Journal of Scientific & Industri al Research

Vol. 59, May 2000, pp 373-380

Demography and Climate As Predictors of Job Satisfaction and Pride in Research Laboratories

Sunil K Dhawan

Scientist , National Institute of Science Technology and Deve lopment Studies,

Dr K S Krishnan Marg, New Delhi 110012

Received: 05 January 2000; accepted: 18 February 2000

The article examines the role of work climate and demographic variables on job satisfaction and pride in the organization. The study was carried out in three research laboratories of Council of Scientitic and Industrial Research (CSIR) . The results indi cate that climate variables are more consistent predictors of job satisfaction and pride in the three laboratories than the demographic variables. Among the climate variables , communicati on now and motivational conditions appear to be significant in prediction of job satisfact ion and pride. The age or the scientists is the only variable from the li st 01' demographical variables that is found to be signifi cantly related to pride in the three research laboratories.

Introduction

During the past few years, there has been increasing concern in research and theorizing regarding the issue of organizational morale. As Baron and Greenberg l have discussed that employee's morale has a strong effect on important aspects of organizational behaviour, though this relationship is neither simple nor direct. Despite the concept being complex and multifaceted, high morale can be considered to predispose employees to exert extra efforts to achieve organizational goals and . objectives and experience strong feelings of commitment to the organization. Morale, therefore, can be both an individual and a group phenomenon within an organization, involving extra effort on the part of employees, goal communality, and feelings of belonging2

.

For the purpose of our study, morale was conceived as having two facets: self-rated overall job satisfaction and self-expressed pride 111 the organization.

The concept of organizational climate is usually attributed to the field theory of motivationJ

. The concept became particularly popular in industri al and organizational literature in the 1960s and 1970s, with the book of Litwin and Stringer4 and the two major reviews of Forehand and von Gilmer5 and James and Jones6

. The topic remains one of considerable

theoretical speculation and research7.8

, as well as d· 910 tsagreement · .

Attempting to define or operationalize the concept, many researchers quote Forehand and von Gilmer5

, who noted: "Organizational climate is the set of characteristics that describe an organization and that: (a) Distinguish one organization from another, (b) Are relatively enduring over a period of time, and (c) Influence the behavior of people 111 the organization"(p.362) .

Some theori sts have argued in favour of splitting organizational climate into individual-focused and organization-focused separatel/ . They defined climate in terms of organizational attributes, "psychological climate", and individual attributes. Hellreigel and Slocum", by contrast, treated climate as a more unitary phenomenon, defining it as "" .. a set of attributes which can be perceived about a particular organization and/or its subsystems, and that may be induced from the way that organization and/or its subsystems deal with their members and environment." However, one thing common to both the definitions is that c limate must be divided into two parts: first related to the members or groups and second, related to overal l organizational system.

However the concept of work climate has proved to be ambiguous, nebulous, and controversial. The

374 J SCIIND RES VOL 59 MAY 2000

main problem in its conceptual clarification has been whether climate should be conceived of in terms of the objective (physical or structural) features of the organization or the subjective (perceptual) reactions to the organization. Hence, Guion l2 argues that a perceived climate concerned both the attributes of an organization and those of the perceiving individual and that, as most often conceived, climate was simply an alternative label for affective responses to an organization, such as job satisfaction. James and Jones6

have suggested the term psychological climate to emphasize that aggregated cognitive interpretations of an organizational work force arise from experience in the organization and provide a representation of the meaning inherent in the organization's features, events,

d 11·IS an processes · . .

The second major theoretical problem concerns with the effect of climate (or employee perceptions) on organizational behavior. Climate may be conceived of as an independent, dependent, moderating, or epiphenomenal variable. If climate is conceived to be an independent variable, e.g., in the work of Campbell et al l6

, it is assumed that organizational climate itself directly influences (causes) work outcomes both positively leading, e.g., to enhanced productivity, satisfaction, and motivation, and negatively, causing increased absenteeism turnover and accidents. Others have considered climate a dependent outcome variable that is the result, not the cause, of organizational structure and process7. Thus, climate may be a useful index of an organization's health, though not a cause of it.

Another, perhaps more common approach has been to see organizational climate as a moderator variable, in that, it may be the indirect link between two organizational outcomes. Thus, e.g., climate may be the moderator variable between job satisfaction and productivity. Various interesting but heuristically satisfying models consider climate as one of several powerful moderator variables

4.

Finally, some researchers believe that climate is epiphenomenal, neither a direct cause variable nor an effect variable, and that it is present in some form in all organizations. Many models of organizational functioning use the concept of climate

3.4 but very few

specify an exact relation between climate and other organizational processes or products. In the present study, we examine scientists' perceptions of the climate

in their respective laboratories as a set of potential independent variables underpinning general feelings of job satisfaction and pride in the research laboratory.

A third significant problem concerns the issue of measurement of climate or employee perception. There are numerous ways of measuring organizational climate. One way is termed categorical and attempts to classify organizations into pre-existing theoretical types. This method has been neither popular nor successful. The second way is dimensional and attempts to classify organizations using a set of pre­established dimensions thought to capture or fully describe the organizational climate.

In our study, we have used a categorical typology of organizational climate and distributed a common questionnaire among samples of scientists from the three laboratories of a research organization. The research organization under consideration is the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) . Although our procedure ran the risk that the questionnaire might not have been equally relevant to , or appropriate for different levels or research laboratories, it had the advantage of enabling one laboratory to be bench mark against another, uSlllg precisely the same set of measures.

We also examined a range of scientists ' demographical correlates of morale. Demographically indicators of performance have a history of research and application dating back to the turn of the centuryl7 and interest continues to the present day. Meta-analyses of relevant research literature have indicated that systematically gathered and coded demographically information's one of the most powerful predictors of job performance in entry-level management, and non­managerial positionsl 8

. In the present study, we examined both climate and bio- data in relation to general perceptions of job satisfaction and organizational pride.

Methodology

The study was part of a research programme of our Institute, "Scientific Culture and Laboratory Functioning: Case of An R&D Organization." The R&D organization under consideration, as stated earlier, was the CSIR, which has in its fold about forty research laboratories working on different disciplines of science and technology (S&T).

DHAWAN: DEMOGRAPHY & CLIMATE 375

A pilot study was conducted in a research laboratory of CSIR using a questionnaire. The results obtained from the pilot work were analyzed to check the reliability and types of results that may emerge from the study. Thirty scientists had participated in this phase. Based on the results of the pilot study, a modified fonn of the questionnaire was developed and printed for use in the main study.

Three research laboratories belonging to different Coordination Councils of CSIR, namely Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI, Mysore), Regional Research Laboratory (RRL, Hyderabad) and National Chemical Laboratory (NCL, Pune) were selected for the main study. The sample scientists were chosen using systematic random sampling with every third scientist from the standard random list. The questionnaire was distributed to the scientists in small groups and objectives, scope, outcome of the total study and questionnaire itself was explained to them. Two days were given to the participants and from the third day onwards each scientist was contacted personally. In these meetings the emphasis was to collect reliable infonnation and as such considerable time was spent in explaining them how to fill the questionnaire.

The first part of the questionnaire related to the work climate of the research laboratory. There were nineteen questions related to eight factors : (i) Human resources primacy, (ii) Communication flow, (iii) Decision-making practices, (iv) Technological readiness, (v) Senior scientists' influence, (vi) Junior scientists' influence, (vii) Goal clarity, and (viii) Motivational conditions. Each question was on five­point scale with 'one' indicating the presence of the item 'to a very little extent' and 'five' indicating presence of the item 'to a very great extent'. The respondents were asked to put 'P' against the number, which they considered reflecting the existing or present situation .

Then there were two questions related to job satisfaction and pride in the organization. The respondents had to choose among five option taking into account overall situation prevalent in their respective laboratory. The five options were: (i) Very sati sfied, (ii) Satisfied, (iii) Dissatisfied, (iv) Very dissatisfied, and (v) Cannot say. For the pride variable the five options were: strongly agree, agree, di sagree, strongly disagree, and cannot say.

Besides, there were several questions related to the demographic information of the respondents such as age and service in the laboratory.

Respondents were informed that their participation was important and that they should look upon the study as an opportunity to make their views known . They were assured that the study was not a test or examination and that there were no right or wrong answers. All replies were to be treated anonymously and answers could not be traced back to individual s. The questionnaire (for total study) took about 25 to 30 min to complete.

A total of 310 questionnaires were distributed to the three research laboratories and 208 usable forms were returned (64,62 and 82, respectively, across the three laboratories) . Thus, the overall response rate was about 67 per cent with individual laboratory response rates being 64 per cent, 62 per cent, and 75 per cent, respecti vel y .

Results and Observations

Table I presents the key background information of the respondents. There is not much difference in the average age of the respondents. It is also evident that the participants had sufficient experience (17-21 y), of which, a significant part is in the laboratories (14-18 y). Overall, respondents of lab-3 had comparatively less average age, less total service and less service in the laboratory. It seems that a large number of members started their career in their respective laboratories only.

The two criterion variables we examined in this paper are job satisfaction and pride in the organization.

Table 1- Background information of the respondents

Background Data

Age

Mean SD Length of Service

Mean SD

Service in the Laboratory

Mean SD

Lab-I (NI=64)

45.13 7.49

21 .02 7.72

17.92 8.52

Lab-2 (N2=62)

y

43.95 8.25

18.74 8.76

16.44 8.79

Lab-3 (N3 =82)

41 .53 9.45

16.9 1 9.83

14.39 9.84

376 J SCI IND RES VOL 59 MAY 2000

The responses to these two items across the three laboratories are contained in Table 2. In general, respondents in all the three laboratories are mostly satisfied with their job. This is particularly true for the lab-3 and to some extent lab-I. Although in lab-2, the percentage of scientists satisfied with their job is 48 per cent but at the same time there exists 42 per cent who are dissatisfied with their job.

Pride in the organization is more towards positiv~

side. We asked the respondents to judge pride by answering the question, "I feel proud to work for this organization." In fact, for lab-3 the percentage that agrees or strongly agree with statement are 95 per cent and only 5 per cent responded by the option 'cannot say'. For lab-I also, this percentage equals to 78 per cent. Lab-2 provides a different picture. For this laboratory, there are 30 per cent who disagree with the statement and 15 per cent who are strongly disagreei ng. For lab-I, theses percentages are 19 plus 2, respectively. Substantial minorities of respondents are undecided on this issue.

Job satisfaction is significantly correlated with various climate perceptions, though more extensively in some laboratories than in others (Table 3). For lab-I, job satisfaction is positively correlated with communication flow, motivational conditions, and technological readiness. In fact, job satisfaction is correlated with communication flow and motivational conditions in all the three laboratories. It suggests that

Table 2 - Percentage of job satisfaction and pride in Laboratory

Job sati sfaction

Very sati sfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very dissati sfied Cannot say

Feel proud to work for laboratory

Stronglyagrcc Agree Disagree Strongly di sagree Cannot say

I (N I=64)

II 44 28 6 II

23 SS 19 2

Laboratory

2(N2=62)

Per cent

12 36 32 10 10

8 32 30 15 15

3(N3=82)

18 42 20 8 12

30 65

5

these two factors are vitally important for this R&D organization (if the management wishes to go for some kind of actions or generalization). Human resources primacy that, in fact, determines the working conditions in an organization, and the decision-making practices are correlated with job satisfaction for lab-2 and lab-3. Technological readiness is correlated with job satisfaction for lab-I and lab-3. Finally, goal clarity is correlated with job satisfaction for lab-3 .

As all significant correlations are positive, we can conclude that for lab-I, job satisfaction increases with improvement In communication flow, better motivational conditions and quick technological readiness. For lab-2, job satisfaction increases with better working conditions, improved communication flow, betters motivational conditions, and improved decision-making practices. For lab-3, job satisfaction increases with better working conditions, improved communication flows, better motivational conditions, improved decision-making practices, quick technological readiness and clear-cut goals. However, these results will become clearer when we will analyze the data using step-wise regression technique.

Expressed degree of pride in the organization among scientists is simi larly found to correlate to a significant and positive extent with many climate variables (Table 4). For lab-I, six out of e ight factors of climate are found to be correlated significantly with pride. The two factors, which are not found to be

T able 3 - Correlations between climate perception and job satisfacti on

Laboratory Category

I (NI=64) 2(N2=62) 3(N3=82)

Human resource primacy .21 .31 ' .30'

Communication now .35' .25 ' .3 3'

Motivational conditions .32 ' .D" A I"

Decision-making practices -.07 .39' .27*

Technological read iness .27' -. 13 .3 1 *

Jr scientists innuence -. 11 -.07 .2 1

Sr sc ientists innuence .09 .22 .07

Goal clarity . 15 . 11 .28 '

.' P < O.OS

r

DHAWAN: DEMOGRAPHY & CLIMATE 377

significant, are 'junior scientists' influence, and 'technological readiness' . For lab-2, five out of eight factors of climate are significantly correlated .

A close look at Table 4 suggests that the factor junior scientists' influence does not correlate with pride for all the three laboratories. Whereas, five out of eight factors of climate are correlated with pride across the three laboratories. We can tentatively say that climate is more related to pride in the organization than to the job satisfaction.

The zero-order correlations revealed simplistic relationships between climate perceptions and job satisfaction and pride in three laboratories. However, climate perceptions, job satisfaction, and pride in the organization may all be influenced by employee biographical factors related to age, total service, service in the laboratory or other demographical detail s. Climate perceptions themselves may also be variously interrelated. What the aforementioned analyses did not show is the degree to which specific climate variables (as compared with other variables) can significantly predict scientists' job satisfaction or pride in their laboratory .

To explore the predictive value of climate perceptions, we performed step-wise regression by taking job sati sfaction and pride as dependent variables. First, let us take up the results of job satisfaction. For lab-I the factors that entered the regression are communication flow and motivational conditions. These two factors explain 27 per cent of the variance in job satisfaction. The rest of the variation is

Table 4 - Correlations between climate perception and pride in organization

Category Laboratory

I(N I=64) 2(N2=62) 3(N3=82) Human Resources .27' .30* .39 ' Primacy

Communication Flow .3 1' .26 ' .27 '

Motivational conditions .38' .32' .36'

Decision-making .30' .28 ' .32' Practices

Technological Readiness -. 11 .09 .25 '

Jr Scientists influence .07 -.08 . 14

Sr Scientists influence .3 1 • .11 .27 *

Goal Clarity .37 ' .31 * .32

' p<0.05

explained by factors neither covered by us nor the climate variables. The total variance explained is not very high . As such we can say that climate and demographical variables explain job satisfaction to an average extent. In fact, demographical variable does not appear for this laboratory.

For lab-2, there appears three climate factors but no demographic variables that explains the job satisfaction. These three factors of climate are: decision-making practices, motivational conditions, and human resources primacy. The first factor to enter the step-wise regression is decision-making practices . The three climate factors explain 36 per cent of the variance in job satisfaction. This percentage variation is higher than that obtained for lab-I . And the factor motivational condition is common for lab-l and lab-2.

Finally, for lab-3, we find four factors of climate that entered significantly in the regression. These are in order of steps: motivational conditions, human resources primacy, decision-making practices, and communication flow . These four factors explain 49 per cent of the variation in job satisfactions. While examining the three laboratories, we find that the factor motivational conditions appeared in all the three laboratories. Thus, we can say that motivational conditions should be studied and incorporated in the action plan of this research organization, as it is one of the key predictors of job satisfaction. Communication flow is yet another important factors that appeared in the regression for lab-l and lab-3 (Table 5). Factors included in lab-2 are also appearing in lab-3. Overall , we can say that climate is a predictor, to some extent, of job satisfaction. Further the demographically variables do not predict significantly the job satisfaction.

A parallel set of step-wise regression was carried out with pride in the laboratory as the criterion variable. The results are summarized in Table 6. For lab-I, four variables entered in the regression - three from climate and one from demographical data. The three factors from climate are motivational conditions, human resources primacy, and decision-mak ing practices. These three climate factors explain 38 percent of the variation in pride for lab-I. Interestingly, one demographical variable 'age' also appeared in the regression as fourth predictor of pride in lab- I. Combined with climate factors it explains 49 per cent variance of pride in lab-I.

378 1 SCI IND RES VOL 59 MAY 2oo0

Table 5 - Predictors of job satisfaction: results of step-wise regression

Predictor

Communication flow

Motivational conditions

Deci sion-making practices

Motivational conditions

Human resources primacy

Motivational conditions

Human resources primacy

Decision making practices

Communication flow

Multiple R R-sq. R-sq . change

LAB·l

0.35

0.52

LAB-2

0.39

0.52

0.60

LAB·3

0.41

0.55

0.64

0.70

0.13

0.27

0.15

0 .14

0.27 0.12

0.36 0.09

0. 17

0.30

0.42

0.49

0.13

0.12

0.07

For lab-2 also, there are four factors that entered (he regression analysis - three from climate factors : motivational conditions, goal clarity, and decision making practices. These three factors in combination explain 47 per cent of variation in the dependent variable pride. The fourth factor is age of the respondents . The four factors critical for lab-2 explain 59 per cent of the variation in pride. We can say that climate and demographic variables do explain perception about pride in lab-2.

For lab-3, only climate factors are found to be predicting the pride in the laboratory. The three factors are human resources primacy, motivational conditions, and decision-making practices. These three factors explain 50 per cent of the variation in predicting pride. Looking at the three laboratories together, we find that key factors predicting pride in laboratories are motivational conditions and decision-making practices. These two factors appeared in all the three laboratories. Human resources practices appeared for two laboratories, whereas goal clarity appeared for lab-2 only.

Table 6 - Predictors of pride: results of step-wise regression

Predictor

Motivational conditions

Human resources primacy

Deci sion-making practices

Age

Motivational conditions

Goal clarity

Decision-making practices

Age

Human resources primacy

Moti vational conditions

Decision-making practices

Discussions

Multiple R

LAB·l

0.38

0.51

0.62

0.70

LAB·2

0.32

0.58

0.69

0.77

LAB·3

0.40

0.59

0.71

R-Sq . R-sq. change

0.14

0.26

0.38

0.12

0.12

0.49 0.11

0.1 0

0.33 0.23

0.47 0. 14

0.59 0.12

0.16

0.35

0.50

0.19

0.15

Overall, perceived climate factors turned out to be somewhat consistent, and to some extent, powerful predic~ors of job satisfaction and organizational pride than dId background information . Thus, even if there is monomethod bias (namely questionnaire-method effects) or common method variance, which inflates the correlation between measures, it is quite evident that the climate factors much more than the bio-data factors seem to relate to satisfaction and pride. Among the climate variables, communication flow and motivational conditions emerge consistently across all the. thre~ laboratories as significant predictors of job satIsfactIOn. Human resources primacy and deci sion­making practices also emerge in two laboratories in relation to job satisfaction. Of the two dependent variables, pride in the organization is predicted more than by both climate and biographical items than job satisfaction is. Biographical items emerge as predictors only in relation to pride in two laboratories .

The results of the step-wise mUltiple regressions are perhaps the most important. Considerina the predictors of job satisfaction, a few point~ are

DHAWAN: DEMOGRAPHY & CLIMATE 379

noticeable. First the predictors accounted for between 27 per cent and 49 per cent of variance, the latter being particularly impressive. Secondly the significant predictors are all climate variables. Thirdly, although some climate dimensions emerge as significant predictors across more than one laboratory the only one to appear across the three laboratories is motivational conditions.

The regressions for pride in the organization yielded some common predictors, but at the same time, there are also some interesting differences . First the regression analysis shows more variance as compared to that appears in job satisfaction. For pride in the organization the variance ranges from 49 per cent to 59 per cent. Secondly, one demographical variable, 'age', appears in the regressions for lab-I and lab-2. Thirdly, there is more consistency in predictors across the laboratories with motivational conditions and decision­making practices being the factors that appear in all the three laboratories.

Job satisfaction can be conceived of as a personal perception . Thus, climate categories relating to the perception of one's own job are more powerful predictors of that variable. Pride in the organization, in contrast, is more of a corporate-level opinion, derived from corporate-wide climate perceptions, although personal level perceptions still act to some content as predictors

Three important questions arise as a result of our findings. The first concerns whether the results are artifactual, in the sense that they are functions of item overlap or response format. It can be argued that climate variables, rather than demographic variables, are better predictors of the two dependent variables here, because they have a commonality of meaning between them. However, an inspect ion of the items shows that this is not the case. All the climate items refer to scientists' perception of the organization as a whole, whereas the job satisfaction and organizational pride questions asks participants specifically for thei r personal reactions.

Neither can it argue those response-format factors accounted for the regressions, because the questionnaire counter-balanced positively and negative ly phrase items throughout. It can be argued that perceptions of one's own morale are determined primarily by perceptions of the organization as a whole. Indeed, that is what the result shows: that

perceptions of specific aspects of the making practices are more important determinants of pride and satisfaction than the demographic variables.

Despite the fact that the participating laboratories are from the same research organization, the pattern of results could be hardly replicated to other sectors. This suggests that the power and importance of organizational climate variables as predictors of individual satisfaction and organizational pride (and perhaps even productivity) differ widely from one type of organization to another. To develop or test a theory regarding corporate climate, it becomes impoltant to select a wide range of different organizations that differ on various established criteria.

Finally, we have not formally addressed the issue to the extent to which climate perceptions is consensually held within organizations. One way of doing this is to examine the spread of perceptions either item by item or dimension by dimension . The spreads do not seem particularly large and as such the dimensions have satisfactorily internal reliability. To that extent, it can be argued that the climate perceptions seem internally consistent, although that is a long way from close consensus. Nevertheless, differences in climate perceptions do seem highly predicti ve of individual feelings about the laboratories and the R&D organization. Armed with this information the management of these laboratories may be in a much better position to change individual employees' job satisfaction and personal pride in the laboratory that employs them.

Unlike most studies in this area, the same analysis is performing over three laboratories of the same R&D organization. As such, these were comparable in terms of miss ion, purpose, and finding. Although there is some evidence of replicate results the findings suggest some differences and some similarities. Though one can speculate, e.g., why the step-wise regress ions yielded some different predictor variables across different laboratories the results do suggest that some other variables such as size, hi storical background, and age of laboratory may influence the R-square. It is. therefore, not surpri sing that nearl y all of the models incorporating the idea of climate are highly comp lex and multifaceted, with various factors affecting c limate, which, in turn , determines various Olher organizat ional outcomes.J. However the fact that demographic factors seem to have played small role in

380 J SCIIND RES VOL 59 MAY 2000

job satisfaction and pride across the three laboratories does contradict those who have argued that these factors are primary predictors of organizational behaviour17

.

References Baron R A & Greenberg J, Behavior in Organizations (Allyn & Bacon, Boston) 1990.

2 Gordon J, A Diagnostic Approach to Organizational Behavior (Allyn & Bacon, Boston) 1991.

3 Bonoma T & Zaltman G, Psychology for Management , (Kent, Boston) 198 1.

4 Litwin G & Stringer R, Motivation alld Organizational Climate (HUP, Boston) 1968.

5 Forehand G & von Gilmer B, Environmental Variations in Studies of Organizational Behavior, Psychol Bull, 62 (1964) 362-381.

6 James L & Jones A, Organizational Climate: A Review of Theory and Research, Psychol Bull, 12 (1974) 1096-1112.

7 La Follette W, How is the Climate in your Organi zation , Person J, 6 (1975) 376-379

8 Qualls W & Puto C, Organizational Climate and Decision Framing, J Market Res, 26 (1989) 179-192.

9 Jackofsky E & Slocum J, A Longitudinal Study of Climates, J Organiz Behav, 9 (1988) 319-334.

10 Payne R, Madness in our Method: A Comment on Jackofsky and Slocum's Paper, J Organiz Behav, 11 (1990) 77-80.

II Hellriegel D & Slocum J W, Organizational Climate: Measures, Research and Contingency, Acad Manage J, 17(2} (June 1974).

12 Guion R, A Note on Organizational Climate, Organiz Beha ll Humferforlll , 9 (1973) 120-125.

13 Kozlowski S & Farr J, An Integrative Model of Updating and Performance, HUIIl_Pelform, 1 (1988) 5-29.

14 Schneider B, Interactional Psychology and Organizational Behavior, edited by L Cummings & B Slaw, Research in Organizational Behavior (lAI Press, CT: Greenwica) 1983a.

15 Work Climates: An Interactionism Perspective, edited by N Feimer & E Geller, Environmental Psychology: Directioll and Perspective (Praeger, New York) 1983b.

16 Campbell J et ai. , Managerial Behavior, Performan ce, and Effectiveness(McGraw Hill, New York) 1988.

17 Gunter B et al., Bio-data and Business Pe~fon/1.all ce: A Practical Guide for Recruitment, (Routledge, London) 1993.

18 Hunter 1 & Hunter R, Validity and Utility of Alternative Predictors of Job Performance, Psychol Bull, 96 (1984) 72-98.