The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
METHOD VERSUS SUBSTANCE: HOW STRONG ARE UNDERLYING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN JOB CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTITUDINAL OUTCOMES?
Abstract
This study compared the relative strengths of the effects of method versus substance on relationships between job characteristics and attitudinal outcomes. Reports from both job incumbents and nonincumbents on job characteristics and job attitudes were compared for 509 employees of four organizations. Substantive relationships were observed between job characteristics and effort, supporting the job characteristics model. Common method effects, however, inflated relationships between job characteristics and affective outcomes, thereby supporting the social information processing model. Implications are discussed for other areas of organizational research that rely on single data sources.
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
Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0076546 · Cited by 7,246
Bem, D. J. (1972) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60024-6 · Cited by 5,241
Employee reactions to job characteristics.
Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0031152 · Cited by 2,442
Representing and Testing Organizational Theories: A Holistic Construal
Bagozzi, R. P., & Phillips, L. W. (1982) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392322 · Cited by 2,064
Cited by
Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920638601200408 · Cited by 17,102
Crafting a Job: Revisioning Employees as Active Crafters of Their Work
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259118 · Cited by 4,965
Method Variance in Organizational Research: Truth or Urban Legend?
Spector, P. E. (2006) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428105284955 · Cited by 3,445
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332 · Cited by 2,303
Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: reality or artifact?
Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1989) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.3.462 · Cited by 1,616
Metadata
- Authors
- Glick, W. H., JENKINS, Jr., & GUPTA, N.
- Venue
- Academy of Management Journal
- Publisher
- Academy of Management
- Published
- 1986-09-01
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 441-464
- ISSN
- 0001-4273 (ISSN-L)
- 1948-0989
- OpenAlex
- W2317449191
- Cited by
- 221
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 18.06
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: METHOD VERSUS SUBSTANCE: HOW STRONG ARE UNDERLYING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN JOB CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTITUDINAL OUTCOMES? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/256218
- The paper
- Glick, W. H., JENKINS, Jr., & GUPTA, N. (1986). METHOD VERSUS SUBSTANCE: HOW STRONG ARE UNDERLYING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN JOB CHARACTERISTICS AND ATTITUDINAL OUTCOMES? Academy of Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.2307/256218
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.
