Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Wright State University, 2020, Human Factors and Industrial/Organizational Psychology PhD

Workers who are satisfied with their jobs are better performers, but prior research has found a plethora of moderating variables between job satisfaction and job performance (Ostroff, 1992, Schleicher, Watt, & Greguras, 2004; Spector, 1997). Prior research has suggested that job attitude strength can strengthen the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance and that the relationships between personality variables and extra-role job performance are stronger in weak rather than strong workplace situations (Meyer et al., 2014; Shleicher et al., 2015). In the current study, I investigated the interaction between job satisfaction, job attitude strength, and situational strength on job performance. Using attitude strength and situational strength theories, I argued that the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance is stronger when attitudes are strong and situations are weak. Using a sample of workers from Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk, N = 539), I found that job attitude strengthens the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. However, strong evidence was found to suggest that strong situations strengthened rather than weakened the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance. I found little evidence of a three-way interaction between job satisfaction, job attitude strength, and situational strength on job performance in the direction expected. My findings have important implications for the attitude strength and situational strength literatures.

Committee: Nathan Bowling Ph.D. (Advisor); Debra Steele-Johnson Ph.D. (Committee Member); Joseph Houpt Ph.D. (Committee Member); David LaHuis Ph.D. (Committee Member) Subjects: Business Administration; Psychology

Master of Science (MS), Wright State University, 2017, Human Factors and Industrial/Organizational Psychology MS

Counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) harm organizations and their members (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Niehoff & Paul, 2000). CWBs, however, often go unnoticed by management. Peer reporting, which refers to employees notifying organizational authorities of their peers' CWBs, can help the organization detect CWBs. Employees, however, are generally hesitant to peer report (Bowling & Lyons, 2015; Trevino & Victor, 1992). The purpose of the current study was to investigate the mechanisms by which the organization, supervisor, and the workgroup might each facilitate employees' peer reporting of CWBs. Drawing from situational strength theory, I argue that the organizational peer reporting policies, supervisors' encouragement to peer report, and workgroup norms regarding peer reporting each create a “strong” peer reporting situation in which employees are more likely to peer report. Furthermore, I argue that commitment to the organization, supervisor, and workgroup moderates the respective relationships of organizational policies, supervisors' encouragement, and workgroup norms with employees' peer reporting of CWBs. Using a sample of workers from Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk; N = 450), I found that organizational commitment moderates the relationship between organizational peer reporting policies and peer reporting of CWBs targeted at the organization. My findings have important practical and theoretical implications for the peer reporting literature.

Committee: Nathan Bowling Ph.D. (Advisor); Gary Burns Ph.D. (Committee Member); David Lahuis Ph.D. (Committee Member) Subjects: Psychology

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Wright State University, 2015, Human Factors and Industrial/Organizational Psychology PhD

Health concerns associated with obesity are becoming an increasingly large societal problem. Engaging in physical exercise is one effective way to combat obesity, but most people do not exercise enough to derive significant health benefits. In order to increase participation in exercise activities, it is first necessary to have a good understanding of why people are not exercising. The current research builds on prior research by investigating the proposition that conflict from work, family, and school roles can reduce time spent exercising. To accomplish this goal, I created exercise conflict scales by taking existing items from the work-family conflict literature and modifying them to reflect the extent to which time-based and strain-based role conflict from each domain (work, family, and school) interferes with exercise. The new exercise conflict scales were investigated alongside several constructs (i.e., personality, exercise automaticity, exercise intentions, perceived benefits and barriers) that have been demonstrated to correlate with exercise. I anticipated that all types of exercise conflict would be negatively related to exercise, and would moderate the relationship between the other predictors and exercise. Results indicated that all types of exercise conflict were negatively related to exercise as expected. Further, exercise conflict, as well as perceived barriers, exhibited numerous moderating effects. In the future, the exercise conflict scales could potentially be used in exercise interventions in order to help organizations increase exercise participation by providing more targeted (i.e., domain specific) interventions.

Committee: Nathan Bowling Ph.D. (Advisor); Melissa Gruys Ph.D. (Committee Member); David LaHuis Ph.D. (Committee Member); Valerie Shalin Ph.D. (Committee Member) Subjects: Psychology