.44 -.42 .05 -.07 -.30 -.10 -.20 -.31 -.14 - .91 .87 .89 .66 .88 .89
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.83 .38 .31 -.15 -.07 .15 .47 .01 -.41 -.06 - -.27 .06 .05 .16 -.01 -.31 -.05
18. Effort 3.83 .38 .27 .19 .14 .08 .13 .01 -.16 .09 - -.22 .28 .16 .27 .15 -.18 .11 .52
19. Handle Stress 3.83 .38 -.14 -.23 -.07 -.26 .21 -.05 -.34 -.22 - .07 .01 .00 .05 .10 .01 .05 .52 .04
20. Helping 4.37 .56 .12 .21 -.03 -.19 .43 -.05 -.36 -.09 - .07 .39 .27 .18 .35 .13 .29 .46 .30 .30
21. Overall 3.97 .18 .41 .15 .23 -.05 .26 -.28 -.19 .23 - -.14 -.05 -.07 .56 .28 -.18 .08 .42 .42 -.08 .12
190
Table 5 (continued) 4-6
Subject 4 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.70 .57 .63
2. NA 1.79 .42 -.38 .64
Emotions
3. Angry 1.87 .94 -.27 .66
4. Confident 3.53 1.22 .28 .21 .18
5. Fatigue 1.80 .96 -.38 .31 .16 -.11
6. Happy 3.40 1.28 .44 -.13 -.27 -.08 -.27
7. Sad 1.80 .96 -.30 .47 .47 -.11 .37 .04
8. Stress 1.97 1.03 -.23 .51 .57 .12 .37 .17 .37
Non-work life
9. Education .07 .37 -.16 .10 -.17 .23 -.16 -.06 .04 -.18
10. Family 2.13 .63 -.10 .15 .15 -.01 -.07 .23 .27 .11 -.04
11. Finacial 1.33 1.60 -.36 .02 .26 -.23 -.02 .05 .11 .21 .08 .09
12. Friendship 1.90 1.06 .11 -.18 .09 -.25 -.29 .29 -.16 -.07 .02 -.03 .65
13. Health 2.17 .70 .10 .03 .04 .05 -.10 .12 -.15 .15 -.05 .18 .07 .21
14. Leisure 1.73 1.36 .07 -.05 .00 -.06 -.23 .26 -.12 -.01 .04 .00 .56 .84 .23
15. Neighborhood 1.87 .63 -.28 .45 .44 .14 .01 .15 .18 .42 .04 .40 .32 .13 .05 .16
16. Daily Life 1.86 .68 -.13 .04 .22 -.15 -.19 .26 .01 .17 .04 .27 .83 .85 .37 .84 .44
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.90 .40 -.08 -.05 -.13 -.17 -.05 -.26 -.05 -.34 .52 .05 -.16 -.02 .18 -.11 -.05 -.07
18. Effort 3.90 .40 -.05 -.19 -.31 -.24 -.14 .08 .12 -.17 .05 .19 -.43 -.35 .06 -.43 -.19 -.39 .15
19. Handle Stress 3.93 .45 .27 -.26 -.43 .19 -.11 .05 -.27 -.23 .45 -.09 -.45 -.38 .04 -.48 -.28 -.48 .34 .15
20. Helping 4.30 .70 .47 -.48 -.51 -.31 -.47 .44 -.21 -.32 .19 -.02 -.15 .27 .18 .16 -.37 .03 .35 .23 .39
21. Overall 3.90 .31 .16 .02 -.17 -.22 .16 -.16 -.07 -.23 .06 .07 -.28 -.14 .08 -.23 -.25 -.24 .48 .20 .20 .31
Subject 5 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.55 .49 .41
2. NA 2.19 .53 .03 .61
Emotions
3. Angry 2.33 1.27 -.03 .16
4. Confident 3.37 1.45 .06 -.15 -.16
5. Fatigue 2.17 1.18 -.21 .14 .42 -.54
6. Happy 3.33 1.49 .52 -.37 -.24 .32 -.43
7. Sad 2.67 1.40 .25 .45 .26 .08 -.22 -.01
8. Stress 2.17 1.15 .15 .17 .32 -.08 .26 .09 .25
Non-work life
9. Education 2.03 .56 .16 -.32 -.02 .03 -.11 .24 .19 -.28
10. Family 1.93 1.23 -.17 .04 .32 -.10 .22 -.23 -.15 .01 -.20
11. Finacial 1.90 .48 .05 -.43 -.11 .20 -.27 .19 .05 -.41 .79 -.01
12. Friendship 1.63 1.10 -.11 -.06 -.11 -.11 -.06 -.07 -.15 -.06 .25 .24 .12
13. Health 2.33 .80 -.12 -.14 -.11 -.23 .12 -.04 -.17 -.10 .36 .34 .18 .61
14. Leisure 1.90 .48 .05 -.43 -.11 .20 -.27 .19 .05 -.41 .79 -.01 1.00 .12 .18
15. Neighborhood 1.90 .92 .00 -.19 -.06 -.10 -.02 .23 -.03 -.11 .14 .18 .13 .27 .19 .13
16. Daily Life 1.93 .51 -.12 -.23 .01 -.11 .01 .00 -.15 -.21 .39 .62 .44 .73 .73 .44 .56
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.63 .49 .49 -.27 -.30 .15 -.37 .36 .12 -.19 .55 -.21 .57 .19 .15 .57 -.08 .17
18. Effort 3.63 .49 .35 -.31 -.18 -.05 -.19 .50 .12 -.19 .55 -.16 .42 .19 .32 .42 .37 .33 .57
19. Handle Stress 3.67 .48 .51 -.35 -.21 .28 -.33 .35 .03 -.08 .56 -.21 .45 .22 .12 .45 -.08 .14 .78 .49
20. Helping 4.10 .76 .30 -.58 -.36 .18 -.29 .52 -.23 -.18 .48 -.29 .41 .13 .23 .41 .31 .21 .57 .66 .57
21. Overall 3.77 .43 .07 -.41 -.23 .09 -.47 .34 -.02 -.20 .32 -.16 .22 -.04 .13 .22 .20 .08 .40 .40 .45 .50
Subject 6 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.27 .34 .56
2. NA 1.26 .31 -.04 .73
Emotions
3. Angry 1.30 .92 -.31 .85
4. Confident 3.27 .91 .07 -.15 .02
5. Fatigue 2.43 .90 -.14 .07 .34 .06
6. Happy 3.33 .80 -.10 -.47 -.19 .68 .08
7. Sad 1.20 .66 -.39 .85 .92 -.15 .37 -.39
8. Stress 1.77 .94 -.39 .38 .53 .24 .25 -.08 .52
Non-work life
9. Education 2.10 .31 -.16 -.22 -.11 .27 -.04 .14 -.10 .08
10. Family 2.13 .35 -.34 .05 .31 .54 .14 .58 .18 .21 -.13
11. Finacial 2.10 .31 -.20 -.22 -.11 .15 -.04 .14 -.10 .08 .26 -.13
12. Friendship 2.00 .37 -.08 -.30 -.41 -.10 -.10 -.23 -.28 .00 .61 -.54 .00
13. Health 2.10 .31 -.30 -.07 -.11 .02 -.54 .00 -.10 .33 .26 .20 .26 .00
14. Leisure 2.10 .31 -.20 -.29 -.11 .40 .21 .42 -.10 -.04 .26 .20 .63 .00 -.11
15. Neighborhood 1.97 .32 .08 -.33 -.44 .03 .05 .04 -.29 -.26 .39 -.58 .39 .58 -.32 .39
16. Daily Life -.37 -.43 -.32 .38 -.09 .34 -.26 .11 .61 .04 .73 .42 .35 .73 .53
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.10 .88 -.56 .00 .30 .18 .59 .29 .32 .49 .22 .29 .09 .00 -.04 .22 .01 .21
18. Effort 3.53 .51 -.35 .13 .31 .28 .46 .06 .29 .63 -.13 .37 .09 -.18 .09 .09 -.31 .05 .72
19. Handle Stress 3.83 .38 .22 .03 -.25 .03 -.19 -.15 -.14 -.41 -.15 -.09 -.15 .00 -.15 -.15 .24 -.10 -.15 -.06
20. Helping 3.13 .97 -.64 .14 .38 .04 .56 .12 .44 .45 .19 .25 .07 .00 -.05 .19 .01 .18 .95 .69 -.03
21. Overall 3.50 .51 -.36 -.03 .04 .07 .26 .08 .10 .47 -.11 .20 .11 .00 .11 .11 -.11 .15 .73 .80 .09 .70
191
Subject 7 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.54 .39 .49
2. NA 2.38 .46 -.08 .59
Emotions
3. Angry 2.20 1.00 .22 .34
4. Confident 3.17 1.15 -.02 .19 .03
5. Fatigue 2.23 .90 .03 .42 .22 .09
6. Happy 2.53 1.11 .42 -.63 -.19 -.37 -.03
7. Sad 2.43 1.04 -.14 .54 .25 -.09 .22 -.42
8. Stress 2.27 .87 .32 .24 .33 -.29 .14 -.08 .17
Non-work life
9. Education 2.00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.10 .31 .22 .09 .05 .25 .04 .04 .18 -.10 -
11. Finacial 2.17 .46 .00 -.05 .08 .01 .07 .02 .06 -.03 - .12
12. Friendship 1.87 .35 -.19 .05 -.02 .23 .10 -.08 -.03 .01 - -.20 -.50
13. Health 2.23 .43 .43 -.03 .13 -.01 .12 .38 .07 .10 - .60 .14 -.02
14. Leisure 2.20 .48 -.19 .08 .13 -.12 .13 -.01 .10 .20 - -.14 .77 -.25 .10
15. Neighborhood 1.87 .35 -.19 .05 -.02 .23 .10 -.08 -.03 .01 - -.20 -.50 1.00 -.02 -.25
16. Daily Life 2.07 .18 .03 .05 .14 .16 .21 .12 .13 .09 - .38 .53 .24 .65 .61 .24
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.67 .48 -.13 -.29 -.22 .10 -.29 -.11 -.46 -.28 - -.24 -.21 .14 -.28 -.30 .14 -.31
18. Effort 3.70 .47 -.38 -.10 -.31 .16 -.32 -.15 -.15 -.31 - -.27 -.40 .17 -.33 -.34 .17 -.41 .31
19. Handle Stress 3.67 .48 -.47 -.20 -.29 .29 -.21 -.24 -.18 -.36 - -.47 -.05 .35 -.61 .00 .35 -.18 .40 .62
20. Helping 4.13 .73 -.45 -.21 -.23 .14 -.21 -.22 -.35 -.38 - -.37 -.17 .35 -.43 -.08 .35 -.16 .62 .53 .72
21. Overall 3.77 .43 -.41 -.39 -.37 .22 -.30 -.02 -.23 -.38 - -.08 .20 .02 -.25 .07 .02 .00 .28 .33 .45 .43
Subject 8 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.71 .38 -.04
2. NA 1.73 .38 .13 .37
Emotions
3. Angry 2.13 1.22 -.13 .31
4. Confident 3.20 1.69 .25 .29 -.18
5. Fatigue 1.97 1.00 -.02 .36 .09 -.38
6. Happy 3.63 1.16 .29 .08 -.04 .18 -.16
7. Sad 1.70 .92 .25 .34 .04 .04 .48 -.17
8. Stress 2.17 1.05 -.25 .10 .09 -.19 .50 -.20 -.05
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 1.70 1.66 -.11 -.22 .02 -.46 .30 -.04 .03 .17 -
11. Finacial 1.47 1.68 -.04 -.01 .24 -.18 .15 -.18 .09 .01 - .31
12. Friendship 1.63 1.73 -.08 -.10 .06 -.48 .41 -.28 .23 .32 - .57 .22
13. Health 2.13 1.25 .03 -.27 -.19 -.14 -.11 -.18 .16 -.02 - .19 -.23 .13
14. Leisure 1.73 1.55 .18 -.12 .18 .01 -.07 .00 .09 -.20 - .34 .77 .26 -.19
15. Neighborhood 1.27 1.72 -.18 -.06 .15 -.32 .45 .00 .23 .37 - .62 .30 .86 -.11 .36
16. Daily Life 1.66 1.06 -.06 -.19 .13 -.41 .31 -.17 .21 .18 - .79 .63 .80 .14 .67 .81
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.77 .43 .09 -.08 .00 -.12 -.10 -.11 -.10 .01 - .00 .06 -.26 -.07 .06 -.29 -.13
18. Effort 3.77 .43 -.01 -.19 -.07 -.17 -.10 -.18 .08 -.14 - .04 .06 -.17 -.07 .06 -.24 -.08 .63
19. Handle Stress 3.80 .41 .08 -.12 -.15 -.24 .07 .06 .30 .00 - .06 .24 .14 .32 .24 .08 .26 .32 .32
20. Helping 4.13 .78 .03 -.04 .09 -.31 .01 -.10 .06 .18 - .06 .06 -.04 .05 .03 -.08 .02 .61 .41 .52
21. Overall 3.83 .38 .10 -.23 .12 -.32 .17 -.14 .05 .16 - .08 .34 .01 -.17 .33 .07 .18 .60 .18 .22 .55
Subject 9 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.54 .44 .48
2. NA 1.94 .53 -.26 .73
Emotions
3. Angry 1.87 .97 -.27 .55
4. Confident 3.17 1.34 .60 -.25 -.33
5. Fatigue 2.20 .71 -.18 .37 .09 -.14
6. Happy 3.23 1.36 .49 -.55 -.47 .41 -.05
7. Sad 2.07 1.26 -.41 .38 .20 -.21 .25 -.33
8. Stress 1.87 .78 .07 .39 .34 -.04 .30 -.30 .19
Non-work life
9. Education .07 .37 .20 -.09 .03 .26 .21 .25 -.16 .03
10. Family 1.57 1.50 -.37 .23 .12 -.10 .28 .03 .02 .07 .05
11. Finacial 1.93 .78 .04 .06 -.10 .17 .21 .27 .04 .10 .02 .44
12. Friendship 1.67 1.24 -.02 .10 .30 -.17 .04 -.12 -.32 .13 .05 .23 .12
13. Health 2.17 .79 -.18 .01 -.01 -.25 .18 -.07 .23 .15 -.04 .44 .19 .02
14. Leisure 1.83 1.21 .19 -.03 .24 .15 .12 .21 -.29 -.06 .03 .24 .21 .38 -.11
15. Neighborhood 1.73 1.44 -.06 .18 -.03 .01 .42 .17 .26 .03 .04 .28 .50 -.03 .10 .07
16. Daily Life 1.82 .69 -.13 .18 .18 -.06 .37 .14 -.03 .10 .05 .77 .66 .51 .40 .54 .58
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.87 .35 .06 -.30 -.26 .27 .11 .14 -.06 -.07 .07 -.05 .09 -.03 .21 .11 .00 .06
18. Effort 3.87 .43 -.12 -.20 -.13 .10 -.02 -.06 -.11 -.05 -.38 .01 .07 .11 .27 .15 .05 .17 .57
19. Handle Stress 3.80 .41 .20 -.28 -.24 .32 .02 .15 -.31 -.20 .09 -.26 -.26 -.20 -.11 -.14 -.21 -.34 .54 .23
20. Helping 4.43 .57 .24 -.30 -.52 .13 .03 .31 -.14 -.26 -.14 -.10 .07 -.08 .14 .01 -.02 -.03 .48 .52 .39
21. Overall 3.90 .31 .26 -.23 -.39 .29 -.06 .06 -.16 -.20 .06 -.17 -.03 -.09 -.07 .05 -.06 -.12 .52 .42 .39 .46
192
Subject 10 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.35 .57 .63
2. NA 1.38 .40 .25 .72
Emotions
3. Angry 1.37 .96 .09 .50
4. Confident 3.33 1.27 .28 -.23 .15
5. Fatigue 2.27 .98 -.19 .13 .37 .20
6. Happy 3.97 1.33 .50 .24 .28 .19 -.07
7. Sad 1.30 .84 .12 .26 .33 .00 -.02 .26
8. Stress 1.80 .96 -.34 -.12 .16 .00 .06 -.52 -.01
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.20 .41 -.09 .13 -.02 .07 -.31 .20 .32 -.07 -
11. Finacial 2.27 .52 -.24 -.37 -.13 .17 -.21 -.04 .13 .11 - .39
12. Friendship 1.97 .85 -.13 -.06 .02 -.02 .05 -.22 .21 .16 - .22 .10
13. Health 2.10 .66 .23 -.10 -.01 .21 -.36 .20 .32 -.13 - .44 .22 -.12
14. Leisure 2.20 .55 .07 .05 .05 -.10 -.17 -.04 .24 .01 - .43 .41 .16 .32
15. Neighborhood 2.17 .46 .13 .15 -.14 -.04 -.33 -.10 .22 .00 - .18 -.05 .19 -.06 .14
16. Daily Life 2.15 .32 -.01 -.09 -.05 .08 -.35 -.03 .42 .04 - .72 .57 .56 .51 .69 .36
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.93 .25 .17 -.01 -.04 .07 .21 .20 .10 -.20 - -.20 -.12 -.17 .04 -.15 -.20 -.22
18. Effort 3.83 .38 .57 .23 .08 .05 .03 .33 .16 -.28 - -.22 -.12 -.23 .07 .00 -.03 -.16 .60
19. Handle Stress 3.80 .41 .43 -.04 -.25 .07 -.21 .18 -.02 -.37 - -.17 -.23 -.22 .08 -.12 .00 -.20 .53 .67
20. Helping 4.20 .66 .52 .24 -.12 -.04 -.14 .24 -.17 -.58 - -.15 -.26 -.17 -.05 -.21 .23 -.20 .08 .27 .28
21. Overall 3.77 .43 .40 -.06 -.29 .21 -.01 .35 -.09 -.53 - .08 -.17 -.12 .08 -.09 .20 -.03 -.15 .18 .32 .41
Subject 11 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.31 .46 .47
2. NA 1.75 .77 .44 .91
Emotions
3. Angry 1.70 1.18 .24 .68
4. Confident 2.77 1.25 -.10 -.51 -.21
5. Fatigue 2.80 1.19 -.02 -.10 .28 .22
6. Happy 2.90 1.12 .02 -.22 -.13 .18 .24
7. Sad 1.57 1.04 .21 .47 .17 -.29 -.16 -.39
8. Stress 2.10 1.06 .37 -.15 -.09 .20 .48 .47 -.37
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.07 .37 .02 -.15 -.11 .19 .19 .18 -.10 .34 -
11. Finacial 2.07 .37 -.03 -.07 -.11 .11 .03 .18 -.10 .16 - .22
12. Friendship 2.00 .26 .06 -.03 .00 -.10 .00 .00 .00 .00 - -.36 -.36
13. Health 2.17 .38 -.05 -.41 -.27 .52 .23 .20 -.25 .30 - .42 .17 -.35
14. Leisure 2.10 .40 -.18 -.14 -.15 .18 -.10 .10 -.14 .06 - .19 .89 -.33 .11
15. Neighborhood 2.00 .26 -.20 -.05 .00 -.21 .00 .23 .00 .00 - -.36 -.36 .50 -.35 -.33
16. Daily Life 2.07 .15 -.15 -.36 -.28 .33 .14 .35 -.25 .35 - .55 .76 -.14 .51 .75 -.14
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.83 .38 .29 .36 .27 -.08 -.08 -.36 .25 -.21 - .08 -.42 -.35 .20 -.34 -.35 -.41
18. Effort 3.90 .31 .30 .32 .20 -.33 .13 .07 .18 .03 - .37 .06 .00 -.15 -.20 .00 .02 .15
19. Handle Stress 3.77 .43 .28 .49 .33 -.17 -.09 -.33 .31 -.17 - .32 -.34 .00 -.18 -.26 -.31 -.29 .60 .34
20. Helping 4.07 .78 .38 .75 .58 -.62 .05 -.23 .42 -.05 - -.02 .10 -.17 -.39 -.02 .00 -.19 .27 .46 .35
21. Overall 3.97 .18 .17 .11 .11 -.34 -.03 -.02 .10 .02 - -.48 -.48 .72 -.42 -.42 .72 -.34 -.08 -.06 -.10 .02
Subject 12 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 1.98 .48 .78
2. NA 1.28 .33 .30 .70
Emotions
3. Angry 1.20 .66 -.10 .62
4. Confident 3.00 .74 -.12 -.34 -.35
5. Fatigue 2.47 .73 -.26 -.18 .30 -.13
6. Happy 3.10 1.21 -.11 -.41 -.28 .04 .18
7. Sad 1.20 .66 -.01 .62 .69 -.21 .16 -.11
8. Stress 2.00 .87 -.67 .01 .36 .11 .33 .07 .24
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.10 .31 .13 .30 -.10 .15 -.22 .25 .24 .00 -
11. Finacial 2.07 .25 -.30 -.23 -.08 .18 .20 .43 -.08 .16 - -.09
12. Friendship 1.97 .41 .21 -.11 .03 .00 .17 -.13 .28 -.10 - .03 .02
13. Health 2.07 .25 .15 .48 -.08 .00 -.36 .09 .33 -.16 - .80 -.07 .02
14. Leisure 2.07 .25 -.13 -.23 -.08 .18 .20 .31 -.08 .16 - -.09 .46 .02 -.07
15. Neighborhood 2.07 .45 -.14 -.25 -.05 -.10 .22 .05 .18 .00 - -.05 .26 .75 -.04 -.04
16. Daily Life 2.06 .18 -.01 -.06 -.10 .09 .10 .24 .30 .00 - .43 .42 .73 .43 .30 .75
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.53 .68 -.01 .00 .21 -.20 .18 .06 .21 .12 - -.10 -.01 .07 -.01 -.01 .11 .03
18. Effort 3.77 .43 .38 .35 .17 -.32 -.19 -.42 -.07 -.09 - -.08 -.48 -.05 -.17 -.48 -.10 -.35 .09
19. Handle Stress 3.83 .38 .15 -.09 .14 -.12 .04 -.41 -.14 -.10 - -.45 -.60 -.04 -.60 -.24 -.13 -.54 -.04 .39
20. Helping 4.13 .73 .62 .24 .30 -.32 -.06 -.25 .16 -.33 - -.22 -.24 .13 -.24 -.24 -.13 -.24 .06 .43 .33
21. Overall 3.70 .47 .29 .22 .20 -.20 .22 -.07 .20 .00 - .22 -.41 .13 .17 -.12 -.07 .00 .41 .15 .10 .02
193
Subject 13 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.83 .69 .70
2. NA 2.78 .77 .53 .79
Emotions
3. Angry 2.57 1.38 .22 .31
4. Confident 2.73 1.36 .22 .34 -.05
5. Fatigue 3.00 1.11 .23 .01 -.04 .25
6. Happy 3.03 1.30 .42 .00 .20 -.17 .24
7. Sad 2.90 1.32 .18 .61 .20 .20 .09 -.24
8. Stress 3.17 1.56 .43 .15 .02 .43 .62 .22 .16
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.23 .57 -.09 .03 .00 -.01 -.05 -.20 .22 -.16 -
11. Finacial 1.83 .70 .08 .27 -.22 -.01 -.27 .04 -.02 -.16 - -.33
12. Friendship 1.50 1.28 .11 -.22 .15 -.14 .00 .13 -.07 .16 - .21 -.48
13. Health 2.23 .77 -.23 -.25 -.16 -.40 -.20 -.08 .12 -.41 - .42 .07 .09
14. Leisure 1.70 .84 .05 .04 -.06 -.31 .11 .10 .07 -.01 - -.14 .32 -.08 -.05
15. Neighborhood 1.90 .84 .13 .20 .05 .01 -.11 -.12 .27 -.12 - .41 -.20 .46 .30 -.34
16. Daily Life 1.90 .39 .05 -.03 -.04 -.32 -.16 .00 .17 -.18 - .50 .02 .63 .60 .24 .64
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.17 .38 -.01 -.05 -.12 -.04 -.16 .13 -.10 -.17 - -.03 -.02 .04 .10 -.05 .16 .08
18. Effort 3.27 .45 -.08 -.31 -.20 -.05 -.28 .04 -.36 -.21 - -.12 .15 .12 -.09 -.15 -.02 -.01 -.07
19. Handle Stress 2.97 .49 .06 -.01 -.07 .19 -.06 -.16 .05 .10 - .03 .08 .19 -.07 -.11 .41 .22 -.34 .20
20. Helping 3.37 .49 .21 .08 .09 .20 .38 .09 .27 .28 - -.19 .08 -.19 -.14 .11 -.07 -.16 -.34 -.15 .20
21. Overall 3.27 .52 .24 .19 .17 -.09 .00 .14 .24 .03 - -.57 .13 .00 -.16 .19 -.09 -.12 .12 .27 -.10 .14
Subject 14 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 1.82 .43 .65
2. NA 1.48 .40 .29 .69
Emotions
3. Angry 1.53 .82 .57 .38
4. Confident 2.67 1.18 .21 .27 .37
5. Fatigue 2.20 1.19 .63 .34 .38 .47
6. Happy 2.87 1.01 .38 .26 .30 .22 .51
7. Sad 1.50 1.04 -.03 .29 .12 -.08 .17 -.03
8. Stress 1.87 1.17 .69 .49 .51 .24 .69 .39 .23
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.07 .37 .41 .20 .57 .29 .21 .21 .00 .43 -
11. Finacial 1.60 .77 .08 .02 -.31 -.19 .05 -.16 .21 .02 - -.39
12. Friendship .90 1.06 .22 -.30 -.06 -.19 -.20 -.14 -.42 -.23 - -.07 .08
13. Health 2.10 .31 .41 .21 .47 .19 .32 .27 .27 .43 - .56 -.12 -.07
14. Leisure 1.87 .86 -.04 .35 -.29 -.15 .16 -.14 .31 .05 - -.08 .54 -.09 .05
15. Neighborhood 1.13 .97 .15 -.42 -.01 -.23 -.23 -.05 -.51 -.20 - -.12 -.02 .85 -.16 -.27
16. Daily Life 1.61 .38 .30 -.12 -.09 -.24 -.04 -.12 -.19 -.04 - -.01 .49 .80 .10 .40 .68
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.03 .49 .23 .16 .30 .26 -.01 -.06 -.24 .13 - .37 -.05 .07 .21 -.15 .06 .07
18. Effort 3.23 .43 .04 .29 .12 .29 .31 .07 .19 .27 - -.10 -.12 -.25 .08 -.01 -.24 -.27 .13
19. Handle Stress 3.10 .31 -.05 .41 .06 .00 -.15 -.18 -.16 .04 - -.06 -.26 .14 -.11 -.08 .07 -.05 -.25 .08
20. Helping 3.03 .41 -.02 .02 .05 .02 -.15 .01 -.28 -.06 - .21 -.17 .01 -.03 -.08 .07 -.02 .33 .15 -.03
21. Overall 3.13 .57 .19 .27 .14 -.08 .06 .33 -.29 .34 - .29 -.19 .02 .32 -.10 .09 .04 .35 .15 .12 .42
Subject 15 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 3.07 .63 .62
2. NA 2.41 .67 -.25 .73
Emotions
3. Angry 2.73 1.44 -.55 .23
4. Confident 3.07 1.39 .41 -.05 -.15
5. Fatigue 3.57 1.45 -.30 -.06 .31 -.16
6. Happy 3.57 1.41 .59 -.32 -.21 .49 -.16
7. Sad 2.27 1.34 -.34 .46 .31 -.29 -.06 -.14
8. Stress 2.93 1.51 -.19 .34 .37 .22 .58 -.14 .01
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 1.53 1.07 .08 -.15 .12 .44 .09 .23 -.05 .24 -
11. Finacial 2.37 .72 -.30 -.01 .37 -.13 .62 -.14 .11 .28 - .14
12. Friendship 1.27 1.26 .02 -.10 .29 .09 .18 .05 -.31 .16 - .10 -.04
13. Health 2.37 .61 -.44 -.06 .39 -.31 .45 -.17 .25 .18 - .16 .78 -.09
14. Leisure 1.83 .59 -.14 .10 -.09 -.07 .35 -.17 -.03 .22 - .14 .39 .15 .27
15. Neighborhood 1.77 1.25 -.22 -.17 .12 .01 .15 .27 .14 -.15 - .20 .37 .06 .52 .13
16. Daily Life 1.86 .53 -.23 -.15 .34 .08 .45 .11 -.02 .22 - .55 .63 .46 .65 .49 .70
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.07 .45 -.13 .40 .30 -.01 .10 -.01 .43 .41 - .21 -.08 .15 .16 .04 .03 .16
18. Effort 3.10 .48 -.45 -.05 .09 -.22 .06 -.29 .17 -.13 - -.24 -.11 .01 .10 -.18 .21 -.03 .13
19. Handle Stress 3.07 .52 -.03 -.12 -.34 .04 -.19 .23 -.08 -.26 - .18 -.25 -.08 .03 -.19 .18 .02 .13 .25
20. Helping 3.20 .48 -.08 -.06 -.12 -.02 .08 .08 -.03 .02 - .25 .18 .02 .32 .12 .36 .36 .41 .21 .36
21. Overall 3.23 .43 .29 -.27 -.23 .09 -.05 .06 -.29 .02 - .09 .05 -.18 .06 -.11 .04 -.03 -.08 -.12 -.07 .10
194
Subject 16 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 1.94 .58 .80
2. NA 1.24 .36 .70 .79
Emotions
3. Angry 1.33 .48 .01 .31
4. Confident 1.80 .76 .47 .34 .47
5. Fatigue 1.77 .97 .10 -.08 .25 .26
6. Happy 2.37 .96 .12 .06 .40 .39 .24
7. Sad 1.03 .18 .08 .24 .26 -.20 .05 -.07
8. Stress 1.50 .63 .22 .24 .23 .36 .65 .09 .15
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.50 .51 .11 .10 -.14 .00 .52 -.11 -.19 .38 -
11. Finacial 1.47 .90 .13 .01 -.13 -.11 .01 .03 .32 .12 - -.08
12. Friendship 1.47 1.14 .26 .12 -.04 .03 .45 .03 .25 .29 - .12 .39
13. Health 2.23 .43 .17 .12 -.22 -.06 .22 -.13 -.10 .06 - .55 -.11 -.09
14. Leisure 1.97 .76 .02 -.03 -.16 -.19 .13 -.12 .26 -.04 - .13 .42 .14 .13
15. Neighborhood 1.63 1.00 .20 .12 .19 .08 .23 .18 .07 .08 - -.10 .24 .79 -.28 -.11
16. Daily Life 1.88 .46 .27 .12 -.09 -.05 .43 .01 .25 .26 - .29 .65 .86 .12 .47 .67
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.43 .50 .33 .20 -.19 .23 -.14 -.05 -.16 .16 - .07 .38 .06 -.01 .22 .12 .26
18. Effort 3.40 .50 .17 -.03 .00 .13 .06 .33 -.15 -.11 - .27 .03 .15 .19 -.14 .10 .14 .11
19. Handle Stress 3.20 .41 .02 -.15 .18 .13 .21 .07 -.09 .13 - .00 .11 .09 .12 .02 .19 .16 .24 .27
20. Helping 3.40 .50 -.01 .15 .14 -.15 -.16 .04 .23 .00 - -.14 -.12 -.16 .03 .04 -.18 -.18 -.03 .03 -.07
21. Overall 3.43 .50 -.03 -.15 -.33 .05 -.28 .09 -.16 -.05 - -.07 -.16 -.24 -.01 -.05 -.36 -.31 .32 .25 -.10 .25
Subject 17 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.12 .56 .75
2. NA 1.33 .33 .23 .67
Emotions
3. Angry 1.37 .72 .00 -.11
4. Confident 2.43 1.14 .43 .20 .01
5. Fatigue 2.03 1.03 .36 .29 -.02 .19
6. Happy 3.13 1.07 .44 .08 -.42 .18 .31
7. Sad 1.57 .97 -.05 .36 -.06 -.04 .26 -.11
8. Stress 1.40 .62 .33 .46 .20 .23 .25 .12 -.10
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 1.57 .97 .01 -.04 -.01 -.20 -.12 -.14 -.24 .07 -
11. Finacial 1.60 .81 .15 -.10 -.04 -.14 .10 .10 -.23 .05 - .73
12. Friendship 1.60 .77 -.01 -.16 .34 -.23 -.20 -.02 -.47 .06 - .59 .34
13. Health 1.97 .85 .20 .19 -.15 -.06 .32 .16 .23 .03 - .52 .63 .03
14. Leisure 1.90 .71 .10 .27 -.26 -.16 .19 .29 .28 -.06 - .23 .46 .05 .39
15. Neighborhood 1.53 .73 -.03 -.10 -.12 -.25 -.16 .21 -.49 .12 - .68 .43 .82 .09 .24
16. Daily Life 1.69 .59 .10 .01 -.05 -.23 .03 .12 -.21 .06 - .89 .84 .65 .64 .53 .74
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.33 .48 .15 -.14 .03 .23 .26 .11 .02 -.12 - -.35 -.09 -.19 .03 -.10 -.23 -.22
18. Effort 3.30 .47 -.17 -.19 -.13 -.32 -.09 -.01 .37 -.43 - .14 .15 -.13 .37 .30 -.08 .18 .00
19. Handle Stress 3.33 .48 -.06 .16 -.17 .30 .39 .18 -.12 .23 - -.27 -.09 -.28 -.14 .00 -.23 -.24 -.05 -.31
20. Helping 3.23 .50 -.04 .15 -.43 -.18 .32 .20 .42 -.09 - .00 .07 -.20 .18 .45 .02 .11 -.05 .13 -.05
21. Overall 3.20 .41 -.07 -.12 .21 -.27 .23 .02 -.12 .22 - .23 .35 .15 .42 -.05 .09 .29 .35 .04 .00 -.07
Subject 18 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.75 .72 .87
2. NA 1.54 .38 -.22 .79
Emotions
3. Angry 1.60 .72 -.29 .44
4. Confident 3.27 1.28 .52 -.57 -.29
5. Fatigue 2.43 1.19 -.07 .50 -.03 -.44
6. Happy 3.50 1.20 .54 -.53 -.20 .72 -.25
7. Sad 1.40 .62 -.23 .68 .37 -.40 .04 -.46
8. Stress 2.20 1.03 -.21 .71 .25 -.56 .74 -.50 .25
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.47 .68 .27 -.23 -.03 .13 -.05 .17 -.05 -.33 -
11. Finacial 2.03 .96 .28 -.51 -.08 .35 -.16 .34 -.48 -.35 - .45
12. Friendship 1.97 1.00 .41 -.29 -.11 .36 -.02 .48 -.48 -.09 - .48 .54
13. Health 2.37 .72 .28 -.30 -.04 .23 -.15 .18 -.11 -.38 - .84 .53 .45
14. Leisure 2.07 .94 .34 -.59 -.11 .50 -.27 .49 -.58 -.44 - .49 .91 .62 .57
15. Neighborhood 2.03 .85 .39 -.23 .02 .28 -.18 .29 -.16 -.24 - .69 .38 .73 .66 .47
16. Daily Life 2.16 .70 .41 -.46 -.08 .40 -.17 .42 -.41 -.37 - .78 .81 .81 .80 .86 .80
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.20 .48 -.19 -.01 .14 -.09 -.10 -.12 -.16 -.01 - .02 -.01 .09 -.12 .05 .07 .02
18. Effort 3.23 .43 -.40 -.15 -.02 .13 -.14 .03 .03 -.11 - -.15 -.02 -.38 -.06 -.04 -.49 -.24 -.07
19. Handle Stress 3.30 .47 .34 -.23 -.14 .21 .07 .22 -.31 -.13 - -.02 .13 .17 -.03 .11 -.03 .08 .03 -.36
20. Helping 3.27 .58 .40 -.10 -.07 -.01 -.12 .35 -.11 -.15 - .02 .17 .25 .01 .28 .19 .21 -.07 -.26 .20
21. Overall 3.10 .31 -.30 -.01 .19 -.16 .07 -.14 -.04 -.07 - .27 .34 .12 .30 .34 .25 .33 .09 .08 -.22 .04
195
Subject 19 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.99 .55 .82
2. NA 2.26 .39 .24 .63
Emotions
3. Angry 2.23 .73 -.08 .44
4. Confident 3.50 .97 .59 -.37 -.27
5. Fatigue 2.57 .77 .03 .43 .37 -.07
6. Happy 3.40 1.22 .61 -.21 -.38 .61 -.21
7. Sad 2.40 .81 -.05 .68 .30 -.39 .34 -.31
8. Stress 2.57 .94 -.03 .40 .61 -.28 .64 -.30 .37
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 1.90 .71 .02 .13 .05 -.07 .04 .13 .01 -.07 -
11. Finacial 1.73 .69 .26 .39 .33 .00 .49 .01 .20 .30 - .50
12. Friendship 1.30 1.24 -.06 .19 .07 -.16 .25 -.15 .12 .24 - .54 .46
13. Health 1.90 .71 .02 .13 .05 -.07 .04 .13 .01 -.07 - 1.00 .50 .54
14. Leisure 1.73 .69 .26 .39 .33 .00 .49 .01 .20 .30 - .50 1.00 .46 .50
15. Neighborhood 1.30 1.24 -.06 .19 .07 -.16 .25 -.15 .12 .24 - .54 .46 1.00 .54 .46
16. Daily Life 1.64 .73 .06 .28 .16 -.11 .31 -.04 .13 .20 - .80 .74 .89 .80 .74 .89
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.33 .55 .13 .20 .40 .00 .03 .05 .31 .16 - .53 .33 .26 .53 .33 .26 .42
18. Effort 3.20 .41 .29 .28 .07 -.09 -.04 .18 .06 -.13 - -.05 .07 -.26 -.05 .07 -.26 -.14 .00
19. Handle Stress 3.37 .49 -.28 .05 .04 -.33 -.11 -.14 .31 -.09 - -.19 -.41 -.19 -.19 -.41 -.19 -.30 -.21 -.03
20. Helping 3.30 .60 -.09 -.08 .23 .21 .22 -.12 -.11 .12 - -.17 .20 .01 -.17 .20 .01 .02 .00 .03 -.04
21. Overall 3.23 .43 -.09 .20 .04 -.29 .00 -.18 .22 .00 - .08 .22 -.01 .08 .22 -.01 .09 -.20 .32 -.09 -.28
Subject 20 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 3.16 .41 .69
2. NA 1.68 .34 -.04 .71
Emotions
3. Angry 1.67 .84 -.15 .67
4. Confident 4.30 .53 .20 .00 .08
5. Fatigue 2.70 .70 .12 .18 .23 .52
6. Happy 3.07 1.08 .19 -.60 -.50 .08 -.15
7. Sad 1.80 .55 .07 .57 .44 -.26 -.07 -.38
8. Stress 2.17 .91 -.06 .19 .25 .46 .35 -.12 -.14
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.73 .45 .03 .37 .21 .06 .07 -.17 .47 .11 -
11. Finacial 1.90 .31 .44 -.46 -.27 .19 .02 .02 -.12 -.06 - -.20
12. Friendship 1.97 .41 .28 -.15 -.03 .05 -.04 -.07 -.03 .11 - .14 .52
13. Health 2.43 .68 .01 -.16 -.28 -.09 -.15 .24 .15 -.51 - -.06 .22 -.07
14. Leisure 1.97 .41 -.07 -.05 .16 -.26 -.39 -.30 .27 .02 - -.05 .25 .19 -.19
15. Neighborhood 2.00 .37 -.16 -.06 .00 .17 -.13 -.17 .17 .00 - .00 .30 .22 .14 .22
16. Daily Life 2.17 .21 .15 -.15 -.10 .00 -.23 -.09 .34 -.21 - .30 .62 .58 .51 .39 .58
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.27 .52 -.11 .27 .52 .07 .23 -.22 .07 .27 - .02 -.26 .04 -.24 .04 -.18 -.21
18. Effort 3.30 .47 .23 -.27 -.35 .32 .07 .03 -.30 .20 - .07 .22 .05 -.32 -.13 .00 -.12 -.34
19. Handle Stress 3.47 .51 .13 .02 -.19 .36 -.08 -.06 -.27 .12 - .11 .09 .08 -.21 .08 .00 -.01 -.36 .41
20. Helping 3.10 .48 -.12 .21 .34 .01 .09 -.15 .08 .12 - .13 -.40 -.16 .07 -.33 -.19 -.22 .30 -.14 -.20
21. Overall 3.20 .41 .24 .13 .20 .19 .22 .05 .18 .28 - .30 -.11 -.16 -.32 .04 .00 -.13 .23 .04 .03 .07
Subject 21 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.19 .44 .88
2. NA 1.22 .23 .44 .75
Emotions
3. Angry 1.17 .46 .35 .72
4. Confident 2.27 .64 .62 .17 .31
5. Fatigue 1.47 .63 .53 .79 .44 .11
6. Happy 2.53 .63 .63 .19 .04 .49 .22
7. Sad 1.17 .38 .38 .67 .62 .24 .53 .19
8. Stress 1.63 .67 .19 .72 .43 -.01 .75 .07 .39
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.57 .50 -.04 -.52 -.27 .05 -.43 -.01 -.33 -.59 -
11. Finacial 2.47 .63 -.11 -.28 -.16 .02 -.31 .05 -.19 -.40 - .66
12. Friendship 1.80 1.19 -.02 -.11 -.06 .07 -.10 .01 .15 -.18 - .43 .59
13. Health 2.57 .50 -.04 -.52 -.27 .05 -.43 -.01 -.33 -.59 - 1.00 .66 .43
14. Leisure 2.47 .63 -.11 -.28 -.16 .02 -.31 .05 -.19 -.40 - .66 1.00 .59 .66
15. Neighborhood 1.80 1.19 -.02 -.11 -.06 .07 -.10 .01 .15 -.18 - .43 .59 1.00 .43 .59
16. Daily Life 2.28 .66 -.06 -.29 -.16 .06 -.27 .02 -.05 -.39 - .73 .85 .90 .73 .85 .90
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.23 .50 .01 -.07 -.17 .12 .08 .03 .15 .16 - .00 -.14 -.03 .00 -.14 -.03 -.06
18. Effort 3.23 .43 .16 -.40 -.20 .14 -.16 .03 -.25 -.41 - .48 .22 .16 .48 .22 .16 .29 -.10
19. Handle Stress 3.43 .50 .28 .10 .27 .16 -.01 .22 .33 -.02 - .36 .32 .38 .36 .32 .38 .42 .00 -.16
20. Helping 3.13 .51 -.06 -.08 -.25 -.01 .12 -.01 -.12 .05 - .23 .23 .56 .23 .23 .56 .47 .14 .17 -.10
21. Overall 3.27 .45 -.08 -.32 -.06 .22 -.33 -.03 -.07 -.35 - .53 .52 .43 .53 .52 .43 .56 .02 .20 .39 -.01
196
Subject 22 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.67 .16 .40
2. NA 2.10 .17 -.04 .35
Emotions
3. Angry 2.03 .18 .03 -.22
4. Confident 3.70 .70 -.26 .87 -.19
5. Fatigue 3.33 1.35 -.14 .27 -.05 .26
6. Happy 3.97 .18 -.03 .22 -1.00 .19 .05
7. Sad 2.27 .45 .35 .29 -.11 .26 -.04 .11
8. Stress 2.10 .31 .06 -.67 .56 -.66 -.08 -.56 -.20
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.33 .48 -.18 .14 -.13 .31 .04 .13 .05 -.24 -
11. Finacial 2.03 .18 .26 .12 -.03 .08 -.19 .03 .31 -.06 - -.13
12. Friendship 1.87 .43 .23 .04 -.38 -.02 -.28 .38 .36 -.16 - .22 .49
13. Health 2.00 .26 .40 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .29 .00 - .00 .00 .00
14. Leisure 1.63 .49 .24 -.18 .14 -.33 .09 -.14 -.17 .25 - -.64 .14 -.24 .27
15. Neighborhood 1.87 .35 .23 .05 -.47 -.03 -.12 .47 .24 -.20 - .28 .07 .80 .00 -.30
16. Daily Life 1.96 .16 .37 .04 -.33 -.02 -.14 .33 .32 -.14 - .34 .43 .80 .40 .08 .70
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
18. Effort 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
19. Handle Stress 3.07 .25 -.28 .01 -.05 .12 -.17 .05 -.16 -.09 - .38 -.05 .08 .00 -.35 .10 .07 - -
20. Helping 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
21. Overall 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Subject 23 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.67 .43 .57
2. NA 1.77 .58 -.28 .84
Emotions
3. Angry 1.77 .86 .02 .07
4. Confident 3.30 1.12 .66 -.58 .04
5. Fatigue 2.57 1.04 -.12 .69 .11 -.57
6. Happy 3.13 1.01 .57 -.40 -.16 .51 -.01
7. Sad 1.53 .78 -.27 .68 -.07 -.27 .25 -.40
8. Stress 2.03 1.07 -.33 .80 .12 -.62 .73 -.39 .56
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.27 .64 .29 -.08 .05 .32 .08 .42 .12 .04 -
11. Finacial 1.80 1.16 .09 -.40 -.08 -.03 -.07 .17 -.30 -.13 - .17
12. Friendship 2.10 1.16 -.11 -.46 -.29 -.02 -.19 -.10 -.22 -.14 - .06 .82
13. Health 2.13 1.04 .13 -.39 -.23 .20 -.26 .15 -.22 -.59 - .15 .19 .30
14. Leisure 1.93 .74 .14 -.56 -.35 .32 -.35 .38 -.30 -.43 - .18 .51 .49 .41
15. Neighborhood 2.00 .98 -.38 .11 .16 -.35 .07 -.49 .14 .16 - -.05 .00 .12 .03 -.19
16. Daily Life 2.04 .58 .01 -.50 -.21 .07 -.21 .09 -.24 -.31 - .33 .80 .84 .59 .65 .28
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
18. Effort 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
19. Handle Stress 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
20. Helping 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
21. Overall 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Subject 24 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.81 .34 .71
2. NA 1.65 .37 -.41 .82
Emotions
3. Angry 1.87 .63 -.37 .62
4. Confident 2.37 .61 .26 .29 .04
5. Fatigue 2.40 .56 .11 .14 .06 -.14
6. Happy 2.87 .63 .72 -.34 -.22 .31 -.14
7. Sad 1.73 .58 -.28 .72 .37 -.01 .23 -.19
8. Stress 2.27 .58 -.01 .33 .38 -.09 .40 -.18 .22
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.07 .58 .05 -.06 -.16 -.07 .13 .03 -.05 -.26 -
11. Finacial 1.67 .48 .06 -.05 -.04 .43 .13 .08 -.21 -.16 - .33
12. Friendship 1.30 .92 -.02 .00 .01 .23 -.17 .13 -.10 -.22 - .03 .39
13. Health 2.03 .61 .20 -.24 -.26 -.03 .06 .19 -.17 -.31 - .95 .39 .04
14. Leisure 1.57 .50 .21 -.13 -.08 .42 .15 .14 -.17 -.06 - .34 .81 .22 .38
15. Neighborhood 1.13 .86 -.04 .01 .03 .17 -.11 .16 .00 -.07 - -.02 .28 .91 -.01 .30
16. Daily Life 1.63 .45 .09 -.10 -.10 .26 .00 .18 -.15 -.27 - .56 .71 .76 .59 .66 .73
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
18. Effort 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
19. Handle Stress 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
20. Helping 3.33 .48 -.09 .05 -.19 .16 .00 -.08 -.04 -.08 - .16 .05 -.08 .08 .05 -.11 .01 - - -
21. Overall 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
197
Subject 25 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.88 .31 .41
2. NA 2.84 .50 .48 .73
Emotions
3. Angry 2.60 .86 .31 .21
4. Confident 2.47 .68 .17 .30 .27
5. Fatigue 2.37 .67 .03 .28 -.10 .07
6. Happy 2.73 .94 .56 -.01 -.09 -.18 -.22
7. Sad 2.57 .94 .36 .69 .12 .17 -.07 .02
8. Stress 2.30 .60 .01 .26 -.09 .15 .75 -.16 -.01
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.20 .48 .32 .04 .45 .02 -.13 .12 .12 -.10 -
11. Finacial 1.73 .58 .01 .30 .19 .06 .08 -.01 .29 .14 - .20
12. Friendship 1.13 1.04 -.05 -.05 -.13 -.14 -.42 .35 .17 -.07 - .15 .34
13. Health 2.07 .37 .35 .02 .31 .15 -.24 .25 .19 -.25 - .70 .25 .25
14. Leisure 1.70 .75 .11 .41 .29 .15 .23 -.07 .20 .13 - .27 .76 .10 .33
15. Neighborhood 1.17 1.15 -.20 -.22 -.11 -.28 -.35 .20 .07 -.18 - .12 .27 .73 .22 .06
16. Daily Life 1.67 .49 .03 .07 .14 -.09 -.26 .24 .24 -.08 - .46 .69 .79 .55 .55 .77
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
18. Effort 2.97 .32 .06 -.21 -.18 .07 -.26 .20 .07 -.31 - .04 -.23 .22 .02 -.47 .30 .04 -
19. Handle Stress 2.93 .25 -.01 .07 -.13 -.21 .35 .07 -.13 .36 - -.17 -.36 -.23 -.32 -.29 -.20 -.37 - -.03
20. Helping 2.80 .48 -.02 .13 -.20 .40 .13 -.05 .11 .22 - -.12 .17 -.15 .08 .21 -.19 -.05 - -.04 -.11
21. Overall 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Subject 26 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.65 .33 .63
2. NA 1.76 .25 .42 .60
Emotions
3. Angry 1.80 .66 .51 .58
4. Confident 2.53 .82 .07 .18 -.18
5. Fatigue 2.07 .83 .46 .28 .59 -.11
6. Happy 2.97 .56 .41 -.08 .07 -.04 -.07
7. Sad 1.77 .57 .16 .59 .33 .05 .18 -.13
8. Stress 2.20 .92 .43 .35 .46 -.24 .75 -.05 .29
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.23 .68 .14 -.33 -.20 -.11 -.15 .30 -.21 -.24 -
11. Finacial 1.87 .73 .61 .03 .30 .07 .30 .24 .09 .19 - .20
12. Friendship 1.43 1.07 .51 -.15 .13 -.04 .24 .31 -.11 .08 - .47 .74
13. Health 2.27 .64 .19 -.21 -.11 -.21 -.10 .32 -.11 -.09 - .80 .15 .48
14. Leisure 1.87 .73 .61 .03 .30 .07 .30 .24 .09 .19 - .20 1.00 .74 .15
15. Neighborhood 1.50 1.11 .52 -.14 .14 -.04 .23 .31 -.19 .03 - .48 .68 .97 .49 .68
16. Daily Life 1.86 .67 .55 -.16 .13 -.05 .19 .35 -.10 .05 - .63 .80 .95 .61 .80 .94
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 2.93 .25 .17 -.04 .12 .18 .19 -.02 -.11 -.24 - .29 .32 .36 -.10 .32 .37 .35
18. Effort 2.93 .25 -.20 -.10 -.08 -.15 -.31 .23 -.11 -.24 - .09 -.42 -.14 .11 -.42 -.12 -.19 -.07
19. Handle Stress 2.80 .41 -.12 .09 -.03 -.08 -.27 -.18 -.06 -.16 - .05 .14 .05 .21 .14 .08 .13 -.13 -.13
20. Helping 3.00 .26 -.12 -.21 .00 .00 -.16 .24 .00 -.14 - .00 .00 .24 .00 .00 .24 .13 .00 .00 .00
21. Overall 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Subject 27 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.45 .45 .41
2. NA 1.73 .75 -.26 .84
Emotions
3. Angry 1.43 1.04 -.10 .47
4. Confident 2.00 1.11 .32 -.11 -.12
5. Fatigue 2.27 1.62 .05 .53 .32 -.02
6. Happy 2.63 1.43 .44 -.32 -.26 .30 -.14
7. Sad 1.60 1.28 -.19 .71 .65 -.24 .49 -.31
8. Stress 2.00 1.49 -.34 .63 .42 -.04 .55 -.31 .64
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.87 .35 -.16 .16 .17 -.09 -.12 .25 .19 .07 -
11. Finacial 2.40 .67 -.06 .11 .09 -.23 .31 .09 .19 .07 - .24
12. Friendship 2.30 .88 -.16 .38 .27 -.21 .18 .06 .27 .11 - .25 .49
13. Health 2.10 .31 -.21 .23 -.14 -.30 .01 -.23 .19 .08 - -.20 .30 .27
14. Leisure 2.53 .68 -.05 .28 .15 -.09 .21 .17 .17 .17 - .31 .87 .65 .23
15. Neighborhood 2.27 .74 -.31 .20 .16 -.33 .26 -.07 .19 -.03 - .14 .61 .78 .34 .53
16. Daily Life 2.41 .46 -.20 .31 .19 -.28 .24 .07 .27 .10 - .36 .84 .86 .39 .87 .84
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.77 .50 -.07 .21 -.13 -.12 .08 .12 -.04 .05 - .01 .39 .16 .38 .37 .27 .35
18. Effort 4.00 .59 .03 -.13 -.06 -.05 -.22 .04 -.14 -.28 - .00 .09 -.07 .38 .00 .16 .08 .23
19. Handle Stress 3.87 .57 .12 -.08 -.25 -.27 .19 -.06 -.12 -.12 - .08 .14 .08 .08 .01 .17 .13 .13 -.21
20. Helping 3.80 .55 .07 .00 .04 -.17 .29 -.14 .13 .08 - .04 .13 -.09 .12 -.07 .05 .02 -.17 -.11 .24
21. Overall 3.57 .57 .00 -.24 -.20 -.11 -.17 .44 -.34 -.20 - -.13 -.07 -.01 -.14 -.01 -.04 -.07 .12 .00 -.18 -.29
198
Subject 28 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.47 .68 .72
2. NA 2.06 .59 .39 .67
Emotions
3. Angry 2.23 1.45 .24 .40
4. Confident 2.53 1.11 .64 .27 -.02
5. Fatigue 2.43 1.25 .45 .21 .06 .13
6. Happy 3.07 1.60 .59 -.04 .38 .19 .26
7. Sad 1.87 1.01 .22 .51 .05 .00 -.12 -.08
8. Stress 2.67 1.42 .31 .14 .39 .12 .32 .15 -.13
Non-work life
9. Education 1.23 1.17 -.21 -.46 .05 .01 -.43 -.08 -.18 .17
10. Family 2.07 1.05 .33 -.38 -.10 .35 -.02 .29 -.25 .18 .50
11. Finacial 1.00 2.03 -.38 -.32 .03 -.29 -.60 -.02 -.13 -.02 .51 .34
12. Friendship 1.70 .92 .08 -.47 .00 .20 -.21 .20 -.38 .21 .71 .81 .43
13. Health 1.67 1.27 .19 -.31 -.26 .30 .09 .20 -.36 -.01 .15 .59 .07 .56
14. Leisure 1.57 1.25 .10 -.48 -.11 .17 -.07 .17 -.32 .21 .59 .86 .42 .88 .69
15. Neighborhood 1.73 1.17 .25 -.35 .02 .22 -.11 .21 -.24 .26 .55 .83 .36 .89 .66 .93
16. Daily Life 1.62 1.02 .05 -.47 -.08 .13 -.25 .19 -.33 .14 .62 .86 .62 .90 .68 .94 .91
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 4.10 .80 .34 .30 .04 .05 -.11 .29 .23 -.09 -.06 .20 .17 .14 -.03 .04 .14 .14
18. Effort 4.30 .65 .04 -.08 .18 .01 -.29 .15 .01 .19 .40 .17 .13 .39 .08 .25 .33 .26 .40
19. Handle Stress 4.00 .45 .25 .09 -.16 .14 .18 .05 -.23 .11 -.33 .00 -.19 -.17 -.18 -.06 -.06 -.15 .28 .00
20. Helping 3.97 .32 -.16 .03 -.06 -.24 -.05 .00 -.12 .05 -.16 .01 .05 .08 -.11 .05 -.02 .01 .15 .05 .24
21. Overall 3.93 .52 .17 .10 .11 .06 .05 .30 .31 .11 .08 .01 .03 .17 -.09 .06 .14 .06 .26 .47 -.15 -.01
Subject 29 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.75 .57 .76
2. NA 2.64 .67 .15 .76
Emotions
3. Angry 2.90 1.45 -.14 .54
4. Confident 2.60 1.19 .51 .04 -.14
5. Fatigue 3.30 1.29 .25 .56 .42 -.03
6. Happy 4.20 1.24 .60 -.14 -.05 .31 .20
7. Sad 2.27 1.14 .02 .42 .16 .16 .22 -.09
8. Stress 2.93 1.46 .10 .75 .42 -.06 .47 -.14 .30
Non-work life
9. Education 1.63 .81 .35 .27 .17 .45 .21 .21 .18 .24
10. Family 1.80 1.27 .24 .27 .20 .24 .44 .35 .30 .29 .66
11. Finacial 1.63 1.40 .23 .04 .03 .24 .08 .36 .11 .02 .70 .79
12. Friendship 1.50 1.22 .26 .13 .22 .28 .23 .27 .30 .19 .85 .75 .75
13. Health 1.63 1.47 .32 .22 .10 .31 .17 .25 .29 .26 .66 .88 .75 .72
14. Leisure 1.23 1.28 .37 .01 -.02 .38 .10 .45 .12 .05 .72 .75 .84 .85 .78
15. Neighborhood 1.27 1.31 .12 .06 .25 .20 .15 .26 .27 .05 .71 .82 .81 .84 .80 .83
16. Daily Life 1.51 1.21 .28 .13 .14 .30 .21 .35 .25 .16 .79 .91 .90 .89 .91 .92 .93
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 4.37 .72 .02 .03 -.13 -.10 -.12 .07 -.21 .22 .18 .16 .10 .06 .20 .17 .11 .15
18. Effort 4.63 .56 -.01 .00 -.05 -.02 .01 -.04 .21 .22 .15 -.06 -.13 .18 -.04 .08 .14 .02 .00
19. Handle Stress 4.30 .60 .31 -.11 -.20 .13 -.03 .15 -.27 -.02 .31 .17 .30 .26 .17 .36 .16 .26 .06 .14
20. Helping 4.60 .56 .00 .17 -.18 -.14 -.11 .12 .01 .26 -.03 -.16 -.19 -.05 -.14 -.01 -.18 -.14 .55 .18 -.14
21. Overall 3.77 .57 .13 -.07 -.03 -.30 .15 .12 -.01 .15 .11 .17 .28 .27 .18 .27 .18 .25 .13 .27 .32 .13
Subject 30 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.86 .60 .84
2. NA 2.20 .47 .10 .60
Emotions
3. Angry 2.30 .79 .14 .51
4. Confident 3.00 .95 .86 .01 .05
5. Fatigue 2.53 1.17 .16 -.05 -.22 .22
6. Happy 3.13 .86 .61 -.22 -.01 .63 .27
7. Sad 2.23 .86 -.24 .58 .45 -.42 -.40 -.46
8. Stress 2.70 .70 .01 .38 .23 .00 .37 -.05 .23
Non-work life
9. Education -.07 .37 .33 -.28 .07 .40 .09 .47 -.17 .19
10. Family 1.87 .78 .04 -.06 -.10 .00 .20 .23 .15 .24 .21
11. Finacial 1.17 1.70 .08 .00 .09 .17 .28 .29 -.05 .22 .46 .41
12. Friendship 1.37 1.10 -.08 -.06 -.21 -.10 .27 -.05 -.02 -.03 .06 .54 .13
13. Health 1.47 1.48 .27 -.11 .11 .27 .27 .30 -.01 .31 .57 .69 .41 .29
14. Leisure 1.63 .89 -.13 -.17 -.28 .00 .36 -.16 -.06 .15 .13 .58 .25 .81 .40
15. Neighborhood 1.40 1.22 -.10 -.15 -.16 -.03 .26 -.02 .01 .10 .06 .53 .13 .66 .29 .71
16. Daily Life 1.48 .86 .05 -.12 -.08 .11 .38 .17 -.01 .24 .40 .83 .61 .72 .73 .80 .71
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.80 .41 .02 -.05 .19 .00 .09 .18 -.16 .02 -.09 -.20 -.25 -.22 -.13 -.21 .10 -.21
18. Effort 4.30 .60 .03 .18 .09 .00 .16 -.01 -.01 .06 .10 .09 .19 .09 .11 .08 -.08 .12 -.31
19. Handle Stress 4.13 .86 -.06 .00 .04 -.21 .06 -.12 -.14 .01 -.19 -.08 -.06 -.09 .00 -.16 -.05 -.09 .18 -.08
20. Helping 4.30 .70 .00 -.25 -.23 -.05 .18 -.13 -.12 -.09 -.19 .08 -.16 .30 -.11 .35 .46 .16 .22 -.14 .10
21. Overall 3.47 .51 -.07 -.21 -.19 -.07 .03 .09 -.18 -.08 -.20 .34 -.09 -.01 .02 .16 .13 .08 .30 -.14 .09 -.12
199
Subject 31 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.26 .40 .80
2. NA 1.54 .22 .24 .59
Emotions
3. Angry 1.43 .50 .19 .26
4. Confident 2.27 .52 .57 .03 .07
5. Fatigue 2.00 .37 .14 .17 .18 .36
6. Happy 2.30 .65 .81 .16 .33 .47 .00
7. Sad 1.63 .49 .12 .43 .25 -.14 .19 .25
8. Stress 1.80 .41 -.05 .05 .27 .26 .46 -.03 -.21
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.97 .18 .17 .21 -.21 .10 .00 .09 .24 -.09 -
11. Finacial 1.07 .37 .49 -.12 -.16 .27 -.51 .49 .14 -.37 - .03
12. Friendship 2.10 .66 .57 .43 .07 .22 .14 .49 .33 -.05 - .31 .26
13. Health 2.93 .25 -.23 .24 -.04 -.12 .37 -.29 .07 .20 - .69 -.69 .04
14. Leisure 1.57 .57 .58 .33 -.16 .29 -.16 .46 .28 -.54 - .19 .48 .49 -.21
15. Neighborhood 2.63 .61 .14 -.13 -.36 .21 .00 -.06 .00 -.30 - .50 .11 .35 .28 .42
16. Daily Life 2.21 .28 .55 .26 -.22 .31 -.05 .39 .29 -.37 - .59 .41 .77 .12 .76 .76
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.90 .55 -.21 -.49 .04 -.39 -.17 -.20 -.14 -.09 - -.38 .03 -.16 -.30 -.14 -.01 -.19
18. Effort 4.17 .59 -.04 .36 -.02 -.15 .00 .04 .34 .00 - .05 -.05 .13 .08 .12 .08 .13 -.16
19. Handle Stress 4.13 .73 .11 -.25 .02 .08 -.13 .06 -.24 -.14 - -.22 .22 -.10 -.32 .06 .04 -.03 .29 -.05
20. Helping 4.50 .57 .18 -.40 .18 .12 -.16 .23 -.18 .00 - -.16 .16 .05 -.24 .05 .15 .07 .27 -.25 .00
21. Overall 3.77 .43 -.14 .10 .01 -.48 .22 -.23 .07 -.08 - -.10 -.34 -.04 .17 -.15 -.20 -.20 .04 -.25 -.12 -.07
Subject 32 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.70 .68 .80
2. NA 1.94 .47 .04 .57
Emotions
3. Angry 1.80 .96 .06 .38
4. Confident 2.93 1.17 .59 .04 .29
5. Fatigue 2.77 1.28 .33 -.09 -.07 .17
6. Happy 2.73 .94 .51 -.28 -.02 .61 .00
7. Sad 1.97 1.13 -.14 .65 .60 .00 -.17 -.43
8. Stress 2.57 .94 .46 -.02 .13 .32 .63 .14 -.18
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.13 .82 .13 -.40 .04 .26 .03 .36 -.37 .21 -
11. Finacial 1.80 .66 -.02 -.43 -.17 -.06 -.06 .41 -.38 .02 - .56
12. Friendship 1.43 1.07 -.02 -.53 -.08 -.06 .23 .32 -.36 .30 - .56 .66
13. Health 2.13 .82 .13 -.40 .04 .26 .03 .36 -.37 .21 - 1.00 .56 .56
14. Leisure 1.77 .68 -.01 -.34 -.13 -.06 -.10 .44 -.33 -.06 - .49 .96 .57 .49
15. Neighborhood 1.43 1.07 -.02 -.53 -.08 -.06 .23 .32 -.36 .30 - .56 .66 1.00 .56 .57
16. Daily Life 1.78 .72 .03 -.53 -.07 .05 .10 .43 -.43 .22 - .82 .84 .90 .82 .77 .90
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.30 .60 -.09 .11 .11 .03 .05 .02 .17 -.19 - .20 .07 .06 .20 .09 .06 .13
18. Effort 3.73 .52 -.32 -.11 .23 -.20 -.36 -.01 -.02 -.03 - .17 .04 .21 .17 .01 .21 .18 .16
19. Handle Stress 3.60 .56 -.05 .32 .10 .06 -.23 .12 .20 -.01 - -.03 .06 -.05 -.03 .11 -.05 -.01 -.45 -.26
20. Helping 3.40 .50 .05 .16 .03 -.01 .21 -.06 .02 .16 - -.05 -.17 -.01 -.05 -.22 -.01 -.09 -.30 -.24 .47
21. Overall 3.13 .43 -.20 -.01 .31 .09 .00 .09 .29 -.11 - .05 -.02 .02 .05 -.01 .02 .02 .11 .01 -.06 -.10
Subject 33 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.69 .72 .77
2. NA 2.00 .48 -.53 .62
Emotions
3. Angry 1.83 1.12 -.49 .42
4. Confident 3.00 1.17 .22 -.19 .24
5. Fatigue 2.43 1.30 .10 -.07 -.02 .00
6. Happy 2.60 1.25 .53 -.51 -.22 .75 .05
7. Sad 2.17 1.18 -.41 .66 .55 -.15 -.43 -.47
8. Stress 2.23 1.14 .25 -.10 .28 .34 .67 .24 -.34
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.13 .86 .60 -.38 -.48 .41 .13 .66 -.36 .00 -
11. Finacial .87 1.33 -.44 .35 .24 .07 -.08 -.07 .23 -.16 - -.38
12. Friendship 1.37 1.10 .17 -.40 -.15 .32 .10 .44 -.45 .04 - .42 .08
13. Health 2.10 .80 .53 -.31 -.48 .40 .29 .59 -.46 .09 - .78 -.05 .43
14. Leisure 1.47 .82 -.17 -.03 .16 .11 .22 .09 .06 .06 - .15 .25 .30 .03
15. Neighborhood 1.67 1.09 .16 -.23 -.24 .46 .13 .53 -.30 -.05 - .67 .09 .77 .63 .37
16. Daily Life 1.60 .64 .15 -.22 -.20 .44 .17 .54 -.30 -.03 - .60 .36 .78 .68 .54 .90
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.63 .49 -.05 .04 .26 .12 .31 .15 .05 .22 - -.04 .19 .26 .01 .35 .21 .27
18. Effort 3.83 .59 .40 -.32 -.10 .20 .05 .37 -.26 .32 - .25 -.07 .36 .18 .09 .12 .23 .26
19. Handle Stress 3.53 .57 -.32 .09 .04 .05 -.23 -.08 .12 -.30 - -.22 .46 .01 -.12 .19 .13 .16 -.14 -.24
20. Helping 3.50 .51 -.02 .11 -.03 -.06 .08 -.05 -.03 -.03 - -.16 .41 .15 .13 .25 .06 .25 -.21 -.06 .24
21. Overall 3.30 .47 -.02 .40 .17 -.25 -.05 -.20 .28 .06 - -.10 .01 -.09 -.27 -.02 -.14 -.14 .20 .31 -.10 -.07
200
Subject 34 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.87 .31 .16
2. NA 1.90 .25 -.22 .57
Emotions
3. Angry 1.73 .69 .12 .14
4. Confident 2.43 .77 -.04 .34 -.16
5. Fatigue 2.13 .63 -.10 .24 .24 .37
6. Happy 3.43 .97 .07 .10 -.23 .38 .13
7. Sad 1.50 .57 .01 .36 .17 .19 .10 .03
8. Stress 2.17 .59 -.14 .26 .28 .36 .96 .05 .15
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.23 .73 .27 -.28 -.15 -.37 -.30 -.05 -.12 -.25 -
11. Finacial 1.87 .57 -.04 .14 .17 .21 .24 .54 -.11 .17 - -.09
12. Friendship 1.40 .86 .18 .10 .07 .30 .15 .37 -.07 .14 - -.04 .54
13. Health 2.37 .72 .31 -.06 -.14 .01 -.19 .16 -.04 -.15 - .82 .12 .20
14. Leisure 1.90 .61 .06 .18 .18 .32 .22 .60 .05 .14 - -.10 .95 .54 .17
15. Neighborhood 1.33 .80 .29 -.03 .17 .04 .05 .25 .00 .02 - .10 .40 .90 .14 .42
16. Daily Life 1.85 .48 .28 .00 .06 .12 .03 .44 -.07 .01 - .43 .68 .81 .62 .69 .78
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.13 .73 -.01 -.04 -.34 .08 -.19 -.13 -.08 -.21 - .00 -.20 .08 .04 -.28 -.02 -.07
18. Effort 3.50 .73 -.02 -.34 .07 -.09 -.08 -.32 .04 -.04 - .03 -.08 .00 -.03 -.12 .06 -.02 .19
19. Handle Stress 3.37 .56 .38 -.07 -.01 -.38 -.54 .01 .16 -.61 - .38 -.06 -.10 .26 .01 .10 .15 -.04 -.04
20. Helping 3.37 .56 .20 -.07 -.01 -.06 -.14 .01 .16 -.19 - .04 .27 .04 .00 .32 .10 .17 .22 .04 .44
21. Overall 3.37 .61 -.23 .07 .24 -.27 -.04 -.33 .15 .02 - -.12 -.05 .10 -.16 -.08 .16 -.02 -.04 .12 -.21 -.41
Subject 35 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 3.13 .49 .56
2. NA 2.02 .54 -.31 .77
Emotions
3. Angry 1.93 .94 -.14 .63
4. Confident 2.60 1.10 .19 -.01 .11
5. Fatigue 2.23 .82 .31 -.50 -.38 .18
6. Happy 3.47 1.11 .43 -.37 .06 .22 -.05
7. Sad 1.87 .78 -.34 .39 -.06 .30 -.11 -.13
8. Stress 2.57 1.22 .54 -.39 -.38 .25 .73 .18 -.10
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.17 .79 .13 .39 .29 -.08 -.01 -.17 .21 -.17 -
11. Finacial 1.90 .76 .12 .43 .47 -.17 -.13 -.11 -.02 -.23 - .78
12. Friendship 1.90 .84 .12 .46 .42 -.04 -.01 -.24 .08 -.08 - .75 .90
13. Health 2.13 .57 .10 .36 .21 .20 -.07 .06 .51 -.01 - .71 .35 .39
14. Leisure 1.90 .76 .12 .43 .47 -.17 -.13 -.11 -.02 -.23 - .78 1.00 .90 .35
15. Neighborhood 1.87 .78 .13 .45 .46 -.19 -.11 -.17 -.03 -.21 - .71 .91 .93 .27 .91
16. Daily Life 1.98 .66 .14 .48 .45 -.10 -.09 -.15 .12 -.18 - .89 .95 .94 .56 .95 .92
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.20 .76 .29 .06 -.03 .06 .09 -.20 .05 .24 - .11 -.02 .14 .17 -.02 .11 .09
18. Effort 3.43 .77 .24 -.07 .14 .09 .05 .32 -.13 .02 - -.01 .02 .02 -.06 .02 -.02 .00 .20
19. Handle Stress 3.43 .57 -.07 .42 -.07 .07 -.15 -.28 .37 .08 - -.01 -.06 .09 -.08 -.06 .06 .00 .11 -.05
20. Helping 3.30 .53 -.04 .27 .11 -.08 .07 -.42 -.15 -.06 - .20 .25 .30 -.25 .25 .35 .23 .36 .17 .46
21. Overall 3.40 .62 .26 -.15 .11 -.01 .01 .42 -.17 .10 - .14 .16 .01 .23 .16 -.03 .12 -.03 .06 -.31 -.37
Subject 36 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.85 .32 .54
2. NA 1.86 .23 .46 .33
Emotions
3. Angry 2.23 .73 .23 .19
4. Confident 3.07 .83 .05 -.09 -.31
5. Fatigue 2.53 .57 -.09 .00 .27 .00
6. Happy 3.30 .47 .40 .04 .29 -.05 .03
7. Sad 1.67 .48 .39 .50 -.16 .06 -.46 .15
8. Stress 2.57 .57 -.06 -.05 .34 -.08 .95 -.01 -.42
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 1.77 1.10 -.25 -.26 .03 -.10 .09 -.19 -.35 .11 -
11. Finacial 1.73 .87 -.07 -.02 -.17 -.12 -.05 -.14 -.22 -.10 - .33
12. Friendship 1.07 1.20 .02 .08 -.22 -.07 .10 -.10 .04 -.01 - .43 .48
13. Health 1.20 1.10 -.18 -.16 -.28 .21 -.01 -.32 -.07 .03 - .47 .35 .49
14. Leisure 1.63 1.00 .04 .10 -.16 -.18 -.13 -.13 -.05 -.17 - .26 .92 .51 .26
15. Neighborhood .97 1.22 -.06 .09 -.26 -.10 .03 -.22 .04 -.07 - .56 .48 .92 .57 .53
16. Daily Life 1.39 .83 -.11 -.03 -.23 -.07 .01 -.24 -.12 -.04 - .67 .74 .85 .69 .73 .90
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.60 .50 .23 .23 .08 .15 -.07 -.36 .00 -.02 - .01 -.10 -.01 -.04 -.03 .03 -.02
18. Effort 3.67 .48 .51 .32 -.16 .23 -.34 .15 .70 -.30 - -.28 -.22 -.02 -.07 -.05 -.02 -.13 .14
19. Handle Stress 3.20 .41 -.17 -.39 .07 -.25 -.03 .04 -.35 -.06 - .34 .35 .25 -.02 .27 .22 .30 -.10 -.35
20. Helping 3.43 .50 .09 -.27 -.19 -.15 .01 .01 -.10 .08 - -.25 -.12 -.05 .09 -.22 -.14 -.15 .03 -.10 -.27
21. Overall 3.53 .51 .18 -.06 .30 .08 .17 .47 -.09 .11 - .11 -.14 -.12 -.14 -.21 -.14 -.14 -.08 .19 .13 -.13
201
Subject 37 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 3.65 .44 .77
2. NA 2.05 .44 .28 .75
Emotions
3. Angry 2.23 .94 .39 .36
4. Confident 3.93 .87 .54 -.06 .15
5. Fatigue 2.57 .82 .12 .14 .27 -.09
6. Happy 4.13 .78 .75 .18 .43 .53 .15
7. Sad 1.93 .83 .08 .33 .24 -.25 .36 .34
8. Stress 2.60 .72 -.15 .08 .09 -.10 .57 -.02 .30
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.23 .43 .27 .19 .20 .04 -.29 .32 -.05 -.35 -
11. Finacial 1.97 .61 .16 .23 .37 .06 -.03 .30 .20 .12 - -.10
12. Friendship 1.37 1.03 -.27 -.08 .09 -.24 .07 -.15 .15 -.03 - -.12 .35
13. Health 1.67 .48 -.22 -.11 .03 .03 -.03 -.15 -.06 .00 - -.11 .19 .32
14. Leisure 1.93 .64 .01 .05 .14 .18 -.06 .30 .12 .09 - -.19 .78 .40 .49
15. Neighborhood 1.23 .90 -.19 -.10 .06 -.16 .10 -.10 .11 -.06 - -.06 .20 .95 .27 .27
16. Daily Life 1.73 .46 -.12 .01 .20 -.07 -.01 .07 .15 -.04 - .01 .62 .89 .52 .70 .83
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.53 .51 .40 .20 .16 .32 .33 .51 .09 .23 - .04 .28 -.06 .05 .33 -.06 .11
18. Effort 3.67 .48 .42 .13 .18 .11 .06 .22 .20 .10 - -.11 -.04 -.02 .10 -.19 .11 -.03 .05
19. Handle Stress 3.30 .47 -.36 -.31 -.09 -.29 -.10 -.40 -.13 .16 - -.19 -.08 .05 .15 -.16 -.01 -.04 -.12 .00
20. Helping 3.40 .50 .16 .56 .16 .14 -.07 .21 .07 .08 - .19 .05 -.43 -.14 -.02 -.45 -.30 .08 -.14 -.39
21. Overall 3.53 .51 .02 .14 .09 -.15 .24 .25 .25 .23 - -.12 .28 -.19 .19 .22 -.28 -.04 .20 .05 .03 .08
Subject 38 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.95 .39 .68
2. NA 1.95 .48 -.16 .85
Emotions
3. Angry 1.77 .73 -.09 .62
4. Confident 3.43 .68 .05 -.11 -.21
5. Fatigue 2.30 .60 -.04 .62 .41 -.16
6. Happy 3.30 .88 .55 -.28 .17 .01 -.24
7. Sad 2.00 .79 -.06 .66 .18 .00 .29 -.20
8. Stress 2.27 .69 -.10 .45 .26 -.11 .72 -.36 .32
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.27 .45 .31 -.35 -.22 -.05 -.05 .23 -.29 -.24 -
11. Finacial 2.30 .65 .09 .15 -.14 .48 .12 .02 .13 .05 - -.05
12. Friendship 1.77 .77 .23 .38 .02 .20 .23 -.20 .45 .31 - -.01 .28
13. Health 2.27 .52 .17 -.13 -.19 -.05 -.04 .12 .00 -.11 - .72 .16 .25
14. Leisure 2.07 1.05 .23 .05 -.20 .54 -.03 -.10 .04 -.03 - .11 .63 .44 -.03
15. Neighborhood 1.33 1.37 .01 .04 -.06 .32 .04 -.17 -.03 -.10 - .13 .15 .24 -.18 .58
16. Daily Life 2.00 .51 .24 .09 -.19 .46 .08 -.10 .10 -.02 - .35 .59 .61 .28 .86 .73
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.37 .49 .03 -.18 -.14 .02 -.15 -.02 .00 -.09 - .32 -.14 .14 .28 .09 .17 .21
18. Effort 3.53 .51 .16 -.02 -.21 -.09 -.21 -.14 .09 -.42 - .11 -.19 .06 .23 .06 .13 .11 .02
19. Handle Stress 3.53 .51 -.23 -.25 -.02 -.19 .02 -.22 -.43 -.03 - .11 -.19 -.20 .10 -.26 -.02 -.16 -.12 .06
20. Helping 3.17 .38 -.13 .39 .15 -.16 .23 -.16 .46 .09 - -.07 -.21 .25 -.06 -.03 .29 .12 .40 .06 -.30
21. Overall 3.23 .43 .36 -.02 .18 .11 -.01 .36 -.20 -.10 - .38 .36 .07 .33 .35 .16 .39 .23 .04 .04 -.25
Subject 39 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 3.27 .45 .63
2. NA 2.24 .56 -.11 .79
Emotions
3. Angry 2.57 .82 .06 .57
4. Confident 3.17 .95 .45 -.25 -.21
5. Fatigue 2.77 1.04 .38 .58 .65 .04
6. Happy 3.73 .74 .39 -.29 -.31 .21 -.13
7. Sad 2.13 .86 -.14 .75 .33 -.07 .50 -.10
8. Stress 2.80 1.03 .26 .40 .34 -.14 .76 -.07 .23
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.43 1.17 -.12 -.09 -.12 .15 -.11 -.22 .15 -.13 -
11. Finacial 2.10 1.18 .04 .36 .37 .05 .38 -.01 .16 .27 - -.11
12. Friendship 2.03 1.35 .42 .14 .26 .16 .20 .39 -.03 .13 - -.01 .17
13. Health 1.77 1.74 .11 .32 .10 .42 .27 -.24 .34 .26 - .56 .31 .06
14. Leisure 2.33 .71 -.13 .57 .44 -.34 .34 .04 .43 .19 - -.01 .61 .35 .04
15. Neighborhood 1.57 1.96 .39 .06 .09 .32 .13 .18 -.17 -.11 - -.14 .26 .53 .02 .06
16. Daily Life 2.04 .77 .29 .35 .28 .34 .34 .05 .19 .15 - .37 .60 .63 .63 .45 .62
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.27 .45 .08 -.29 -.14 -.19 -.08 .43 -.18 -.03 - -.29 -.18 .10 -.62 .14 -.18 -.38
18. Effort 3.43 .50 .14 .38 .22 .13 .33 .14 .42 .11 - -.21 .10 .38 -.04 .35 .13 .18 .08
19. Handle Stress 3.57 .50 -.11 .29 .11 -.06 .00 .05 .30 -.04 - .33 -.16 .07 .24 -.06 -.16 .07 -.08 .09
20. Helping 3.23 .43 -.05 -.16 .10 .24 .05 -.12 .10 -.05 - .07 .02 .10 .21 -.15 -.04 .09 -.15 -.01 -.31
21. Overall 3.10 .31 .15 -.21 .04 .06 -.03 .12 -.18 -.04 - .07 .07 .08 .11 .00 .13 .15 .05 -.29 -.38 .34
202
Subject 40 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 3.01 .40 .73
2. NA 1.88 .33 .03 .67
Emotions
3. Angry 2.07 .74 -.13 -.09
4. Confident 3.07 .69 .41 -.27 -.08
5. Fatigue 2.40 .56 .02 -.05 .02 -.07
6. Happy 3.63 .72 .63 .24 -.08 -.02 .20
7. Sad 1.77 .77 .12 .44 -.15 -.16 .22 .27
8. Stress 2.50 .51 .12 .27 -.37 .00 .48 .24 .13
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.27 .64 .06 .06 -.18 .11 -.11 -.01 -.22 .11 -
11. Finacial 1.93 .87 -.02 -.03 -.15 -.11 -.16 -.10 .03 .00 - -.09
12. Friendship 1.60 1.10 .11 .05 -.22 -.19 -.12 .16 .09 .00 - .06 .66
13. Health 1.70 .95 -.04 -.11 -.22 .03 .10 -.02 .04 .11 - .25 .14 .21
14. Leisure 1.97 .93 .07 -.06 -.25 -.10 -.04 -.07 .04 .04 - -.04 .94 .73 .30
15. Neighborhood 1.60 .89 .07 -.07 -.01 .04 -.22 -.02 -.04 .00 - .13 .19 .71 .30 .27
16. Daily Life 1.84 .61 .06 -.04 -.26 -.07 -.13 .00 .01 .06 - .26 .74 .88 .55 .83 .67
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.23 .43 -.09 -.14 -.16 .06 -.11 -.16 .17 -.08 - -.11 .14 .06 -.16 .19 -.02 .03
18. Effort 3.37 .49 .34 -.06 .22 .13 .32 .20 .05 .21 - -.10 -.10 .09 -.05 .03 .19 .02 .07
19. Handle Stress 3.53 .51 .39 .17 .09 .29 -.29 .18 -.11 .00 - .18 -.15 .02 -.23 -.18 .18 -.06 -.12 .16
20. Helping 3.30 .47 -.54 .04 -.06 -.28 .05 -.28 .20 .07 - -.16 .05 .04 -.10 .02 -.03 -.03 .15 -.05 -.26
21. Overall 3.13 .35 -.38 -.16 -.04 -.18 -.11 -.49 -.01 .00 - -.32 .15 .05 .13 .12 .18 .10 .25 -.30 -.42 .17
Subject 41 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 3.51 .65 .88
2. NA 2.62 .77 .72 .93
Emotions
3. Angry 2.83 1.05 .47 .68
4. Confident 3.57 1.10 .68 .34 .02
5. Fatigue 2.97 .81 .31 .41 .52 .02
6. Happy 4.03 .76 .58 .16 .01 .67 -.05
7. Sad 2.73 .98 .39 .73 .52 -.05 .29 -.08
8. Stress 2.97 .85 .26 .43 .65 -.02 .60 .05 .36
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.40 .97 .01 -.25 -.07 .17 -.38 .12 -.32 -.23 -
11. Finacial 1.97 .49 .33 .26 .19 .23 .08 .28 .05 .25 - .10
12. Friendship 1.73 1.17 .45 .48 .19 .31 .03 .39 .30 -.08 - .13 .46
13. Health 2.00 1.08 -.24 -.34 -.33 -.14 -.32 .04 -.10 -.19 - .23 -.06 -.08
14. Leisure 1.67 .99 .12 .06 -.02 .12 -.23 .29 .05 -.18 - .25 .33 .42 .58
15. Neighborhood 1.47 1.59 .29 .09 .05 .26 -.15 .35 -.03 -.19 - .57 .37 .62 .46 .76
16. Daily Life 1.87 .75 .23 .06 -.01 .22 -.24 .36 -.01 -.20 - .57 .44 .64 .55 .83 .96
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.33 .48 .11 .09 -.02 .28 .30 .16 .05 -.06 - -.30 -.10 .04 -.33 -.19 -.17 -.25
18. Effort 3.53 .51 .16 .06 .17 .24 .04 .13 -.19 .36 - -.17 .21 -.04 -.13 -.25 -.23 -.19 -.19
19. Handle Stress 3.53 .51 .28 .06 -.09 .24 .21 .31 .09 -.04 - -.17 -.06 .02 .13 -.05 .07 .00 -.05 .06
20. Helping 3.27 .45 .14 -.04 -.05 -.18 -.07 -.03 .09 -.16 - .14 .04 .07 .14 .13 .21 .19 -.27 -.34 .11
21. Overall 3.30 .47 -.23 .06 -.04 -.34 .03 -.32 .18 .03 - -.20 .05 -.10 -.07 -.22 -.33 -.25 .15 -.26 -.41 .26
Subject 42 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.72 .47 .76
2. NA 1.52 .28 .16 .72
Emotions
3. Angry 1.97 .56 .32 .31
4. Confident 2.73 .69 .78 -.01 .25
5. Fatigue 2.70 .92 -.09 -.50 .12 .09
6. Happy 3.17 .65 .58 -.20 .21 .41 .20
7. Sad 1.40 .50 .21 .61 .05 .12 -.41 -.11
8. Stress 2.10 .71 .07 .04 .10 .06 .37 -.19 -.02
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.37 .49 .33 -.27 .05 .50 .18 .24 -.20 .09 -
11. Finacial 1.90 .61 .02 -.51 .09 .18 .32 .04 -.21 .02 - .47
12. Friendship 1.77 .97 -.07 -.40 .18 .26 .46 -.05 -.23 .08 - .48 .72
13. Health 1.40 1.33 .58 .44 .11 .53 -.46 .04 .38 .07 - .24 -.08 -.17
14. Leisure 2.03 .72 .06 -.51 .09 .30 .38 .21 -.23 .06 - .65 .88 .70 .02
15. Neighborhood 1.63 1.13 .06 -.31 .03 .44 .42 -.01 -.04 .09 - .44 .65 .77 -.13 .61
16. Daily Life 1.85 .59 .28 -.27 .14 .58 .24 .08 -.04 .10 - .72 .80 .79 .32 .84 .78
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.30 .47 .05 -.09 .17 -.06 -.11 .06 .06 -.09 - -.35 -.13 -.07 -.03 -.13 -.31 -.23
18. Effort 3.27 .45 .28 -.04 .31 .35 .28 .32 -.03 .02 - .17 .10 .15 -.07 .18 .27 .18 -.07
19. Handle Stress 3.53 .51 -.13 -.26 .07 .03 .28 -.07 -.19 -.15 - .02 -.04 .19 -.28 .04 .05 -.03 .17 .26
20. Helping 3.27 .45 -.05 -.17 .04 .13 .03 -.04 -.34 -.19 - .01 .23 .31 .16 .18 .20 .29 .10 -.02 -.04
21. Overall 3.23 .43 -.03 .33 -.11 -.13 -.52 -.02 .03 -.19 - -.26 -.30 -.36 .31 -.36 -.31 -.24 .15 -.33 -.43 .38
203
Subject 43 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 3.18 .26 -.18
2. NA 1.72 .34 -.30 .62
Emotions
3. Angry 2.07 .91 .39 .36
4. Confident 3.20 .89 .56 -.39 .28
5. Fatigue 2.23 .73 -.01 .53 .45 -.02
6. Happy 4.00 .95 .32 -.31 -.16 .37 -.30
7. Sad 1.70 .75 -.21 .38 .08 -.37 .07 -.49
8. Stress 2.50 .86 -.03 .42 .44 -.14 .36 -.59 .51
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.77 .50 .09 .05 -.12 -.12 -.03 -.14 .26 .12 -
11. Finacial 2.00 .45 .09 .18 -.17 .09 -.10 .08 .40 -.09 - .45
12. Friendship 2.57 .73 .24 .07 .05 .09 .00 -.05 .32 .03 - .75 .62
13. Health -.57 1.10 -.08 -.30 -.13 .40 -.17 .23 -.42 -.24 - -.43 -.21 -.27
14. Leisure 2.00 .45 .09 .18 -.17 .09 -.10 .08 .40 -.09 - .45 1.00 .62 -.21
15. Neighborhood 2.63 .67 .15 .04 -.07 -.05 -.03 -.16 .25 -.03 - .86 .45 .87 -.34 .45
16. Daily Life 1.90 .38 .14 -.03 -.16 .21 -.14 .05 .20 -.12 - .68 .73 .85 .12 .73 .78
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.40 .50 .06 -.02 -.29 -.11 -.08 -.15 .33 -.08 - .25 .30 .21 -.51 .30 .35 .10
18. Effort 3.40 .50 .17 .13 .02 -.19 .11 .15 -.13 .00 - .11 .00 .11 -.33 .00 .04 -.08 .03
19. Handle Stress 3.57 .50 .17 -.10 .07 .28 -.09 .00 -.08 .12 - .00 -.15 .03 .10 -.15 .13 .03 .03 .16
20. Helping 3.27 .45 .16 .18 .04 .03 .22 .32 -.16 -.09 - .13 .00 .15 -.17 .00 .11 .03 -.03 -.03 -.23
21. Overall 3.17 .38 -.28 .34 -.03 -.21 .23 .00 -.06 -.05 - -.15 .00 -.10 .07 .00 -.16 -.08 .00 -.18 -.51 .34
Subject 44 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.99 .46 .77
2. NA 1.94 .48 -.40 .85
Emotions
3. Angry 2.10 .80 -.28 .67
4. Confident 2.80 .71 .59 -.10 -.20
5. Fatigue 2.63 .67 -.42 .65 .52 .06
6. Happy 3.07 .78 .55 -.35 -.28 .15 -.21
7. Sad 1.77 .63 -.32 .71 .25 .12 .53 -.18
8. Stress 2.63 .67 -.42 .65 .52 .06 1.00 -.21 .53
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 1.97 .67 .43 -.33 -.25 -.09 -.11 .60 -.43 -.11 -
11. Finacial 1.10 1.42 -.09 -.03 -.07 -.28 -.21 .09 -.13 -.21 - .29
12. Friendship 1.23 .90 -.29 .11 .25 -.25 -.08 -.17 -.02 -.08 - -.04 .31
13. Health 1.87 .73 .37 -.34 -.27 -.05 -.10 .62 -.30 -.10 - .77 .01 -.11
14. Leisure 1.33 1.24 -.41 .03 .03 -.51 -.06 -.20 -.21 -.06 - .10 .72 .45 -.14
15. Neighborhood .93 .98 -.39 .15 .27 -.32 .01 -.13 -.03 .01 - -.06 .15 .65 -.06 .30
16. Daily Life 1.41 .62 -.19 -.06 .02 -.45 -.16 .12 -.27 -.16 - .45 .79 .65 .25 .79 .56
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.37 .49 .11 -.22 -.27 .12 -.21 .20 .06 -.21 - .04 -.10 -.20 .24 -.15 -.02 -.09
18. Effort 3.37 .49 .12 -.09 .08 .12 .00 -.24 -.39 .00 - .04 -.10 -.04 -.05 .08 .05 -.01 -.29
19. Handle Stress 3.53 .51 -.21 -.03 -.05 -.08 -.01 -.44 .08 -.01 - -.15 .40 .17 -.17 .37 -.06 .24 .02 .16
20. Helping 3.23 .43 .29 .01 .03 .27 -.17 .05 -.05 -.17 - -.09 .07 -.06 -.23 -.02 -.04 -.07 -.26 .07 -.12
21. Overall 3.27 .45 .35 .15 .21 .39 .22 .34 -.02 .22 - .26 .06 -.24 .22 -.04 -.11 .01 -.15 .01 -.34 .38
Subject 45 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.34 .27 .57
2. NA 1.05 .07 .35 .07
Emotions
3. Angry 1.20 .41 .48 .26
4. Confident 3.30 .47 .58 .38 .22
5. Fatigue 2.73 .78 .28 .28 .17 .04
6. Happy 2.83 .59 .49 .11 .43 .19 .12
7. Sad 1.00 .00 - - - - - -
8. Stress 1.73 .64 -.17 -.02 -.19 .16 .20 -.21 -
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 1.83 .53 -.45 .03 -.32 -.07 -.03 -.20 - .37 -
11. Finacial 1.30 .95 -.68 -.21 -.52 -.44 -.17 -.46 - .25 - .44
12. Friendship .87 1.04 -.13 -.01 -.26 .16 -.13 -.15 - .10 - .02 .11
13. Health 2.00 .59 -.51 .08 -.58 -.13 -.15 -.50 - .18 - .44 .49 .23
14. Leisure 1.43 .73 -.51 -.13 -.30 -.29 -.15 -.39 - .11 - .28 .85 .17 .32
15. Neighborhood .83 1.02 -.10 .02 -.25 .18 -.10 -.10 - .09 - .07 .09 .98 .17 .15
16. Daily Life 1.38 .54 -.55 -.07 -.53 -.12 -.19 -.42 - .25 - .46 .70 .74 .59 .67 .73
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 2.93 .25 .14 .17 .13 .17 -.09 .15 - -.11 - -.09 -.06 -.17 .00 -.02 -.18 -.14
18. Effort 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
19. Handle Stress 2.73 .45 -.11 .18 -.45 .07 .08 -.04 - .10 - .24 .19 -.08 .26 -.06 -.03 .10 .44 -
20. Helping 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
21. Overall 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
204
Subject 46 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.38 .43 .59
2. NA 2.04 .74 .83 .93
Emotions
3. Angry 1.57 .73 .00 .06
4. Confident 2.73 1.20 .40 .50 -.29
5. Fatigue 2.70 1.24 .83 .90 -.15 .66
6. Happy 4.50 .86 -.18 -.14 .08 .20 -.15
7. Sad 1.43 .86 .17 .33 .26 .15 .19 .12
8. Stress 1.53 .68 -.06 -.02 .48 -.37 -.34 .18 .24
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.70 .47 .50 .47 .21 .22 .38 .04 .25 .20 -
11. Finacial 1.57 .94 -.23 -.23 -.08 .11 -.18 .28 .03 .00 - -.15
12. Friendship 1.07 1.08 -.01 .05 -.09 .33 .12 .04 -.03 -.10 - .04 .40
13. Health 2.30 .84 .51 .61 .33 .19 .52 -.22 .34 .25 - .50 -.18 .02
14. Leisure 2.47 .90 .17 .27 .16 .21 .41 -.04 -.05 -.36 - .26 -.24 .22 .17
15. Neighborhood 1.20 1.06 .03 .13 -.02 .26 .05 .11 .20 .18 - .13 .61 .77 .12 -.28
16. Daily Life 1.88 .50 .20 .32 .11 .39 .33 .07 .19 .02 - .39 .53 .83 .40 .29 .79
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 2.90 .31 .27 .23 -.05 .11 .19 -.20 .04 .10 - .02 .08 .23 .39 -.20 .28 .26
18. Effort 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
19. Handle Stress 2.97 .18 .08 .16 .15 .12 .11 -.11 .10 .15 - -.12 .11 .36 .29 -.11 .39 .33 .56 -
20. Helping 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
21. Overall 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Subject 47 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.79 .36 -.41
2. NA 2.36 .60 -.04 .58
Emotions
3. Angry 2.27 1.34 .09 .19
4. Confident 2.33 1.21 .13 .37 -.21
5. Fatigue 2.83 1.09 .11 .12 -.09 -.32
6. Happy 2.87 1.28 .17 -.22 .04 -.01 .23
7. Sad 2.07 1.14 .16 .14 .39 .18 .04 .19
8. Stress 3.07 1.39 -.01 .32 .14 .15 -.15 -.15 -.09
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.23 .57 .11 -.31 -.13 -.22 .01 -.15 -.13 .20 -
11. Finacial 2.13 .73 .15 .32 -.21 -.05 .38 .02 -.05 .20 - -.08
12. Friendship 2.30 .60 .43 -.10 .03 -.05 .19 .14 .22 .18 - .19 -.02
13. Health 2.03 .61 .09 -.13 -.05 -.02 .16 -.08 .00 .12 - .57 -.09 .07
14. Leisure 2.13 .73 .03 .16 -.07 -.01 .20 .17 -.05 -.11 - -.16 .35 .22 -.16
15. Neighborhood 2.13 .73 .37 .09 .07 .10 .03 .13 -.01 .57 - .42 .09 .46 .07 -.03
16. Daily Life 2.16 .34 .38 .05 -.12 -.06 .32 .09 -.01 .38 - .57 .46 .60 .41 .44 .64
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 2.97 .18 -.11 -.23 -.10 -.10 .32 .28 .01 -.26 - -.25 .03 -.22 .01 .03 -.22 -.19
18. Effort 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
19. Handle Stress 2.87 .35 -.04 .02 .23 .19 -.25 .35 -.24 .16 - -.01 -.20 -.13 .18 .21 .07 .04 -.07 -
20. Helping 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
21. Overall 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Subject 48 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.75 .47 .15
2. NA 2.64 .45 -.03 .20
Emotions
3. Angry 2.40 1.38 .26 -.12
4. Confident 2.57 1.45 .29 -.10 .14
5. Fatigue 2.63 1.43 .10 .16 .22 -.06
6. Happy 2.60 1.22 .29 -.09 -.21 .19 -.07
7. Sad 2.17 1.34 -.09 .33 -.19 -.05 .11 -.21
8. Stress 2.77 1.38 .10 .08 -.29 -.03 .38 .33 -.05
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 1.47 1.17 .66 .18 .18 .06 .04 .28 .06 .09 -
11. Finacial 1.37 .89 .35 .31 .10 .05 .22 .04 .09 .07 - .49
12. Friendship 1.20 .96 .55 .43 .17 .09 .13 .19 .16 -.02 - .68 .76
13. Health 1.63 1.07 .64 .24 .29 .03 .20 .10 .02 .20 - .84 .58 .68
14. Leisure 1.27 .87 .25 .24 -.01 -.12 .03 .17 -.13 .00 - .42 .72 .43 .44
15. Neighborhood 1.20 1.06 .60 .37 -.01 .12 -.13 .30 .22 -.11 - .73 .61 .77 .64 .61
16. Daily Life 1.36 .84 .63 .35 .15 .05 .09 .22 .09 .05 - .85 .82 .87 .85 .70 .88
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 2.93 .25 .06 -.19 -.02 -.27 .12 .24 .03 .25 - -.01 -.04 -.08 .03 .08 -.08 -.02
18. Effort 2.97 .18 .02 -.11 -.08 -.32 .22 .09 .16 .24 - -.09 .08 .04 .11 .06 -.14 .01 .69
19. Handle Stress 2.97 .18 .02 -.11 -.08 -.32 .22 .09 .16 .24 - -.09 .08 .04 .11 .06 -.14 .01 .69 1.00
20. Helping 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
21. Overall 2.97 .18 .10 .02 .19 .20 .22 .25 .02 .24 - -.09 -.13 -.16 -.06 -.16 -.14 -.15 -.05 -.03 -.03 -
205
Subject 49 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.78 .21 .05
2. NA 1.12 .14 -.14 .40
Emotions
3. Angry 1.13 .43 -.35 .12
4. Confident 3.97 .18 .16 -.11 .06
5. Fatigue 2.63 .56 -.09 .32 .07 -.12
6. Happy 3.87 .35 -.04 -.30 .12 .47 -.08
7. Sad 1.17 .38 -.04 .52 .28 .08 .14 .18
8. Stress 1.80 .41 .15 .13 -.04 -.09 .73 .05 .00
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 1.67 .71 .16 -.28 .15 .18 .03 .65 .09 .12 -
11. Finacial 1.27 1.08 .27 -.10 -.30 .05 .05 .10 -.20 .05 - .21
12. Friendship 1.13 .86 .28 .06 -.33 .03 -.04 .06 -.28 .08 - .19 .81
13. Health 1.67 .71 .16 -.28 .15 .18 .03 .65 .09 .12 - 1.00 .21 .19
14. Leisure 1.33 .99 .33 -.17 -.35 .06 -.02 .13 -.24 .09 - .16 .94 .87 .16
15. Neighborhood 1.17 .87 .25 .06 -.33 .04 -.01 .08 -.29 .10 - .20 .79 .98 .20 .85
16. Daily Life 1.37 .69 .32 -.14 -.25 .10 .01 .31 -.20 .11 - .52 .89 .90 .52 .90 .89
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 2.93 .25 .04 -.06 .08 -.05 -.18 -.10 -.24 -.13 - .06 -.31 -.12 .06 -.32 -.10 -.18
18. Effort 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
19. Handle Stress 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
20. Helping 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
21. Overall 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Subject 50 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 3.60 .64 .73
2. NA 1.28 .26 -.65 .54
Emotions
3. Angry 1.13 .35 -.44 .41
4. Confident 3.53 1.46 .75 -.62 -.28
5. Fatigue 1.53 .68 -.57 .43 .13 -.40
6. Happy 4.30 1.02 .40 -.49 -.41 .31 -.29
7. Sad 1.43 .73 -.61 .72 .45 -.39 .49 -.46
8. Stress 1.73 .94 -.23 .17 .11 -.12 .44 -.27 .17
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.13 .86 -.28 .44 -.06 -.33 -.01 -.20 .23 .05 -
11. Finacial 1.80 1.21 -.35 .26 .23 -.27 -.16 -.14 .30 -.05 - .49
12. Friendship 1.13 1.17 -.36 .26 .13 -.27 .04 -.38 .38 .03 - .46 .68
13. Health 2.20 .61 -.10 .26 -.13 -.01 .15 -.21 .19 .10 - .60 .29 .40
14. Leisure 1.73 1.23 -.29 .23 .25 -.21 -.24 -.13 .29 -.09 - .43 .98 .65 .21
15. Neighborhood 1.03 1.30 -.45 .23 .14 -.32 .10 -.16 .39 -.08 - .34 .66 .91 .25 .63
16. Daily Life 1.67 .86 -.40 .33 .15 -.31 -.04 -.25 .38 -.03 - .64 .90 .89 .49 .87 .85
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.63 .49 -.57 .37 .09 -.44 .40 -.32 .36 .45 - .37 .39 .15 .14 .35 .07 .30
18. Effort 4.20 .48 -.07 -.05 -.16 .14 .29 -.06 -.06 .05 - -.07 -.28 -.11 .33 -.31 -.07 -.15 .03
19. Handle Stress 4.87 .43 -.01 .22 .12 -.32 .02 .09 -.03 .08 - .14 .21 .04 -.03 .19 .01 .12 .09 -.20
20. Helping 4.50 .57 -.26 .18 .17 -.12 .09 -.32 .37 .19 - .07 .05 .15 -.20 .10 .21 .11 .18 -.12 -.28
21. Overall 3.60 .50 .24 -.27 -.48 .30 -.26 .24 -.27 -.53 - -.27 -.25 -.26 -.18 -.18 -.14 -.26 -.20 .20 -.26 .00
Subject 51 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.74 .28 .12
2. NA 1.27 .25 -.12 .68
Emotions
3. Angry 1.17 .38 .26 .06
4. Confident 2.90 .80 -.42 -.09 -.40
5. Fatigue 2.00 .83 -.24 .05 .00 .05
6. Happy 3.43 .86 .33 -.14 .19 .02 -.15
7. Sad 1.17 .38 -.13 .71 .04 -.17 .11 .19
8. Stress 1.73 .83 -.13 .42 .26 -.09 .55 -.07 .15
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.40 .62 .06 -.26 .15 .22 .13 .05 -.29 .01 -
11. Finacial 2.13 .90 .28 .07 -.17 .11 -.23 -.21 -.07 -.18 - .09
12. Friendship 1.70 1.09 .12 -.14 -.29 .12 -.27 -.26 -.04 -.40 - -.02 .61
13. Health 2.37 .61 -.03 -.23 .17 .22 .20 .02 -.27 .06 - .96 .03 -.09
14. Leisure 1.80 .89 .32 .35 .00 -.13 -.33 -.20 .10 .07 - .09 .64 .22 .01
15. Neighborhood 1.67 1.06 .13 -.12 -.29 .08 -.27 -.29 -.03 -.42 - .00 .59 .99 -.07 .26
16. Daily Life 2.01 .57 .24 -.06 -.17 .14 -.25 -.27 -.12 -.27 - .39 .82 .81 .32 .59 .82
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.60 .50 .30 .27 .18 -.19 -.17 .34 .18 .07 - -.24 .05 -.17 -.29 .36 -.13 -.09
18. Effort 4.07 .45 .06 -.16 -.07 .02 -.18 .19 -.07 -.14 - .02 -.02 .11 .03 -.31 .05 -.02 -.03
19. Handle Stress 4.77 .50 -.15 -.17 -.33 .20 -.25 -.08 .03 -.32 - -.02 -.08 .43 -.05 -.11 .49 .23 .03 .22
20. Helping 4.27 .52 -.03 .28 -.23 .23 .08 .04 .29 -.07 - -.34 .22 .27 -.32 .12 .23 .12 .16 -.08 -.02
21. Overall 3.60 .50 .02 -.19 .00 -.10 .17 -.06 .00 -.18 - -.02 .05 .09 -.07 -.11 .07 .02 -.11 .28 -.11 .29
206
Subject 52 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 3.06 .61 .81
2. NA 1.33 .31 .03 .69
Emotions
3. Angry 1.47 .57 -.17 .61
4. Confident 2.73 1.01 .46 -.39 -.13
5. Fatigue 1.93 .69 .05 .29 .52 .12
6. Happy 3.37 .81 .79 .00 -.01 .50 .05
7. Sad 1.27 .52 .06 .47 .15 -.19 .05 .01
8. Stress 1.80 .71 -.08 .50 .49 -.17 .60 -.05 .06
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 1.93 .64 .30 -.01 -.01 .40 .30 .38 -.15 .05 -
11. Finacial 1.80 .61 .28 .35 .28 .13 .54 .29 .17 .38 - .76
12. Friendship 1.63 .76 .24 .34 .25 -.04 .41 .28 .25 .43 - .37 .72
13. Health 1.87 .68 .24 .10 .17 .25 .27 .34 -.09 .01 - .85 .76 .50
14. Leisure 1.77 .63 .22 .22 .22 .12 .52 .38 .20 .28 - .65 .78 .75 .65
15. Neighborhood 1.63 .81 .21 .30 .31 .00 .45 .32 .24 .41 - .35 .68 .95 .47 .85
16. Daily Life .29 .26 .24 .15 .49 .39 .13 .31 - .75 .91 .86 .81 .91 .86
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.50 .51 -.14 .10 .24 -.07 -.20 -.04 .39 -.19 - .11 .22 .22 .20 .27 .29 .26
18. Effort 3.60 .62 .31 -.30 -.23 .32 .02 .30 -.19 -.26 - .36 -.04 -.25 .20 .02 -.30 -.02 -.22
19. Handle Stress 4.03 .67 .11 -.09 -.22 .01 -.07 .10 -.13 .01 - .09 .19 .43 .09 .18 .34 .27 -.05 -.05
20. Helping 3.83 .59 .04 .09 .24 .10 -.03 -.01 -.19 .08 - .15 .10 .01 .11 -.02 .01 .07 -.06 .00 .36
21. Overall 3.60 .50 .08 -.23 .07 .19 .02 .21 -.24 -.23 - .13 -.05 -.04 .04 .13 .05 .05 .00 .24 .04 .35
Subject 53 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.98 .29 .44
2. NA 1.54 .18 .33 .01
Emotions
3. Angry 1.20 .41 .47 .17
4. Confident 2.97 .93 -.16 .30 -.26
5. Fatigue 3.60 1.61 -.16 -.01 -.45 .48
6. Happy 4.00 .69 -.03 -.11 -.24 -.05 .28
7. Sad 1.30 .47 .15 .10 .22 -.22 -.66 -.21
8. Stress 2.40 .72 -.21 -.16 -.16 .28 .73 .21 -.57
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.13 .68 .31 .33 .15 -.16 -.14 .00 .41 .03 -
11. Finacial 1.90 .80 .42 .30 .59 -.10 -.51 -.19 .27 -.28 - .21
12. Friendship 1.67 1.15 .24 .25 .29 -.04 -.24 -.13 .13 -.08 - .45 .26
13. Health 2.13 .68 .31 .33 .15 -.16 -.14 .00 .41 .03 - 1.00 .21 .45
14. Leisure 2.00 .74 .37 .29 .57 .00 -.43 -.13 .20 -.19 - .20 .92 .40 .20
15. Neighborhood 1.57 1.07 .27 .24 .36 -.12 -.34 -.14 .20 -.12 - .51 .39 .97 .51 .48
16. Daily Life 1.90 .65 .41 .37 .47 -.12 -.40 -.14 .33 -.14 - .70 .64 .84 .70 .70 .90
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.43 .50 .16 .15 -.10 .25 .39 -.10 -.28 .17 - -.27 -.14 -.10 -.27 .00 -.21 -.21
18. Effort 3.47 .57 .29 .15 .03 -.10 -.01 .00 .10 -.22 - -.08 .03 .03 -.08 .00 .00 -.01 .23
19. Handle Stress 3.83 .46 -.10 -.13 .00 .07 .19 .00 -.24 .31 - -.15 .05 -.56 -.15 -.10 -.43 -.34 -.12 -.22
20. Helping 3.83 .65 .06 .06 -.13 -.12 .07 .00 .17 -.07 - .21 -.03 .02 .21 -.14 .04 .05 -.09 .22 .02
21. Overall 3.63 .49 .00 -.26 .03 -.48 -.28 .00 .20 -.16 - .15 -.10 .14 .15 -.09 .15 .10 -.03 .14 -.13 .13
Subject 54 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.92 .45 .21
2. NA 2.93 .43 -.17 .22
Emotions
3. Angry 2.97 1.33 .01 .24
4. Confident 3.23 1.45 -.32 .19 .24
5. Fatigue 3.30 1.18 .23 -.18 .32 .24
6. Happy 2.27 1.31 .41 -.22 .04 .07 .21
7. Sad 2.23 1.07 .34 .31 .15 -.19 -.03 .08
8. Stress 3.07 1.23 .29 -.09 -.19 .18 .27 .10 .04
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 1.90 .48 .25 .11 .05 -.01 -.01 -.01 .51 .01 -
11. Finacial 1.57 .57 .07 -.02 -.07 .13 .05 .16 .12 .29 - -.04
12. Friendship 1.60 1.07 -.14 .12 -.30 .13 -.01 .13 -.07 .28 - -.28 .22
13. Health 2.57 .73 .30 .11 -.19 .03 -.04 .27 .49 .34 - .66 .11 .21
14. Leisure 1.63 .67 .02 -.07 -.17 .16 -.03 -.08 -.12 .24 - .10 .75 .13 .02
15. Neighborhood 1.73 .64 -.02 -.02 .11 .11 .02 -.24 .04 -.02 - .58 -.42 -.16 .26 .01
16. Daily Life 1.83 .37 .11 .09 -.24 .18 -.01 .10 .25 .40 - .49 .50 .54 .69 .59 .32
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.63 .56 -.15 .18 -.02 .07 .12 .00 .03 -.06 - .12 -.30 .03 .19 -.19 .10 .00
18. Effort 3.50 .51 -.13 .09 .03 .26 -.26 .10 .16 .17 - .07 -.06 .25 .23 -.05 .00 .18 .43
19. Handle Stress 3.77 .50 .19 .14 .14 .08 .18 -.06 -.02 -.03 - .04 .36 -.12 -.10 .25 -.09 .06 -.44 -.61
20. Helping 3.77 .57 .08 -.24 -.19 -.22 .01 -.14 -.36 -.08 - -.21 .00 -.05 -.17 .04 -.27 -.19 -.17 -.42 .28
21. Overall 3.63 .56 .08 .09 -.11 -.15 -.19 -.24 -.26 -.06 - -.01 -.08 .03 -.15 .18 .10 .03 .11 .06 -.07 .27
207
Subject 55 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.75 .40 .47
2. NA 1.58 .32 .19 .73
Emotions
3. Angry 1.43 .57 -.01 .36
4. Confident 3.20 .96 -.41 -.23 -.23
5. Fatigue 3.00 1.14 -.41 -.08 .00 .60
6. Happy 3.90 .76 -.07 -.33 -.14 -.02 .44
7. Sad 1.50 .57 .44 .42 .05 -.63 -.58 -.28
8. Stress 2.40 .62 -.09 .17 -.02 .32 .39 -.06 -.19
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.33 .61 .05 -.25 -.13 -.06 -.15 -.07 .00 .09 -
11. Finacial 2.03 .76 .03 -.01 .12 -.24 -.28 .01 .43 .04 - .27
12. Friendship 2.03 .61 -.01 .00 .06 .05 -.24 -.14 .15 -.31 - .34 .14
13. Health 2.33 .61 .05 -.25 -.13 -.06 -.15 -.07 .00 .09 - 1.00 .27 .34
14. Leisure 1.90 .84 .09 .15 .24 -.23 -.29 -.12 .53 .08 - .13 .91 .14 .13
15. Neighborhood 2.00 .69 -.04 -.03 .00 .15 -.17 -.26 .09 -.08 - .49 .19 .89 .49 .18
16. Daily Life 2.11 .48 .04 -.07 .06 -.11 -.31 -.16 .32 -.01 - .72 .72 .65 .72 .66 .74
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.57 .50 .00 .02 .20 .04 -.12 -.30 -.18 .02 - .04 -.14 -.17 .04 -.19 -.10 -.14
18. Effort 3.40 .56 .18 -.11 -.34 -.09 -.05 .10 .11 .12 - .00 .21 -.54 .00 .16 -.53 -.14 .15
19. Handle Stress 3.83 .65 -.19 .27 .58 .22 .23 -.11 -.14 -.09 - .06 -.06 .36 .06 .03 .31 .17 -.02 -.47
20. Helping 3.73 .64 -.01 -.14 .14 .20 .28 -.06 -.09 -.07 - .06 -.05 .29 .06 .01 .23 .13 -.26 -.36 .14
21. Overall 3.37 .56 -.01 .21 .03 .05 .05 -.16 .05 .36 - -.37 -.35 -.34 -.37 -.29 -.36 -.49 -.03 -.04 -.11 -.10
Subject 56 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.84 .51 .68
2. NA 1.52 .26 -.08 .27
Emotions
3. Angry 1.47 .57 .28 .25
4. Confident 2.07 .52 -.52 .24 -.22
5. Fatigue 2.03 .67 .20 -.16 -.40 -.11
6. Happy 3.53 .90 .49 -.37 .30 -.37 .03
7. Sad 1.37 .49 .26 .01 .23 -.10 -.14 .17
8. Stress 1.67 .76 .33 .11 -.34 .06 .70 -.08 -.12
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.43 .57 .29 .19 -.01 .25 -.04 -.06 .40 .19 -
11. Finacial 1.83 .70 .23 .25 .12 -.06 .01 -.07 -.22 .28 - -.07
12. Friendship 1.27 1.14 .37 -.20 .07 -.20 .08 -.11 -.12 .23 - .13 .53
13. Health 2.43 .57 .29 .19 -.01 .25 -.04 -.06 .40 .19 - 1.00 -.07 .13
14. Leisure 1.80 .66 .27 .27 .16 -.06 -.06 -.05 -.19 .21 - -.04 .97 .53 -.04
15. Neighborhood 1.30 1.15 .37 -.20 .15 -.21 .03 -.06 -.08 .20 - .11 .49 .99 .11 .49
16. Daily Life 1.84 .58 .44 .03 .12 -.08 .01 -.10 -.01 .30 - .39 .70 .91 .39 .71 .89
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.47 .51 -.12 -.01 -.18 .01 -.15 -.04 -.02 -.03 - .11 .03 -.16 .11 .08 -.19 -.06
18. Effort 3.50 .57 -.33 -.22 -.11 .00 -.05 -.13 -.06 -.24 - -.16 -.39 -.16 -.16 -.36 -.18 -.31 .00
19. Handle Stress 3.60 .56 .26 -.03 .06 .09 -.05 .23 .05 .00 - .24 .26 .33 .24 .24 .35 .40 .07 -.64
20. Helping 3.53 .51 .16 .43 .06 .25 .15 -.12 .16 .21 - .25 .16 -.02 .25 .12 .01 .14 -.33 -.71 .41
21. Overall 3.47 .51 -.02 -.22 -.06 .01 -.15 .04 -.02 -.12 - -.01 -.06 -.10 -.01 -.02 -.07 -.08 .06 .12 -.17 -.20
Subject 57 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.76 .46 .61
2. NA 1.38 .32 .24 .76
Emotions
3. Angry 1.40 .50 .00 .39
4. Confident 2.63 1.03 .04 .00 -.38
5. Fatigue 1.93 .64 .29 -.07 .19 -.09
6. Happy 3.30 1.02 .44 .32 -.04 .11 -.02
7. Sad 1.43 .68 -.05 .62 .29 -.16 -.09 -.04
8. Stress 1.83 .87 .44 -.17 .24 .01 .53 .21 -.11
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.50 .63 .18 .30 .00 -.08 -.17 .19 .28 -.09 -
11. Finacial 2.23 .82 .24 .17 .02 -.14 -.17 .49 .06 .10 - .37
12. Friendship 1.73 .74 .18 .39 .02 .00 -.11 .25 .38 -.12 - .44 .56
13. Health 2.50 .63 .18 .30 .00 -.08 -.17 .19 .28 -.09 - 1.00 .37 .44
14. Leisure 2.23 .86 .38 .16 .10 -.13 .03 .27 .12 .19 - .35 .85 .54 .35
15. Neighborhood 1.73 .74 .18 .39 .02 .00 -.11 .25 .38 -.12 - .44 .56 1.00 .44 .54
16. Daily Life 2.16 .58 .29 .35 .04 -.09 -.14 .35 .30 -.02 - .72 .81 .84 .72 .80 .84
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.40 .56 -.07 .13 .27 -.33 -.02 .14 -.02 -.07 - -.10 .16 .02 -.10 .16 .02 .05
18. Effort 3.43 .63 -.31 -.12 .09 .09 .25 -.26 .11 .07 - .04 .07 .18 .04 .19 .18 .15 -.02
19. Handle Stress 3.43 .57 -.17 .10 .10 -.01 .18 -.17 .21 .01 - .14 -.23 .04 .14 -.21 .04 -.04 -.02 -.16
20. Helping 3.37 .49 .34 .11 -.06 .00 .08 .12 -.18 -.01 - .06 -.39 -.10 .06 -.37 -.10 -.21 -.17 -.65 .28
21. Overall 3.50 .51 -.13 -.39 .00 .03 .00 -.36 -.35 .19 - -.38 -.21 -.37 -.38 -.20 -.37 -.39 -.24 .16 -.42 -.07
208
Subject 58 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.76 .80 .87
2. NA 1.91 .50 -.83 .68
Emotions
3. Angry 1.87 1.20 -.36 .32
4. Confident 2.90 1.54 .64 -.52 -.42
5. Fatigue 2.87 1.38 -.59 .66 .01 -.38
6. Happy 3.23 1.77 .93 -.80 -.37 .67 -.55
7. Sad 2.33 1.30 -.76 .78 .32 -.61 .56 -.81
8. Stress 3.63 1.45 -.21 .31 -.15 -.22 .63 -.38 .23
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 1.93 1.23 .59 -.45 -.26 .43 -.37 .64 -.44 -.30 -
11. Finacial 2.37 1.03 .71 -.56 -.35 .57 -.50 .70 -.58 -.23 - .83
12. Friendship 2.13 .97 .66 -.49 -.46 .40 -.40 .60 -.47 -.11 - .73 .91
13. Health 2.17 1.29 .64 -.47 -.34 .48 -.30 .66 -.49 -.19 - .92 .91 .83
14. Leisure 1.80 1.03 .49 -.42 -.16 .36 -.65 .50 -.36 -.49 - .75 .65 .61 .57
15. Neighborhood 1.83 1.05 .44 -.47 -.21 .33 -.56 .46 -.44 -.31 - .74 .66 .63 .55 .86
16. Daily Life 2.04 .98 .66 -.54 -.33 .48 -.51 .67 -.52 -.31 - .94 .93 .88 .91 .83 .83
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.30 .53 .14 -.08 -.10 -.17 -.04 .11 -.15 -.03 - -.02 .04 .19 .03 -.01 -.09 .02
18. Effort 3.33 .71 -.13 .15 -.11 .22 .29 -.15 -.09 .19 - .03 .06 .03 .16 -.28 -.20 -.03 .00
19. Handle Stress 3.40 .50 -.19 .15 .27 -.13 .03 -.19 .27 -.08 - -.01 -.16 -.26 -.16 .09 .13 -.07 -.47 -.10
20. Helping 3.47 .57 -.14 .30 .20 .09 .08 -.18 .16 .13 - .00 -.07 -.12 -.11 .16 .13 .00 -.25 -.14 .41
21. Overall 3.23 .57 .24 -.20 -.36 .38 .04 .35 -.39 .11 - .22 .32 .32 .27 .14 .30 .29 -.12 -.03 -.10 -.03
Subject 59 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 3.19 .76 .67
2. NA 3.00 .70 -.62 .64
Emotions
3. Angry 2.70 1.29 -.34 .67
4. Confident 2.73 1.39 .16 -.46 -.33
5. Fatigue 3.13 1.36 -.20 .55 .46 -.27
6. Happy 3.07 1.46 .17 -.38 -.17 .40 -.06
7. Sad 2.57 1.50 -.43 .36 .30 -.12 -.04 -.22
8. Stress 2.90 1.30 -.24 .60 .62 -.23 .75 -.20 -.02
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.47 .68 .16 -.09 .01 .21 -.18 .28 -.13 -.18 -
11. Finacial 1.60 .77 .23 -.32 -.47 .15 -.11 -.10 -.04 -.21 - -.29
12. Friendship 2.23 .68 .20 -.32 -.23 .25 -.26 .37 -.07 -.17 - .65 -.28
13. Health 2.57 .68 .17 -.14 -.07 .13 -.12 .31 -.02 -.29 - .82 -.08 .60
14. Leisure 1.87 .57 .37 -.31 -.01 -.18 -.24 .05 -.23 -.25 - .25 -.20 .26 .29
15. Neighborhood 2.50 .73 .13 -.09 -.09 -.07 .00 .26 -.36 -.09 - .69 -.12 .66 .73 .25
16. Daily Life 2.21 .43 .33 -.33 -.25 .14 -.24 .31 -.22 -.31 - .82 .05 .76 .88 .44 .85
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.30 .53 -.36 .34 .38 -.03 .28 .11 .30 .14 - -.02 -.12 -.01 .09 .02 .04 .00
18. Effort 3.33 .71 .43 -.25 .08 .09 -.26 .18 -.12 -.11 - .09 .00 .05 .02 .20 .00 .09 .00
19. Handle Stress 3.43 .50 .03 .00 -.06 .07 -.04 .05 -.02 .12 - .39 -.16 .30 .16 -.15 .33 .24 -.50 -.13
20. Helping 3.43 .50 -.17 .20 -.11 -.12 .06 -.18 -.06 .12 - -.01 -.07 .10 -.04 -.15 .23 .03 -.24 -.13 .46
21. Overall 3.23 .57 .16 .02 -.14 .04 -.04 -.02 -.08 -.25 - .15 .14 -.06 .18 -.22 .12 .10 -.12 -.03 -.12 .00
Subject 60 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.89 .34 -.60
2. NA 3.05 .44 -.87 -.09
Emotions
3. Angry 2.90 1.18 -.03 -.09
4. Confident 3.67 1.40 -.33 .26 -.06
5. Fatigue 2.67 1.42 .09 -.25 .10 -.21
6. Happy 3.27 1.34 .28 -.49 .30 -.32 .12
7. Sad 3.50 1.36 .14 -.28 -.03 -.22 -.09 -.02
8. Stress 2.00 1.02 -.62 .50 .14 .12 -.05 .03 -.25
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 1.83 .46 .04 .06 .16 .12 -.35 -.21 -.19 .00 -
11. Finacial 1.97 .49 .33 -.35 .17 -.37 -.02 .17 .28 -.07 - .28
12. Friendship 1.33 .48 -.01 -.03 .18 -.09 .17 .18 .11 -.07 - -.36 .05
13. Health 1.93 .52 .02 .06 -.07 .02 -.40 -.32 -.05 -.13 - .81 .26 -.32
14. Leisure 1.47 .51 -.16 .24 -.21 -.16 -.16 .06 .05 .07 - -.25 .06 -.24 -.14
15. Neighborhood 1.63 .49 -.14 .23 .17 .12 -.43 -.06 -.08 -.07 - .64 .23 -.05 .44 -.26
16. Daily Life 1.69 .24 .03 .07 .14 -.13 -.42 -.06 .04 -.10 - .73 .65 .02 .72 .08 .69
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.93 .64 -.13 .26 -.24 .17 -.18 -.34 .00 -.11 - -.39 -.45 -.15 -.22 .42 -.30 -.37
18. Effort 3.53 .63 -.02 -.18 .17 .13 .17 .03 .12 .22 - -.04 .06 .19 -.10 -.27 -.13 -.10 -.08
19. Handle Stress 3.23 .77 .06 .14 -.39 -.02 -.15 -.36 -.05 -.13 - .02 -.07 -.03 .13 .06 -.13 -.01 .03 -.34
20. Helping 3.57 .73 -.29 .25 .07 .19 .02 .23 -.19 .28 - -.22 -.43 .13 -.26 -.09 -.07 -.33 -.06 .22 -.18
21. Overall 3.83 .79 .20 -.32 .28 -.05 -.08 .47 .05 .09 - -.08 .07 -.03 -.36 .11 .01 -.10 -.02 .12 -.27 -.01
209
Subject 61 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Mood
1. PA 3.12 .35 -.15
2. NA 2.97 .38 -.34 .12
Emotions
3. Angry 3.10 1.30 -.10 .17
4. Confident 2.77 1.50 -.13 .12 -.24
5. Fatigue 3.53 1.20 -.01 .12 -.10 .13
6. Happy 3.23 1.28 .33 -.16 .01 -.11 .05
7. Sad 3.13 1.28 -.32 .40 .05 -.18 .27 -.19
8. Stress 3.40 1.30 -.30 .13 .20 .24 .30 -.18 .13
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 1.57 .68 -.04 .11 -.07 -.03 .08 .08 -.01 .12 -
11. Finacial 1.43 .50 -.41 .46 .20 .05 .18 .05 .28 .15 - -.24
12. Friendship 1.53 .57 .21 -.23 -.26 -.09 -.03 .01 -.29 .21 - .35 -.23
13. Health 1.77 .94 -.04 .12 -.04 .08 .12 -.01 -.23 .22 - .87 -.22 .31
14. Leisure 1.57 .63 -.14 .04 -.07 .11 -.10 -.30 .12 .09 - -.05 .29 .09 -.06
15. Neighborhood 1.60 .62 -.04 -.09 -.08 -.10 .06 -.18 -.15 .25 - .64 -.42 .52 .55 .07
16. Daily Life 1.58 .39 -.11 .11 -.10 .01 .09 -.10 -.12 .30 - .84 -.03 .59 .82 .33 .73
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.73 .83 -.06 .25 .28 .06 -.03 .06 .07 -.06 - .16 -.04 -.20 .18 -.16 .12 .05
18. Effort 3.53 .63 -.17 .35 .19 .21 .07 -.03 -.01 -.23 - .32 .22 -.05 .16 -.09 .12 .21 .28
19. Handle Stress 3.23 .94 -.37 .25 .09 .06 .19 -.36 .12 .43 - -.11 .07 -.05 .14 .12 .11 .09 -.05 -.39
20. Helping 3.37 .96 .04 .26 -.03 .37 .09 .01 .01 -.01 - .04 -.13 .07 -.09 .16 .08 .03 .39 .41 -.14
21. Overall 3.87 .68 .25 .11 .02 -.23 .09 .00 -.06 -.33 - .09 -.13 -.08 .06 -.06 .11 .02 -.13 .25 -.44 -.03
Subject 62 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.26 .35 .43
2. NA 1.70 .37 -.36 .67
Emotions
3. Angry 1.47 .63 -.43 .39
4. Confident 2.30 .88 .10 -.21 .24
5. Fatigue 1.70 .79 .12 -.10 .29 -.01
6. Happy 2.73 .78 .17 -.16 .19 .37 .03
7. Sad 1.77 .63 -.18 .36 .11 .01 .13 -.41
8. Stress 1.80 .71 -.24 .20 .29 -.23 .56 -.28 .35
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 1.70 1.12 .21 -.30 -.19 .34 -.22 -.21 -.10 -.08 -
11. Finacial 1.47 .78 .11 -.22 -.18 .34 .18 .15 -.12 .24 - .29
12. Friendship .83 1.62 .32 -.49 -.36 .35 .23 -.04 -.04 .09 - .33 .61
13. Health 1.87 1.07 -.09 -.10 .10 .34 -.13 -.17 -.05 .19 - .77 .49 .26
14. Leisure 1.37 .72 .21 -.28 -.32 .26 .14 .00 -.11 .15 - .36 .92 .62 .42
15. Neighborhood 1.03 1.63 .20 -.22 -.32 .04 .25 .17 -.09 .15 - -.05 .59 .76 .10 .49
16. Daily Life 1.38 .85 .24 -.39 -.31 .36 .12 -.02 -.11 .16 - .56 .83 .87 .63 .80 .73
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.83 .53 .09 .04 -.07 .19 -.04 -.03 -.12 .09 - .26 .20 -.07 .14 .17 -.11 .08
18. Effort 3.60 .62 -.39 .07 .41 -.09 .03 .13 .11 .20 - -.13 -.31 -.38 .02 -.36 -.26 -.32 -.10
19. Handle Stress 3.17 .91 .32 -.08 -.08 -.19 .31 -.13 -.05 .42 - -.05 .18 .32 -.12 .22 .37 .24 .06 -.30
20. Helping 3.57 .82 -.17 -.23 .07 .00 .01 -.08 -.34 -.09 - -.03 -.21 -.13 -.19 -.13 -.20 -.20 .30 .12 -.08
21. Overall 3.90 .66 -.30 .09 .12 -.12 .07 .01 .02 .03 - .00 -.11 -.18 .08 -.14 -.06 -.09 -.05 .23 -.26 -.08
Subject 63 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.61 .63 .63
2. NA 2.43 .63 .30 .70
Emotions
3. Angry 2.80 1.32 .25 .59
4. Confident 1.97 1.45 .52 -.01 .00
5. Fatigue 2.17 1.02 .20 .14 .23 .26
6. Happy 2.60 1.33 .40 -.15 .19 .30 .03
7. Sad 2.30 1.24 .13 .50 .42 -.01 -.01 -.20
8. Stress 2.27 1.31 .44 .44 .35 .11 .35 -.17 .52
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 1.10 2.12 .30 -.30 -.25 -.08 .06 .19 -.05 -.08 -
11. Finacial -.10 2.40 .08 -.21 -.23 -.06 -.05 -.16 -.20 .09 - .35
12. Friendship .50 2.24 -.03 -.14 -.24 .01 -.05 -.16 .04 -.02 - .47 .37
13. Health 1.47 2.26 .28 -.36 -.23 -.08 .08 .19 -.11 -.11 - .97 .33 .42
14. Leisure -.33 2.31 -.09 -.13 -.14 -.14 .00 -.27 -.24 .05 - .17 .78 .49 .14
15. Neighborhood 1.20 2.07 .05 -.33 -.30 .01 -.02 -.01 -.04 -.08 - .75 .23 .72 .70 .32
16. Daily Life .64 1.68 .13 -.33 -.31 -.08 .00 -.06 -.14 -.03 - .81 .70 .77 .78 .66 .81
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.77 .63 -.14 -.06 -.02 -.05 .17 .26 -.26 -.34 - .25 -.18 .18 .25 -.29 .17 .08
18. Effort 3.50 .73 -.13 .05 .21 -.08 -.30 -.14 .36 -.11 - -.17 -.34 -.05 -.15 -.31 -.07 -.25 -.26
19. Handle Stress 3.37 .81 .18 .17 .01 .36 .13 .01 -.08 .16 - -.08 .02 -.12 -.12 .18 .00 -.03 -.17 -.50
20. Helping 3.40 .77 -.20 -.38 .05 .10 -.13 .13 -.02 -.18 - .06 .02 -.02 .07 .02 .19 .07 -.09 .24 -.30
21. Overall 3.87 .68 -.27 .07 -.15 -.25 .03 -.18 -.07 -.34 - -.04 -.03 .11 -.07 .08 .00 .01 .17 .07 -.28 -.03
210
Subject 64 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 3.01 .29 -1.42
2. NA 3.10 .30 -.56 -1.41
Emotions
3. Angry 3.23 1.36 -.05 -.30
4. Confident 2.63 1.63 -.38 .19 -.16
5. Fatigue 2.17 1.37 -.20 -.23 .13 -.02
6. Happy 3.17 1.46 .10 -.41 -.04 -.18 -.17
7. Sad 2.77 1.17 -.39 -.04 -.01 -.01 .26 .06
8. Stress 1.77 1.07 .08 -.43 -.03 -.05 -.04 .35 .12
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 1.43 .86 -.19 .06 .06 .24 .20 -.28 .31 .00 -
11. Finacial 1.57 1.01 .03 -.10 .08 .11 -.05 -.23 .12 .19 - .42
12. Friendship 1.53 .86 -.29 .30 -.08 .14 .04 -.43 .16 -.23 - .42 .44
13. Health 1.87 .82 .02 -.15 .31 .07 -.01 -.12 .15 -.23 - .43 -.07 .10
14. Leisure 1.67 .80 -.14 .00 .14 .11 -.01 -.19 .25 .11 - .52 .54 .47 -.02
15. Neighborhood 1.43 .77 -.09 -.04 .00 -.03 .06 -.16 .23 -.04 - .64 .47 .57 .26 .46
16. Daily Life 1.58 .59 -.16 .02 .12 .16 .05 -.34 .29 -.04 - .82 .70 .72 .39 .71 .81
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.87 .51 .12 .16 -.30 -.10 -.17 .08 -.05 -.12 - -.10 -.25 -.07 -.38 -.03 .06 -.19
18. Effort 3.40 .89 -.21 .14 .09 -.25 .54 -.16 .46 -.26 - -.05 -.30 -.11 .03 -.10 -.21 -.18 -.11
19. Handle Stress 3.33 .71 .04 .16 .06 .20 -.38 -.32 -.11 -.21 - .32 .40 .38 .32 .26 .36 .49 -.06 -.43
20. Helping 3.47 .94 .04 .01 .26 -.40 .39 -.13 -.15 -.16 - -.09 -.40 -.15 -.01 -.20 -.29 -.28 .06 .47 -.19
21. Overall 3.83 .75 -.04 .25 -.23 -.14 -.11 -.07 -.05 .25 - .12 .18 .20 -.32 .54 -.05 .16 .03 .05 -.28 -.08
Subject 65 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.98 .49 .49
2. NA 2.74 .50 .34 .54
Emotions
3. Angry 2.67 1.37 .44 .22
4. Confident 4.00 1.14 .13 .01 .37
5. Fatigue 3.10 1.47 .37 -.02 .14 .02
6. Happy 4.10 1.09 .06 .09 .16 .41 -.33
7. Sad 3.00 1.36 .11 .27 .44 .38 .21 .49
8. Stress 2.83 1.46 .42 .08 .26 .19 .41 -.03 .21
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.93 .25 .35 -.06 .13 .12 -.07 .27 .10 -.22 -
11. Finacial 1.13 .43 .06 -.09 -.21 -.21 -.08 .12 .00 -.02 - .08
12. Friendship 1.93 .45 -.12 .10 -.04 -.33 -.15 .08 .00 -.49 - -.04 .22
13. Health 2.80 .55 -.22 -.20 -.23 -.16 -.27 -.14 -.28 .00 - -.10 -.46 -.19
14. Leisure 1.17 .38 .02 -.23 -.22 -.24 .09 .21 .13 .11 - .12 .70 .27 -.33
15. Neighborhood 2.20 .61 -.16 .12 -.33 -.25 -.10 .02 .12 -.12 - -.36 .16 .55 -.18 .30
16. Daily Life 2.03 .21 -.12 -.10 -.39 -.44 -.23 .14 .00 -.25 - .04 .54 .70 .00 .68 .69
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.60 .62 .43 .13 .36 .19 .05 .01 .24 .08 - .26 .08 -.10 -.14 .00 -.24 -.14
18. Effort 3.30 .47 .12 -.17 .05 .00 .16 -.40 -.33 .13 - -.12 -.20 -.07 .24 -.29 -.22 -.21 -.05
19. Handle Stress 3.47 .78 -.16 .07 .28 .12 -.25 .15 .00 -.17 - .16 -.29 -.01 .31 -.27 -.28 -.16 .26 -.40
20. Helping 3.60 .56 .50 -.01 .40 .05 .26 -.10 -.09 .04 - .29 -.20 .03 -.16 -.16 -.26 -.25 .41 .08 .21
21. Overall 3.10 .31 -.38 -.29 -.25 -.20 -.25 .07 -.17 -.35 - .09 .16 .30 .12 .15 .07 .32 -.15 .02 .09 -.36
Subject 66 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 4.01 .50 .80
2. NA 2.45 .44 .68 .77
Emotions
3. Angry 2.07 .25 .18 .40
4. Confident 4.57 .68 .73 .50 .17
5. Fatigue 2.40 .72 .35 .41 .23 .36
6. Happy 4.43 .82 .78 .53 .19 .60 .28
7. Sad 2.10 .40 .37 .56 .61 .29 .33 .28
8. Stress 2.07 .25 .18 .40 1.00 .17 .23 .19 .61
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.87 .35 .05 .09 .10 -.11 -.47 -.03 .10 .10 -
11. Finacial 2.87 .35 .33 .32 .10 .19 .22 .21 .10 .10 - .13
12. Friendship 2.57 .68 .47 .41 -.03 .40 .29 .47 .16 -.03 - -.11 .48
13. Health 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - -
14. Leisure 2.60 .56 .49 .49 -.05 .52 .15 .54 .18 -.05 - .07 .42 .88 -
15. Neighborhood 2.70 .47 .44 .26 -.12 .34 .27 .35 .17 -.12 - -.04 .60 .77 - .71
16. Daily Life 2.77 .30 .51 .45 -.01 .41 .18 .46 .20 -.01 - .19 .68 .91 - .91 .87
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.80 .61 -.28 -.46 -.58 -.30 -.20 -.24 -.48 -.58 - .03 .03 .03 - -.04 .27 .08
18. Effort 3.43 .57 -.06 -.05 .27 .06 -.18 .03 -.05 .27 - -.05 -.40 -.48 - -.41 -.53 -.52 -.04
19. Handle Stress 3.33 .80 .08 .23 .06 -.23 .00 .19 .32 .06 - .04 -.08 .15 - .08 -.09 .05 -.07 -.18
20. Helping 3.57 .57 -.36 -.31 -.27 -.32 -.15 -.47 -.26 -.27 - .05 -.30 -.41 - -.45 -.38 -.44 .34 .39 -.05
21. Overall 3.17 .46 .29 .25 -.10 .02 .10 .26 .09 -.10 - .14 .14 .24 - .27 .24 .29 -.12 -.15 .22 .02
211
Subject 67 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 3.17 .30 -1.15
2. NA 2.83 .37 -.94 -.46
Emotions
3. Angry 1.90 1.16 -.22 .15
4. Confident 3.77 1.48 .21 -.09 -.60
5. Fatigue 3.00 1.29 .23 -.24 -.26 -.09
6. Happy 3.47 1.01 .19 -.19 -.40 .03 .03
7. Sad 2.67 1.40 -.34 .32 .13 -.24 -.52 -.47
8. Stress 1.93 1.05 -.09 .11 .45 -.05 -.36 -.17 .08
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.43 .68 -.29 .31 .10 -.24 -.16 .00 .34 .28 -
11. Finacial 2.30 .60 -.39 .40 -.06 -.04 -.13 -.13 .21 -.08 - .18
12. Friendship 1.70 .70 .09 -.09 -.04 -.24 .42 -.09 -.07 -.12 - .14 .14
13. Health 2.53 .63 -.24 .26 .17 .06 -.38 .03 .13 .16 - .33 -.17 -.17
14. Leisure 1.77 .63 .02 -.01 .25 -.21 .13 -.31 .07 -.18 - .00 .56 .31 -.20
15. Neighborhood 1.93 .58 -.15 .09 .04 -.30 .09 .11 .01 .05 - -.01 .26 .12 -.09 .24
16. Daily Life 2.11 .32 -.31 .31 .15 -.32 .00 -.13 .23 .04 - .56 .63 .53 .24 .62 .47
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.70 .47 -.16 .12 -.19 .25 .06 -.06 .00 -.25 - -.12 .21 .03 -.02 -.01 .05 .04
18. Effort 3.40 .56 -.09 -.03 .06 .03 .10 -.16 .04 -.36 - -.38 -.16 -.12 -.14 .08 -.13 -.28 .34
19. Handle Stress 3.33 .76 -.15 .14 .00 .16 .07 -.26 .08 .29 - .11 -.31 -.13 -.02 -.41 -.18 -.30 .10 -.16
20. Helping 3.47 .78 -.20 .17 -.25 -.05 .31 .11 -.14 -.13 - .06 .28 .33 -.10 .02 .22 .27 .31 -.05 .02
21. Overall 3.13 .43 .01 .04 -.25 .21 .31 .25 -.44 .17 - .03 -.03 .14 -.14 -.39 .04 -.11 .03 -.23 .17 .12
Subject 68 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 3.33 .40 -.02
2. NA 2.57 .61 -.69 .62
Emotions
3. Angry 3.20 1.58 -.07 -.14
4. Confident 3.37 1.50 -.01 -.18 -.35
5. Fatigue 3.37 1.40 .48 -.52 -.13 -.15
6. Happy 3.93 1.46 .04 -.42 .35 -.04 -.14
7. Sad 2.67 1.60 .14 -.40 -.19 .02 .26 -.11
8. Stress 1.73 1.08 -.36 .11 .17 -.24 .14 .05 -.01
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.17 .79 .28 -.44 -.11 -.11 .60 -.17 .32 .26 -
11. Finacial 1.87 .43 .00 .02 .34 -.29 -.20 .20 -.07 .00 - -.03
12. Friendship 1.53 .57 -.08 .13 .03 -.12 -.21 .04 .09 -.21 - -.20 .16
13. Health 2.00 .83 .28 -.28 -.31 -.03 .56 -.37 .36 .04 - .68 -.19 -.44
14. Leisure 1.47 .57 -.15 .48 .01 -.17 -.39 -.25 -.28 -.24 - -.33 -.02 .06 -.29
15. Neighborhood 1.80 .71 -.20 .07 -.05 -.15 -.03 -.18 .45 -.03 - .12 .13 .35 .06 -.02
16. Daily Life 1.81 .28 .11 -.10 -.13 -.30 .28 -.35 .43 -.02 - .66 .25 .24 .53 .05 .65
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.67 .55 .28 -.23 -.12 .28 .21 -.24 .18 -.39 - .05 -.34 .04 .08 .07 .09 .05
18. Effort 3.10 .61 -.24 .42 -.20 .00 -.37 -.26 -.04 -.17 - -.04 .18 .54 -.07 .36 .21 .39 .00
19. Handle Stress 3.43 .86 .16 -.38 .31 .09 .09 .30 -.12 -.09 - .09 -.21 .08 -.15 -.08 -.08 -.11 .10 -.15
20. Helping 3.57 .68 .17 -.19 -.01 -.04 .32 -.10 .21 -.21 - .27 .03 -.18 .12 .09 .10 .20 .43 -.23 .16
21. Overall 2.93 .64 -.36 .38 .01 -.19 -.05 .00 -.19 .07 - -.32 -.16 .10 -.13 .18 .12 -.11 -.16 -.16 -.39 -.15
Subject 69 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.29 .28 .30
2. NA 1.67 .26 .31 .34
Emotions
3. Angry 1.13 .35 -.23 -.10
4. Confident 3.30 .88 -.26 -.29 -.02
5. Fatigue 2.23 .90 .35 .45 .12 -.18
6. Happy 4.83 .46 .20 -.31 -.07 -.21 -.07
7. Sad 1.60 .62 -.12 -.06 .10 .42 .05 -.12
8. Stress 1.43 .50 .20 .38 -.15 .09 .15 -.27 .24
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 1.93 .64 .11 .01 .04 -.33 -.03 .31 -.16 .09 -
11. Finacial 2.03 .32 -.11 -.19 -.35 .33 -.39 .04 .07 .34 - .01
12. Friendship 2.47 .73 -.04 -.12 -.12 .20 -.28 .34 .05 .09 - .07 .37
13. Health 2.03 .18 .07 .10 -.07 .15 .16 .07 -.18 .21 - -.28 -.02 -.12
14. Leisure 2.57 .63 -.33 -.09 .12 .50 -.55 -.26 .16 .07 - -.33 .25 .38 .13
15. Neighborhood 2.17 .70 -.11 -.50 .19 .20 -.28 .20 .08 -.02 - .03 .28 .38 -.05 .41
16. Daily Life 2.20 .30 -.15 -.30 .01 .29 -.48 .25 .04 .17 - .25 .53 .77 -.02 .60 .74
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.77 .50 .03 .31 -.21 -.15 .20 -.17 .13 .41 - -.37 .05 -.07 .09 .00 -.08 -.18
18. Effort 3.13 .63 -.47 -.33 -.08 .30 .00 -.28 -.12 -.30 - -.32 -.02 -.07 -.04 .06 .03 -.11 -.22
19. Handle Stress 3.33 .71 -.29 .06 -.05 .11 .09 -.14 -.08 -.13 - -.03 -.05 -.38 .18 -.21 -.25 -.33 .13 -.03
20. Helping 3.53 .73 .06 .41 -.15 -.10 .43 -.24 -.05 -.09 - -.36 -.23 -.29 .12 -.31 -.18 -.45 .35 .14 .24
21. Overall 3.17 .59 -.42 -.55 .06 .37 -.46 .11 .00 -.13 - -.06 .33 -.03 -.05 .20 .18 .17 -.33 .31 .27 -.29
212
Subject 70 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 3.02 .39 .11
2. NA 1.63 .25 -.22 .46
Emotions
3. Angry 1.83 .53 -.35 .53
4. Confident 4.27 1.23 -.21 -.08 .28
5. Fatigue 2.73 1.20 .16 -.09 -.23 -.39
6. Happy 3.50 1.07 -.07 .11 -.09 -.34 .11
7. Sad 1.47 .57 -.47 .53 .15 -.09 -.16 .34
8. Stress 2.40 .81 .06 -.08 -.32 -.11 .57 .04 -.12
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.40 .72 -.15 -.13 .09 .11 .36 -.09 -.13 .25 -
11. Finacial 1.73 .45 .05 -.04 -.19 -.18 .12 .36 -.04 .11 - .34
12. Friendship 1.37 .72 .26 .10 .08 -.08 -.04 -.02 .07 -.20 - -.16 -.33
13. Health 2.47 .82 -.04 -.16 -.21 -.16 .38 .31 -.04 .18 - .55 .54 -.30
14. Leisure 1.20 .41 -.26 .47 .32 .23 -.10 .00 .33 .06 - .19 .30 -.14 .23
15. Neighborhood 1.53 .68 .44 -.09 .06 .19 .10 -.38 -.48 -.15 - .11 -.31 .29 -.15 -.27
16. Daily Life 1.78 .30 .15 -.02 .02 .02 .34 .05 -.16 .08 - .76 .45 .19 .68 .32 .33
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.13 .51 .13 .13 .09 .16 -.17 .00 .02 -.13 - .23 -.14 .43 -.15 -.13 .39 .27
18. Effort 3.23 .68 -.30 .15 .11 -.04 -.13 -.35 -.02 -.05 - -.27 -.24 -.18 -.02 .20 -.28 -.31 -.09
19. Handle Stress 3.10 .48 .25 -.20 -.34 .07 .11 -.23 -.18 .42 - .18 .13 -.01 .14 -.11 .04 .16 -.06 -.07
20. Helping 3.33 .66 .12 -.05 -.03 .06 -.01 .24 .03 .13 - -.36 .08 -.12 -.36 .00 -.18 -.40 -.14 -.18 -.11
21. Overall 3.07 .37 -.06 .27 .06 -.35 -.12 .26 .18 -.09 - -.10 .11 -.10 .12 -.09 -.15 -.07 -.05 -.06 -.04 -.10
Subject 71 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 3.06 .58 .59
2. NA 1.73 .46 -.28 .66
Emotions
3. Angry 1.70 .88 -.03 .28
4. Confident 2.03 .85 -.02 .16 -.17
5. Fatigue 3.20 1.58 -.18 .18 .27 -.16
6. Happy 3.10 1.09 -.21 .40 .21 -.04 .09
7. Sad 1.87 1.01 -.16 .53 .54 -.20 .19 -.05
8. Stress 3.20 1.40 -.15 .37 .36 -.21 .48 .01 .36
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.07 1.39 .22 .10 -.01 -.06 -.24 -.07 .33 -.08 -
11. Finacial 1.27 1.46 -.02 -.04 .15 .38 -.14 .16 -.28 -.09 - .11
12. Friendship 1.43 1.57 .41 .00 .20 .25 .20 -.33 .10 .23 - .21 .02
13. Health 1.33 1.95 -.13 -.17 -.16 .30 -.22 -.03 -.19 -.30 - .21 .45 -.13
14. Leisure 1.13 1.76 .08 -.11 .00 .14 -.05 -.10 -.13 -.28 - .42 .46 .27 .37
15. Neighborhood 1.50 1.46 .61 .09 .23 .15 .09 -.16 .19 .12 - .46 .06 .57 -.21 .23
16. Daily Life 1.46 .96 .30 -.06 .09 .33 -.11 -.15 -.02 -.14 - .64 .60 .51 .53 .78 .53
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 2.63 .76 -.21 -.16 -.27 .02 .18 -.41 -.11 -.09 - -.04 .18 .02 .38 .32 -.17 .23
18. Effort 2.90 .76 -.17 -.06 .01 .01 -.04 -.11 .03 -.11 - -.32 -.10 -.05 -.14 -.09 -.30 -.27 -.24
19. Handle Stress 2.33 .55 .09 -.09 -.14 -.40 .00 -.29 -.04 .05 - .06 -.29 .11 -.27 .06 .00 -.10 .30 -.25
20. Helping 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
21. Overall 2.53 .51 -.02 -.06 -.02 -.20 .08 .15 -.13 -.01 - -.15 .27 .05 .37 .30 -.14 .23 .34 -.13 -.17 -
Subject 72 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 3.07 .41 -.06
2. NA 2.50 .55 -.25 .46
Emotions
3. Angry 2.70 1.51 .00 .00
4. Confident 3.57 1.65 -.27 -.06 -.03
5. Fatigue 3.23 1.22 .01 -.27 .19 .15
6. Happy 3.13 1.38 .06 -.19 -.28 .28 -.06
7. Sad 2.53 1.46 .05 .19 -.11 -.20 -.32 .03
8. Stress 3.13 1.41 -.12 -.09 .07 .17 .04 .11 -.17
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 2.90 .31 .03 .00 .01 .18 .06 .28 .20 .35 -
11. Finacial 2.07 .69 .38 .04 -.15 .12 .02 .10 .24 .13 - .03
12. Friendship 2.10 .61 .19 .39 .03 -.50 -.08 -.34 .21 .06 - .06 .23
13. Health 2.07 .74 .16 -.31 .08 .11 .21 .16 -.23 .39 - .03 .19 -.25
14. Leisure 2.33 .71 .59 .14 -.10 -.17 -.09 .06 .09 .13 - .16 .44 .32 .15
15. Neighborhood 2.10 .61 .16 .23 .15 .11 -.22 .07 .21 .27 - .06 .39 -.03 .29 .24
16. Daily Life 2.26 .35 .49 .13 .00 -.07 -.03 .07 .18 .37 - .26 .74 .39 .49 .73 .61
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.17 .59 -.36 -.26 -.40 .11 .13 .10 -.07 .26 - .10 -.03 -.14 .29 -.30 -.14 -.08
18. Effort 3.27 .78 .07 .02 .10 .20 -.25 .03 .08 .06 - .26 .03 -.13 .03 .14 .38 .18 -.10
19. Handle Stress 3.13 .51 .12 .10 .05 -.09 .39 .07 -.19 -.22 - .09 -.03 .18 -.02 .06 -.04 .06 -.08 -.09
20. Helping 3.07 .45 .10 .06 -.02 .09 -.15 -.01 .21 -.01 - -.20 .10 -.03 -.12 .14 -.03 .00 -.04 -.05 -.04
21. Overall 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
213
Subject 73 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.76 .34 .60
2. NA 1.45 .17 .20 .49
Emotions
3. Angry 1.80 .41 .16 .34
4. Confident 4.87 .73 -.19 -.06 -.09
5. Fatigue 2.83 .75 -.18 .47 .23 .21
6. Happy 3.20 .41 .31 .06 .04 .09 -.11
7. Sad 1.07 .25 .32 .33 .13 .05 .24 .20
8. Stress 2.40 .56 .02 .41 .21 .13 .57 .24 .29
Non-work life
9. Education .97 .18 -.02 -.39 -.09 -.03 -.04 .09 .05 -.20
10. Family 2.03 .32 .20 -.09 .05 .02 -.12 .48 .40 .11 .61
11. Finacial 1.77 .43 -.07 -.37 -.28 -.10 -.23 .08 .15 -.46 .34 .31
12. Friendship 1.13 .43 .27 .29 .16 .06 .07 -.16 .54 -.08 .06 .22 .17
13. Health 1.90 .31 -.21 -.37 -.17 -.06 .08 -.11 .09 -.16 .56 .04 .08 -.16
14. Leisure .80 .41 -.19 .04 -.04 -.09 .00 -.38 .13 .21 -.09 -.21 -.28 -.23 .11
15. Neighborhood .90 .40 .17 -.03 .08 -.05 .40 -.29 .41 .03 -.05 -.24 .06 .28 .20 .08
16. Daily Life 1.42 .17 .08 -.17 -.07 -.09 .08 -.18 .66 -.15 .47 .37 .54 .54 .40 .18 .56
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 3.13 .57 .01 .32 .12 .37 .22 .18 .17 .15 .04 .35 .13 .20 -.51 -.18 -.09 -.01
18. Effort 3.23 .68 -.12 .05 -.20 .06 -.06 .07 -.09 .11 .06 -.04 -.04 -.23 .12 .30 -.42 -.14 -.08
19. Handle Stress 3.20 .61 .01 .27 -.11 .06 .08 -.03 .36 .26 -.25 -.04 -.21 .16 -.07 .17 .22 .10 .02 -.12
20. Helping 3.03 .18 -.03 -.16 .09 .03 .04 -.09 -.05 -.13 .03 -.02 .10 -.06 .06 -.37 .05 -.10 -.04 -.06 -.06
21. Overall 3.07 .25 .03 -.07 .13 -.69 -.12 -.13 -.07 -.19 .05 -.03 .15 -.08 .09 .13 .07 .13 -.30 -.09 -.09 -.05
Subject 74 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mood
1. PA 2.70 .49 .43
2. NA 2.08 .57 -.05 .68
Emotions
3. Angry 1.97 .96 .10 .29
4. Confident 1.97 1.19 .09 -.14 .06
5. Fatigue 2.37 1.30 -.45 .13 .01 .01
6. Happy 3.33 1.35 .46 -.39 .25 .20 -.01
7. Sad 1.73 1.05 -.33 .08 .30 .02 .33 .07
8. Stress 2.03 1.07 -.05 .09 .03 .25 .19 .02 .13
Non-work life
9. Education .00 .00 - - - - - - - -
10. Family 1.87 .82 .14 -.18 -.18 -.43 -.08 -.02 .00 .20 -
11. Finacial .43 1.94 .32 -.01 .39 .10 -.16 .06 .08 .18 - .23
12. Friendship .70 2.34 .26 -.07 .18 .07 -.06 .05 .12 .13 - .28 .74
13. Health 2.87 .43 -.31 .00 -.42 -.34 -.15 -.33 -.31 -.21 - .14 -.34 -.18
14. Leisure .40 2.11 .34 -.01 .24 .21 -.17 -.02 -.07 -.05 - -.03 .78 .75 -.20
15. Neighborhood 1.07 1.98 .22 -.03 .02 -.20 -.09 -.01 .06 .08 - .39 .57 .74 -.11 .46
16. Daily Life 1.22 1.24 .32 -.05 .19 -.01 -.15 .00 .03 .10 - .36 .87 .94 -.16 .83 .81
Work Outcomes
17. Commitment 2.97 .32 -.13 .24 .11 .09 .20 -.13 .08 .21 - -.02 .25 .03 -.03 .17 .00 .12
18. Effort 3.10 .40 -.19 .01 .10 .08 .13 .19 .39 -.25 - .04 -.19 -.19 .08 -.25 -.27 -.24 .03
19. Handle Stress 3.00 .00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
20. Helping 3.70 .53 -.32 .08 .05 -.07 -.08 -.29 .04 -.16 - -.09 -.24 -.27 .12 -.07 -.21 -.22 -.26 .14 -
21. Overall 2.97 .18 -.23 .13 .19 .15 .05 -.09 -.05 .18 - -.03 -.06 -.02 -.06 -.05 .01 -.04 .57 .05 - -.11
214
APPENDIX E
Name: _________________________________________ Read each statement below and decide how well it describes you or your
job. Indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement by circling the appropriate choice below the statement.
1. How much of your daily job performance can your supervisor observe?
None / Rarely Slightly Some / Sometimes Often A lot / Always
2. How much does your job performance change from day to day?
3. How much do you think your moods affect your behavior at work?
4. I always know my friends’ emotions from their behavior.
Disagree strongly Disagree slightly Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree slightly Agree strongly
5. I always set goals for myself and then try my best to achieve them.
6. I am able to control my temper so that I can handle difficulties rationally.
7. I do not feel any obligation to remain with my current employer.
8. I have a good sense of why I have certain feelings most of the time.
9. I would be very happy to spend the rest of may career in this organization.
10. It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to.
11. Overall, I am satisfied with my job.
12. Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my organization now.
13. I always tell myself I am a competent person.
14. I am a good observer of others’ emotions.
15. I am quite capable of controlling my own emotions.
16. I have good understanding of my own emotions.
17. I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own.
18. Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my organization right now.
19. I am a self-motivating person.
20. I am sensitive to the feelings and emotions of others.
215
21. I can always calm down quickly when I am very angry.
22. I do not feel like “part of the family” at my organization.
23. I really understand what I feel.
24. I would feel guilty if I left my organization now.
25. Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as much as desire.
26. I always know whether or not I am happy.
27. I believe that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization.
28. I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this organization.
29. I have good control of my own emotions.
30. I have good understanding of the emotions of people around me.
31. I would always encourage myself to try my best.
32. This organization deserves my Loyalty.
33. One of the few negative consequences of leaving this organization would be the scarcity of available alternatives.
34. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me.
35. I would not leave my organization right now because I have a sense of obligation to the people in it.
36. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization.
37. I owe a great deal to my organization.
38. One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that leaving would require considerable
personal sacrifice; another organization may not mach the overall benefits I have here.
39. To perform my job well, it is necessary for me to:
a. spend most of my work time interacting with people (e.g., customers, co-workers).
b. hide my actual feelings when acting and speaking with people.
c. be considerate and think from the point of view of others.
d. hide my negative feelings (e.g., anger and depression).
216
APPENDIX F
Name: __________________________________________________
1) How well do you know this person?
2) How much opportunity do you have to observe this person's daily job performance?
3) Please rate this employee on their overall quality as an employee.

1 2 3 4 5
Name Q1 Q2 Q3 _
___________________________ ______ ______ ______
___________________________ ______ ______ ______
___________________________ ______ ______ ______
___________________________ ______ ______ ______
___________________________ ______ ______ ______
___________________________ ______ ______ ______
___________________________ ______ ______ ______
___________________________ ______ ______ ______
___________________________ ______ ______ ______
___________________________ ______ ______ ______
___________________________ ______ ______ ______
___________________________ ______ ______ ______
217

Affect and Job Performance The Effect of Daily Mood States On Employees' Overall and Contextual Performance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Affect and Job Performance The Effect of Daily Mood States On Employees' Overall and Contextual Performance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE UNIVERSITY OF TULSA

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

AFFECT AND JOB PERFORMANCE: THE EFFECT OF DAILY MOOD STATES ON

EMPLOYEES’ OVERALL AND CONTEXTUAL PERFORMANCE

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

in the discipline of Psychology

The Graduate School

The University of Tulsa

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

AFFECT AND JOB PERFORMANCE: THE EFFECT OF DAILY MOOD STATES ON

EMPLOYEES’ OVERALL AND CONTEXTUAL PERFORMANCE

APPROVED FOR THE DISCIPLINE OF

Dr. Kurt Kraiger

Dr. Deidra Schleicher

Dr. Wendy Casper

Copyright © 2006 by Kevin E. Fox

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,

Fox, E. Kevin (Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology)

Directed by Dr. Robert P. Tett

74 employees of 7 organizations located in northern Thailand completed daily measures

of mood for 6 consecutive weeks. Supervisors correspondingly rated 5 dimensions of

within- and between-subjects effects were conducted using Multilevel Random

Coefficient Modeling (MRCM). Results were unexpectedly weak given previous

research findings. A follow-up exploratory survey was administered and exploratory

study of affect at work and applied organizational practices.

scientist that I am today.

impact on my development into the professional that I am today.

who have enriched my life with their intelligence and humor.

Cola for their love and encouragement.

TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... xii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 2: METHOD ......................................................................................... 36

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS ......................................................................................... 47

CHAPTER 4: EXPLORATORY INVESTIGATION .......................................... 54

APPENDIX A............................................................................................................ 187

Table 1: Summary of Workplace Affect Literature Review.................................... 104

Table 3: Demographic Variable Descriptive Statistics final sample (N=50)........... 106

Table 4: Means, Standard Deviations, Alphas, and Intercorrelations Between

Table 9: HLM Estimates of the Effect of Positive Mood on Discrete Affective

Table 13: Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations Between Individuals

Figure 2: Affective Events Theory: Macro Structure.............................................. 138

Figure 3: Theoretical Model of Affect in the Workplace........................................ 139

Figure 4: Measured Theoretical Model of Affect in the Workplace ....................... 140

Figure 5: Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Affective Commitment on the

Figure 6: Plot of the OLS Moderator Effect of Observability on the Positive

Emotion and Mood

The study of emotion in the workplace can currently be described as undergoing a

renaissance, from a position of relative investigative neglect to a major target of

research efforts have been hampered by definitional and methodological uncertainties

as a foundation for the current effort.

in that there is no universally accepted definition of what an emotion is (Ashkanasy,

(1980), in which 28 different definitions are identified in the psychological literature.

Kleinginna and Kleinginna (1981) identified 92 from a broader collection of sources.

examination of the adaptive importance of emotional expression. Looking beyond

scientific study, the investigation of emotions by early philosophers predates western

definitions of emotional constructs (Ashkanasy, et al., 2000). For example, different

classification. Whether it is theories of evolutionary adaptation (Darwin, 1873; Izard,

slowed by this definitional morass. While he acknowledges that researchers might

what they mean in the context of their own research efforts.

The label of emotion encompasses a wide range of phenomena including feelings,