Cited by 444

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A meta-analysis of the correlates of role conflict and ambiguity.

Fisher, Cynthia D., Gitelson, Richard·1983·Journal of Applied Psychology

Abstract

The correlational literature concerning the relationships of role conflict and ambiguity to numerous hypothesized antecedents and consequences is still somewhat unclear after a decade of research Schmidt-Hunter meta-analysis procedures were applied to the results of 43 past studies in an effort to draw valid conclusions about the magnitude and direction of these relationships in the population For some correlates, apparently inconsistent research results could be ascribed largely to statistical artifacts. For other correlates, it seems that moderator research may be needed to explain conflicting results across samples In the last 12 years, there has been a great deal of correlational research on the relationships between perceived role ambiguity and role conflict and a host of hypothesized antecedents (such as tenure, formalization, boundary spanning) and consequences (such as job satisfaction, job involvement, performance, tension, propensity to leave the job). Although nearly all studies have been crosssectional, one laboratory study did find that role conflict caused a host of dysfunctional affective and behavioral outcomes (Manning, Ismail, & Sherwood, 1981) Thus, the consequences of these two types of role stress have potentially important cost implications for organizations. Whereas the costs of turnover and substandard performance are obvious, the true cost of attitudinal variables is just beginning to be understood (Cascio, 1982; Mirvis & Lawler, 1977). Therefore, eff…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0021-9010.68.2.320

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Fisher, C. D., & Gitelson, R.
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Published
1983-05
Volume
68
Issue
2
Pages
320-333
ISSN
  • 1939-1854
  • 0021-9010
Cited by
444
References
3
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review