The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Test of Basic Assumptions of Affective Events Theory (AET) in Call Centre Work1
Abstract
Based on data from 2091 call centre representatives working in 85 call centres in the UK, central assumptions of affective events theory (AET) are tested. AET predicts that specific features of work (e.g. autonomy) have an impact on the arousal of emotions and moods at work that, in turn, co‐determine job satisfaction of employees. AET further proposes that job satisfaction is an evaluative judgement that mainly explains cognitive‐based behaviour, whereas emotions and moods better predict affective‐based behaviour. The results support these assumptions. A clear separation of key constructs (job satisfaction, positive and negative emotions) was possible. Moreover, correlations between several work features (e.g. supervisory support) and job satisfaction were, in part, mediated by work emotions, even when controlling for gender, age, call centre type (in‐house versus outsourced centres) and call centre size. Predictions regarding consequences of satisfaction and affect were partly corroborated as continuance commitment was more strongly related to job satisfaction than to positive emotions. In addition, affective commitment and health complaints were related to both emotions and job satisfaction to the same extent. Thus, AET is a fruitful framework for explaining why and how specific management strategies used for designing work features influence important organizational attitudes and well‐being of employees.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models
Sobel, M. E. (1982) · Sociological Methodology · doi:10.2307/270723 · Cited by 12,810
Job Demands, Job Decision Latitude, and Mental Strain: Implications for Job Redesign
Karasek, R. A. (1979) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392498 · Cited by 12,597
The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376 · Cited by 4,760
Organizational Behavior: Affect in the Workplace
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135156 · Cited by 1,797
On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect.
Russell, J. A., & Carroll, J. M. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.1.3 · Cited by 1,481
Cited by
Electronic monitoring and surveillance in call centres: a framework for investigation
Ball, K. S., & Margulis, S. T. (2011) · New Technology, Work and Employment · doi:10.1111/j.1468-005x.2011.00263.x · Cited by 102
Tian, X., Chae, H., Song, D., & Zhang, Y. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-17500-5 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Wegge, J., Dick, R. V., Fisher, G. K., West, M. A., & Dawson, J. F.
- Venue
- British Journal of Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-03-15
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 237-254
- ISSN
- 1045-3172 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8551
- OpenAlex
- W2048785361
- Cited by
- 272
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 16.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.