Search

Role theory has been suggested as the conceptual framework in which to relate or join the properties of the organization and the individual. Two major concepts from role theory are role conflict and ambiguity. Role conflict and ambiguity, measured with scales developed by Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970) have been used in most of the recent studies on role perceptions. Although the scales are frequently related to attitudinal and behavioral variables, they have remained relatively unexamined. This paper is an examination of the psychometric properties of the role conflict and ambiguity scales, including the factor structure, coefficients of congruency, internal reliabilities, test-retest reliabilities, absolute levels of conflict and ambiguity, and correlations with additional attitudinal and behavioral variables. The analysis is conducted across six samples. The results suggest that continued use of role conflict and role ambiguity scales appears to be warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The following paper examines the application of the principles of operant conditioning to the prediction of individual behavior in an organizational setting. The review centers about the extended operant conditioning model of Jablonsky and DeVries (Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1972, 7, 340-358). Conceptual errors, such as in an incorrect application of negative reinforcement and an incomplete operant conditioning framework are discussed. Several suggestions for future models are given. Examines the application of the principles of operant conditioning to the prediction of individual behavior in an organizational setting. Review centering on the extended operant conditioning model of Jablonsky and DeVries; Discussion of conceptual errors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]