Herzberg et al. proposed the two-factor theory of job satisfaction in 1959, asserting that job satisfaction should be determined only by motivators, but dissatisfaction only by dissatisfiers. Since then, there have been a lot of studies to test its validity. The purpose of this study was to test the Herzberg theory in Japan. The subjects were blue color workers and middle managements groups in four different manufacturing companies. Questionaires were used instead of interviews of the original Herzberg study, consisting of eighty items. Each of them implied either favorable or unfavorable experiences in the job situations following the list of analysis of factors such as Recognition, Achievement, Possibility of growth and so forth. For example, (1) Recently I got solved problems with good ideas, (2) The group I'm working with is poor cohesive, (3) I've desirable peers to work with together. The respondents were called for to consider whether or not they had favorable and unfavorable experiences concerning each of factors mentioned above (the first level analysis), and to check on seven points scales to what extent they had job satisfaction or dissatisfaction (the second level analysis). The results have been presented in Fig. 1 (the first level analysis) and Fig. 2, Fig. 3, and Fig. 4 (the second level analysis group by group). According to them, there were both positive and negative sides to the Herzberg theory, but, by and large, the results supporting the so-called satisfier hypothesis were obtained in the middle managements group and the dissatisfier hypothesis in the blue color workers groups. The details is as following: The factors supported by this study were Responsibility (satisfier), Salarly, Working conditions, Factors in personal life, Status, and Company policy and administration (dissatisfies). The factors that were not fully supported were Possibility of growth, Advancement, Achievement (satisfier), and Job security (dissatisfier). Factors supported by the results of one group but opposed by those of another group were Work itself (satisfier), Interpersonal relations, and Supervision-technical (dissatisfier).
Purpose: To study the development of the concept of “good” and “bad” child among pre-adolescent and early adolescent subjects, with the purpose of clarifying the moral development from the cognitive side. Subjects: The 3rd, 5th and the 8th grade boys and girls, approximately 100 from each grade level. Method: Subjects are asked to think of the best child and the worst child they know. An inventory of 50 items, each describing a characteristic behavior of a child, is provided for each subject. He is to rate both the best and the worst child he has in his mind against each of these items. Results: 1. Each item was tested whether it discriminated the “good” and the “bad” child as conceived by our subjects. Forty one out of 50 items discriminated significantly. No clear developmental trend was observed as to the number and the kind of the significant iertems. 2. Based on the difference score between the “best” and the “worst” child, the items were intercorrelated to from a 50×50 correlation matrix. This matrix was factor analyzed by the Complete Centroid Method and then rotated by the orthogonal rotation method developed by Kashiwagi (1969). Following four factors emerged. Factor I: Integration of purposeful act, e.g., clear expression of opinion, willingness to do good things, etc. Factor II: Adaptation to cultural norms, e.g., cleanliness, good language habit, etc. Factor III: Adaptation to interpersonal norms among children, e.g., observing rules, playing tricks, etc. Factor IV: Cooperativeness and friendliness, e.g., not selfish, cooperative, etc. 3. The factor scored of Factors II and III tended to decrease as age increased. Sex difference was observed in factor I score, male being larger than the female subjects. It was also to be noted that the factor 4 score tended to be much higher than other factor scores. 4. The analysis of the distribution shape of the factor scores in terms of Weibull distribution to determine the contribution of each factor in discriminating good and bad. Factor 1 increased the effectiveness as the age increased. Factor 2 was important for younger subjects. Factor 3 was also more important at younger age level. Factor 3 was more effective with older subjects. Conclusion: As the age of the subjects increases the important discriminating criteria shifts from adaptation to outside norms to purposeful integrity and self regulation.
The present study is designed to investigate the effect of the context upon personality-impression formation. The main variable to be examined is the amount of stimuli: that is, it is investigated whether the increase in the amount of stimuli increases the context effect. Stimulus informations consisted of simple lists of personality-trait adjectives. Traits selected as the stimuli are those which are either highly desirable (H), mildly desirable (M+) mildly undesirable (M-), or highly undesirable (L). These traits were selected from the normative data on social desirability. Ss rated the likableness of test adjectives accompanied with 2 or 4 context adjectives under either of the following two instructional conditions. 46 Ss rated the test adjectives under the person condition (P-C), in which the stimuli were presented as indicating some college students. 46 Ss were assigned to the word condition (W-C), in which the stimuli were presented as only clusters of personality-trait adjectives. The value of test adjectives is H or L, and the value of context adjectives is H, M+, M-, or L. After rating the overall likableness to each of 16 stimulus sets (see Table 1), Ss evaluated the likableness of each of the test adjectives under the instructional conditions. Results are as follows: 1. The context effect is shown in the P-C, but not in the W-C condition: that is, evaluations of test adjectives are displaced toward the likableness of the context adjectives in P-C. 2. The context effect shown in P-C increases with increased discrepancy between the likableness of a test adjective and that of a context one. 3. The amount of context adjectives is significantly related with the context effect: namely, the magnitude of the effect increases as the amount becomes larger. 4. In W-C, increased amount of adjectives increases the polarization of evaluation. These results are found in the H but not in the L test-adjectives, and seem to be consistent with the hypothesis of a shift in meaning as suggested by Asch (1946).