Cited by 302Job Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorManagement and Organizational StudiesTeam Dynamics and Performance

Role conflict and role ambiguity: A critical assessment of construct validity.

King, Lynda A., King, Daniel W.·1990·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

This article appraises the construct validity of role conflict and role ambiguity in organizationa l psychology research by tracing the process of validation from initial theory introduction to the present. Although the theoretical bases for the constructs were relatively well explicated, some conceptual shortcomings have carried over into empirical work. There are problems with the content validity of measures, a lack of convergent and discriminant evidence, and inattention to the full nomological network of hypothesized relationships. Recommendations for future role-conflict and role-ambiguity research are offered. Since their incorporation into the organizational psychology literature in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the role-theory constructs of role conflict and role ambiguity have assumed a prominent position in empirical work. In recent years they have been the focus of three major literature reviews (Fisher & Gitelson, 1983; S. E. Jackson & Schuler, 1985; Van Sell, Brief, & Schuler, 1981), two of which used a meta-analytic approach (Hunter, Schmidt, & Jackson, 1982; Schmidt & Hunter, 1977; Schmidt, Hunter, Pearlman, & Shane, 1979). Although documenting significant correlations between these two role constructs and a variety of other work-related variables, all three reviews lamented, to a greater or lesser degree, inconsistencies in reported study findings. Extrapolating from the three reviews, a primary explanation offered for inconsistent results seems to be that…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.48

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Role conflicts can arise if the oversight person is simultaneously a decision-maker who uses the AI-based system to support their decisions.

    “Role conflicts could arise if the oversight person is at the same time a decision-maker who uses the AI-based system to support their decisions [43].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
King, L. A., & King, D. W.
Affiliations
Central Michigan University (US)
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
1990-01
Volume
107
Issue
1
Pages
48-64
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2147503805
Cited by
302
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 10
FWCI
19.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
Keywords
role conflict, role ambiguity, construct validity, role theory, content validity, convergent and discriminant validity, nomological network, self-report measures, psychometric properties, organizational psychology

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