SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

vol.37 issue2Social support and well-being among eelocating women: the mediating roles of resilience and optimismType D personality individuals: exploring the protective role of intrinsic job motivation in burnout author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  


Services on Demand




Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO
  • On index processSimilars in Google


Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones

On-line version ISSN 2174-0534Print version ISSN 1576-5962

Rev. psicol. trab. organ. vol.37 n.2 Madrid Aug. 2021  Epub Aug 09, 2021 


Meta-analytic examination of a suppressor effect on subjective well-being and job performance relationship

Estudio metaanalítico de un efecto supresor en la relación entre el bienestar subjetivo y el desempeño en el trabajo

Silvia Moscoso1  , Jesús F Salgado1 

1University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain


This paper presents a meta-analytic study of the relationship between overall subjective well-being (SWB), cognitive SWB, affective SWB, and job performance ratings. The study examined the moderator effect of the source of job performance measure (self-report vs. supervisory ratings). The database consists of 34 independent samples (n = 5,352) using supervisory performance ratings and 38 independent samples (n = 12,086) using self-reported of job performance. These samples were located through electronic and manual searches. The results indicated that, on average, the correlation for SWB- supervisory ratings (ρ = .35) was slightly larger than for SWB-self-reported performance (ρ = .33). The correlation of affective SWB was much higher with supervisory ratings (ρ = .49) than with self-reported performance (ρ = .30). A suppressor effect of cognitive SWB was found for the prediction of supervisory ratings. Finally, we discuss the implications for the theory and the practice of SWB at work and suggest new research avenues.

Keywords Subjective well-being; Affective well-being; Cognitive well-being; Job performance; Satisfaction with life; Suppressor effect


Este artículo presenta un estudio metaanalítico de la relación entre el bienestar subjetivo general (SWB), el SWB cognitivo, el SWB afectivo y las valoraciones de desempeño en el trabajo. El estudio examinó el efecto moderador de la fuente de valoración del desempeño en el trabajo (autoinforme frente a calificaciones de los supervisores). La base de datos consta de 34 muestras independientes (n = 5,352) en las que utilizaron evaluaciones del desempeño realizadas por los supervisores y 38 muestras independientes (n = 12,086) en las que utilizaron autoinformes de desempeño en el trabajo. Las muestras se localizaron mediante búsquedas electrónicas y manuales. Los resultados indicaron que, de promedio, la correlación entre SWB general y las valoraciones de los supervisores (ρ = .35) fue ligeramente mayor que la correlación entre el SWB y los autoinformes de desempeño (ρ = .33). La correlación del SWB afectivo fue mucho mayor con las evaluaciones de los supervisores (ρ = .49) que con los autoinforme de desempeño (ρ = .30). También se encontró un efecto supresor del SWB cognitivo para la predicción de las evaluaciones del desempeño realizadas por los supervisores. Por último, se presentan las implicaciones de los resultados para la teoría y la práctica del SWB en el trabajo y se sugieren nuevas vías de investigación.

Palabras clave Bienestar subjetivo general; Bienestar afectivo; Bienestar cognitivo; Desempeño en el trabajo; Satisfacción con la vida; Efecto supresor


Subjective well-being (SWB) refers to the cognitive evaluation and emotional balance that people make of their lives (Diener, 1984, 2000; Diener et al., 2003). Currently, the most widely accepted model of SWB (i.e., Diener's model) consists of three elements (Busseri, 2015, 2018; Busseri & Sadava, 2011; Tov, 2018): life satisfaction (LS), positive affect (PA), and negative affect (NA). Life satifaction is the SWB cognitive component and it refers to the judgments of life satisfaction. PA and NA are the two elements of the SWB affective component, which refers to the emotional balance (EB) between the level of PA and NA experienced by the individual (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2008; Diener et al., 2009). Therefore, a high level of SWB is an effect of the combination of both a high EB and a high LS. Figure 1 represents Diener et al.'s approach to SWB.

Figure 1.  Diener et al.'s Model of Subjective Well-being. 

The relationships among the three elements of Diener's SWB model are moderately high. For instance, Busseri's (2018) meta-analysis reported that LS correlated .53 with PA and -.37 with NA. Despite this, Diener et al. (2003) suggested that LS and EB should be independently assessed because they have theoretical and substantive implications. For instance, Diener et al. (2010) found that LS correlated .33 and .30 with income and possession of modern conveniences, respectively. However, EB correlated .14 and .13 with these two variables. On the other hand, EB correlated .32 with the choice of how to spend time, while LS correlated .15 with this variable.

Subjective Well-being and Job Performance

Research carried out over three decades studied the relationship between SWB and job performance. For example, in a series of pioneer studies, Wright and his colleagues examined the relationship between the affective component of SWB and job performance (Wright & Bonnet, 2007; Wright et al., 1993; Wright & Cropanzano, 2000; Wright et al., 2002; Wright et al., 2007; Wright & Staw, 1999). These researchers found correlations ranging from .23 to .48. Some studies showed even higher correlations (e.g., Ahmed & Malik, 2019; Haider et al., 2018; Merriman, 2016; Odle-Dusseau, 2008; Rego & Cunha, 2008; Riaz et al., 2014). Nevertheless, some studies showed very low correlations (e.g., Boyar et al., 2016; Clarke & Mahadi, 2017; Kossek et al., 2001; Law et al., 2008); some showed no relationship (Athota et al., 2020; Donaldson & Blanchard, 1995; Sargent & Terry, 1998; Staw & Barsade, 1993; Walker, 2013; Youssef & Luthans, 2007), and other studies found a negative correlation between SWB and job performance (e.g., Moradi et al., 2014; Singh et al., 2012). Overall, the findings revealed considerable variability.

Three meta-analyses summarized the relationship of the cognitive and affective components of SWB with job performance (Erdogan et al., 2012; Ford et al., 2011; Shockley et al., 2012). These meta-analyses consisted of a small number of primary studies conducted in the USA, many of them using small-size samples (Walsh et al., 2018). This last fact means that second-order sampling error can happen as in Ford et al. (2011), where the variance explained by artifacts is greater than 100% in the case of LS and self-rated performance relationship. Shockley et al.'s (2012) meta-analysis reported credibility intervals that included zero for three out of four cases. This implies that the correlation found is not generalizable beyond the studies included in the meta-analysis. Finally, the meta-analysis of Erdogan et al. (2012) did not correct the observed correlations for the effect of artifactual errors (e.g., reliability in LS and job performance and sampling error), which produced an underestimation of the true relationship and the overestimation of true variance.

The literature reviews of Lyubomirsky and her colleagues (Boehm & Lyubomirsky, 2008; Lyubomirsky et al., 2005; Walsh et al., 2018) mentioned two limitations of past meta-analyses: (a) many of the primary studies included in those meta-analyses date back many years and many used small-sample sizes and (b) they can suffer to some extent from publication bias (i.e., it is possible that a number of nonsignificant, unpublished studies were not included and only studies conducted in the USA were included).

Together with those limitations, there are two additional ones that can be mentioned: (a) previous meta-analyses did not examine the relationship between job performance and the cognitive and affective components of SWB simultaneously, and (b) apart from Ford et al. (2011), previous meta-analyses did not distinguish between self-rated job performance and supervisory-rated job performance. This last distinction is relevant, as supervisory ratings of job performance are the main criteria in personnel decisions (Campbell & Wiernik, 2015; Salgado & Moscoso, 1996, 2019a, 2019b; Salgado et al., 2016).

Research on the relationship between SWB and job performance has also been characterized by using a variety of estimates of SWB. Some studies have evaluated a global estimate of SWB, other studies have evaluated affective SWB or cognitive SWB only, and other studies have evaluated both SWB components. For instance, the series of studies by Wright and his colleagues (e.g., Wright & Cropanzano, 2000; Wright et al., 2007) used a measure of affective SWB, Law et al. (2008) evaluated cognitive SWB only, Zelenski et al. (2008) evaluated cognitive SWB and affective SWB but not overall SWB, and Salgado et al. (2019) evaluated cognitive SWB, affective SWB, and overall SWB.

The variability in SWB-job performance correlations together with the fact that the studies assessed different SWB facets and components suggest that the relationship between overall SWB, its components, and job performance might be different from the relationships of job performance and cognitive and affective SWB.

Moderator Effect of Self-rating vs. Supervisory Rating of Job Performance

Almost all the studies in our database (with few exceptions) used one of these two types of ratings: (a) supervisory ratings of job performance or (b) self-ratings of job performance. Self-ratings were used in 69% of studies on cognitive SWB-job performance, in 33% of studies on affective SWB-job performance, and in 53.8% of the studies on overall SWB-job performance. In other research areas, for example, cognitive abilities and personality, studies using self-ratings of job performance typically found greater validity in comparison with the studies using supervisory ratings (Salgado & Moscoso, 2000). However, this moderator effect had not been meta-analytically examined in the SWB-job performance domain.

In addition, interrater reliability of supervisory ratings is typically lower than .70, while self-ratings' reliability is typically higher than .80 (Salgado & Moscoso, 1996, 2019a; Viswesvaran et al., 1996). As the reliability of the measures is a factor that attenuates the correlation between SWB and job performance, one can expect that the magnitude of the correlation be larger for the studies in which job performance was assessed with self-reports.

Also, it must be pointed out that the correlation between self-ratings of job performance and SWB measures might also be larger because of common-method variance, particularly when cross-sectional studies are carried out. For these reasons, an examination of the potential moderator effects of the rating type seems to be in order. Consequently, we state the following research question.

Research Question 1: Does the type of job performance ratings (supervisory ratings vs. self-ratings) moderate the validity of SWB and its components as predictors of job performance?

Suppressor Relationship in the Prediction of Job Performance by a Composite of Cognitive and Affective SWB

Most of the primary studies conducted so far, and meta-analyses mentioned above examined the relationship of one of SWB components with job performance, but the joint relationship of both SWB components with job performance has been scarcely researched in primary studies, and it was not meta-analytically tested. Some recent primary research used a global measure of SWB that included both cognitive and affective measures (Jalali & Heidari, 2016; Jones, 2006; Merriman, 2016; Rabenu et al., 2017; Zheng et al., 2015). However, they did not test the specific contribution of each SWB component in the prediction of job performance.

Recently, Salgado et al. (2019) examined this issue, both concurrently and predictively. More specifically, Salgado et al. tested the predictive efficiency of cognitive SWB, affective SWB, a global measure of SWB, and a composite of cognitive plus affective SWB measures. They found that the global measure of SWB showed similar validity to the two components considered separately. Interestingly, a noteworthy finding was that the composite of cognitive and affective SWB showed a much larger validity than the other three alternative measures (i.e., cognitive SWB, affective SWB, and global SWB). However, the most significant finding was that the cognitive and the affective components of SWB showed a suppressor relationship with job performance. In other words, the magnitude of the effect of the affective component increased when the cognitive component entered in the regression equation. This suppressor effect of the two SWB components in their relationship with job performance had not previously been found in the research literature.

Salgado et al. (2019) explained this effect theoretically suggesting that the cognitive component of SWB (i.e., satisfaction with life) would function as an emotion regulation mechanism. It would operate "suppressing" (avoiding or reducing) negative emotions, which, subsequently, would produce greater frequency of positive emotions, and, therefore, affective SWB would have a greater effect on job performance. Salgado et al. also suggested that because cognitive SWB is typically more stable over time than affective SWB, the cognitive component of SWB would also have the effect of reinforcing the stability of affective SWB, which would subsequently make the effect of affective SWB on job performance stronger (because of the smaller variability and the smaller measurement error) over time.

Suppressor effects are not unknown in the SWB literature and several suppressor effects related to well-being have been described previously. For instance, Watson et al. (2013) found a suppressor effect between euphoria and well-being for predicting psychological-health problems (e.g., depression, generalized anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and panic). In another study, Paulhus et al. (2004) found that two emotions, guilt and shame, maintained a suppressing relationship for predicting depression.

To the best of our knowledge, this suppressor effect of cognitive SWB and affective SWB with job performance has not been re-examined or replicated yet. Moreover, it must be taken into account that the study of Salgado et al. (2019) used supervisory ratings to evaluate job performance. Therefore, it remains unexamined whether the suppressor effect also exists when job performance is self-rated. A comprehensive meta-analysis that calculates the specific correlation (effect size) of each SWB component with job performance would allow for the testing of the hypothesis of the suppressor relationship of cognitive and affective SWB with job performance. Based on the previous rationale, we posit the following two research questions:

Research Question 2: What is the magnitude of the joint relationship of cognitive SWB and affective SWB with supervisory job performance and self-reported job performance?

Research Question 3: Do cognitive SWB and affective SWB show a suppressor relationship for predicting supervisory job performance and self-rating job performance?

Main Objectives

In summary, despite the fact that research showed that SWB consists of a cognitive component and an affective component, some empirical studies evaluated one of the components, but not both, and other studies used an overall measure of SWB that did not permit the estimation of the specific contribution of each component to the prediction of job performance (Diener et al., 2003; Fisher, 2010). Another issue unexamined in previous research is whether affective SWB shows incremental validity over cognitive SWB for predicting job performance.

This study has two main goals: (1) to examine the moderator effects of the performance measure (self-report vs. supervisory ratings) and (2) to test the hypothesis of the suppressor effect of cognitive SWB on affective SWB to predict job performance. In order to achieve these goals, we conducted a series of psychometric meta-analyses.


Literature Search

Using three strategies, we searched for studies that reported correlations or data which permit to calculate the correlation between a measure of SWB (i.e., overall SWB, PA, NA, EB, LS, and the like) and a measure of job performance. The first strategy was to conduct electronic searches using the following databases and meta-databases: PsycLit, Google, Scholar-Google, ERIC, Elsevier, Sage, Wiley, Academy of Management, Springer, and EBSCO. We used the following keywords: "subjective well-being," "psychological well-being," "satisfaction with life," "happiness," "positive affect," "negative affect," "emotional balance," "SPANE," in combination with "job performance," "performance ratings," and "work performance." The second strategy was to examine the section of references of the meta-analyses and narrative reviews mentioned above, and the references of collected documents to identify potential papers not included in the previous set. The third strategy was to contact international researchers to obtain previously unidentified papers. The final database consisted of 34 independent samples using supervisory performance ratings and 38 independent samples using self-reported job performance. The list of studies and their data appear in the Appendix.

The Bioethics Committee of our university declared the meta-analyses carried out with published and unpublished studies exempt from approval because they do not include personal identification data.

Inclusion Criteria and Decision Rules

As the primary purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine the correlation between SWB and its components with real job performance, in the final database we included only documents reporting correlational studies with real incumbents. In other words, we did not consider laboratory experiments, studies with no real people, and studies with student samples. We also excluded studies reporting validity estimates for physical symptoms and clinical scales. When studies reported a range of numbers of incumbents, we coded the smallest number to provide a more conservative estimate. When an article or document reported data from two or more independent samples of participants, they were entered into the meta-analysis as separate correlations. When a study reported correlations for the same sample obtained in different occasions, the average estimate served as the data source for that sample. Finally, when a study used two performance measures for the same sample at the same time, the average correlation was entered as data source. We also excluded 11 studies because the same coefficients had been reported in another paper included in the dataset.

The inclusion criteria fulfill the criteria and recommendations of the Meta-Analysis Reporting Standards (MARS) specified in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2019; available at and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA).

Agreement between Coders

The authors coded all correlation coefficients independently and the following categories of data points were compared: (1) sample size, (2) correlation coefficient, (3) performance measure (self-ratings vs. supervisor ratings), (3) performance appraisal purpose (i.e., administrative vs. research), (4) SWB measure, (5) SWB reliability, and (6) performance reliability. The initial agreement was 95.3%. The authors examined the disagreements by referring back to the studies and discussing until they reached consensus.

Publication Bias and Identification of Outliers

We used three methods to detect potential publication bias: (1) comparison of the average observed correlation of published and unpublished studies, (2) correlation between sample size and effect size, and (3) cumulative meta-analyses (CMA). The total of published and unpublished studies, on average, showed practically the same effect size. Therefore, we can reject the idea that the publication source distorts average validity. The correlation between sample size and effect size was small and statistically non-significant; therefore, we can also reject this source of publication bias. Concerning to CMA, there is agreement that CMA is the most robust technique for detecting publication bias (Borenstein, 2005; Kepes et al., 2012; Schmidt & Hunter, 2015; Schmidt & Le, 2014). CMA results showed no evidence of publication bias. Therefore, the three techniques agreed that publication bias was not a relevant issue in the current case.

In this meta-analysis, we used the Sample Adjusted Meta-Analytic Deviance Statistic (SAMD) by Huffcutt and Arthur (1995; see also Beal et al., 2002) and the number of SD units below or above the mean of the distribution of correlations (Wilcox, 2014) to identify potential outliers. The two outlier criteria agreed as they identified two studies, with four validity coefficients, as potential outliers. They were the study of Moradi et al. (2014) and the study of Singh et al. (2012). The corresponding SAMD statistics were remarkably larger than 1.96 (p < .001). All SD units below the mean were larger than 3 SD units (i.e., p < .001). Therefore, the studies of Moradi et al. (2014) and Singh et al. (2012) were considered outliers in this study, and meta-analyses were done with and without these two studies. The effects of these two outliers were substantial on the observed variance, adding artifactual variance.

SWB Reliability

SWB reliability and its cognitive and affective components were estimated using the coefficients (internal consistency) reported in individual studies. Some of the studies did not provide reliability coefficients of the instruments, and, in those cases, we used the mean value of the reliability distribution of all combined studies as the study reliability. Next, we developed an empirical distribution for overall SWB and each SWB component. Mean reliabilities were .83 (SD = .08) for cognitive SWB, .80 (SD = .08) for affective SWB, and .85 (SD = .10) for overall SWB. The meta-analysis of Busseri (2018) reported reliabilities of .86 (SD = .07), .81 (SD = .07), and .82 (SD = .04) for positive affect, negative affect, and satisfaction with life, respectively, which are very similar to reliabilities found in this meta-analysis.

Job Performance Reliability

In the studies included in the dataset, job performance was assessed with self-reports and/or supervisory ratings. Therefore, two different estimates of reliability are required. In the case of self-reports, an internal consistency coefficient (e.g., Cronbach's alpha) is the estimate of choice in the absence of a coefficient of equivalence and stability (CES) (Schmidt et al., 2003). In the case of supervisor ratings, in the absence of a CES, an interrater coefficient is the appropriate one (Salgado & Moscoso, 1996, 2019a; Viswesvaran et al. 1996). As some studies did not provide job performance's reliability, we developed an empirical distribution of internal consistency coefficients for self-reports of job performance. In the case of supervisor ratings, we developed an empirical distribution considering the nature of supervisor ratings. Salgado and Moscoso (2019a) found that the purpose of performance appraisal (research vs. administrative) is a powerful moderator of interrater reliability. As only one study in our dataset reported interrater reliability, we used the distributions developed by Salgado and Moscoso (2019a) according to the following rules: (1) if supervisor ratings were collected for research purposes, we used .61 (SD = .11) as an estimate of interrater reliability; (2) if supervisor ratings were collected for administrative purposes, we used an estimate of .48 as interrater reliability. If the job performance measure was a self-report, and the study did not provide the coefficient, we used the mean value of the distribution as reliability (.80). Average reliability was .80 (SD = .09) for self-reported job performance and .61 (SD = .11) for supervisory job performance ratings.


Meta-analyses by SWB-Job Performance Source

These meta-analyses were conducted to respond to the Research Question 1, concerning potential moderator effects of source of job performance ratings on the relationship between SWB and job performance. These meta-analyses allow us to compare true score correlation for studies which used self-reports of job performance and with the true score correlation obtained for studies which used supervisory ratings. Tables 1 and 2 show the results of these meta-analyses.

Table 1.  Results of the Meta-analysis for the Combinations of SWB and Supervisory Job Performance Ratings 

Note. SWB = subjective well-being; k = number of independent samples; N = total sample size; rw= mean observed validity; S2r = sample size weighted observed variance of the correlations; SDr = standard deviation of observed validity; ρop = operational validity; ρt = true correlation (validity corrected for criterion and predictor reliability); SDρ = standard deviation of ρ; %VE = percentage of variance accounted for by artifactual errors; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval of the true correlation; 90% CV = 90% credibility value based on the true correlation.

Table 2.  Results of the Meta-analysis for the Combinations of SWB and Self-reported Job Performance Ratings 

Note. SWB = subjective well-being; k = number of independent samples; N = total sample size; rw= mean observed validity; S2r = sample size weighted observed variance of the correlations; SDr = standard deviation of observed validity; ρop = operational validity; ρt = true score correlation (validity corrected for criterion and predictor reliability); SDρ = standard deviation of ρ; %VE = percentage of variance accounted for by artifactual errors; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval of the true correlation; 90% CV = 90% credibility value based on the true correlation.

The results show that the source of job performance ratings operates differently for the various SWB components and measures. More specifically, true correlation is noticeably larger for self-reported job performance than for supervisory ratings in the case of cognitive SWB (ρt = .30 vs. ρt = .17), but the true score correlation is considerably larger for supervisory ratings in affective SWB (ρt = .49 vs. ρt = .30), slightly larger in overall SWB (ρt = .42 vs. ρt = .40), and in SWB estimate when all studies were combined (ρt = .35 vs. ρt = .33). On average, true score correlation is slightly larger (ρt = .35 vs. ρt = .33) for the supervisory ratings of job performance.

Considering all the results, Research Question 1 does not have a single answer. The results indicate that the source of job performance ratings is a relevant moderator of the relationship between SWB and job performance, but it operates differently for cognitive SWB and affective SWB. For cognitive SWB, the relationship is larger when job performance is assessed with self-reports, while for affective SWB and overall SWB, the relationship is larger when supervisors are the source of job performance ratings.

As far as observed variability was concerned, artifactual errors explained more variance for studies using supervisory ratings than for studies using job performance self-reports. Ninety percent CVs were all positive and very different from zero, which indicates that relationships between SWB and job performance generalize for both self-reports and supervisory ratings.

Examination of Suppressor Relationship in the Prediction of Job Performance by a Compound of Cognitive and Affective SWB

In order to establish the joint capacity of cognitive and affective SWB to predict job performance and to know whether cognitive SWB shows a suppressor effect on affective SWB, we conducted a series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses using the validity estimates found in previous meta-analyses. Multiple regressions were conducted in two steps. In the first step, affective SWB was the predictor, as it showed a larger correlation with job performance. In the second step, both affective and cognitive SWB were entered into the equation. Multiple regression requires knowing the correlation between cognitive SWB and affective SWB, but the studies included in the database rarely reported this information. For this reason, we used the values found in the meta-analyses of Busseri (2018) as the best estimate of the correlation between cognitive SWB and affective SWB. Finally, we created three matrices of correlations reported in Table 3, using cognitive SWB and affective SWB and three correlation estimates of job performance.

Table 3.  Correlation Matrices for the Relationships between Cognitive SWB, Affective SWB, and Job Performance 

We carried out three hierarchical multiple regression analyses. Table 4 reports the results of these analyses. The first one used the correlations of cognitive and affective SWB with job performance, without distinguishing if job performance was assessed by supervisory ratings or self-reports. In this case, R was .374, and cognitive SWB added practically no explained variance over affective SWB (13.7% vs. 14.0%), but beta weights were significant for the two SWB components. In this case, the compound of cognitive and affective SWB showed a multiple correlation similar to the correlation found for overall SWB in the prediction of both self and supervisory ratings of job performance, as it was reported in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 4.  Results of the Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses to Predict Job Performance, Self-reported Performance, and Supervisory Performance Ratings 

Note. R = multiple correlation; R2 = square multiple correlation; Δ = incremented explained variance.

Self-reported job performance was the dependent variable, and cognitive SWB and affective SWB were the independent variables in the second multiple regression analysis. In this case, cognitive SWB showed incremental validity over affective SWB. Multiple correlation R was .334, which is higher than the two bivariate correlations (.30 and .30, respectively). The increment of explained variance was 2.2%, and beta values were significant. Betas were similar for cognitive and affective SWB, although slightly higher for affective SWB (.202 vs. .177). Therefore, the two components of SWB added validity for predicting self-reported job performance. However, the magnitude of the multiple correlation of the compound is smaller than the bivariate correlation of overall SWB with self-reported job performance (.334 vs. .40, respectively).

In the third multiple regression analysis, the dependent variable was supervisory performance rating, and cognitive and affective SWB were the independent variables. In this case, R is larger than the true correlation of affective SWB and supervisory ratings of job performance (.516 vs. .49). Therefore, the addition of cognitive SWB to the equation increased predictive validity, and also increased explained variance by 2.6%. However, beta for affective SWB increased by 26% (.615 vs. .49), while beta for cognitive SWB was negative (-.205); nonetheless, its zero-order correlation was positive (ρ = .17). These two beta values indicate that cognitive SWB acted as a suppressor variable for predicting supervisory ratings of job performance. Suppressor effect suggests that the presence of this variable in a regression equation increases the predictive power of an independent variable on the dependent variable.

More specifically, we found a net or cross-over suppression. Salgado et al. (2019) also found this cross-over suppression effect of cognitive SWB in their longitudinal study. The net or cross-over suppression refers to cases in which two independent variables and a dependent variable correlate positively with each other, but the inclusion of the two independent variables in regression equations increases beta of the most influential variable and changes beta sign of the weakest variable; that is, positive zero-correlation becomes a negative beta (Cohen & Cohen, 1975; MacKinnon et al., 2002; Paulhus et al., 2004; Salgado et al., 2019; Watson et al., 2013).

In order to test if the increment of affective SWB beta is significant, we computed Sobel test, z test, and 95% confidence interval (Sobel, 1982; MacKinnon, 2008; MacKinnon, Lockwood, et al., 2007). For the Sobel test, we used a calculator developed by Preacher and Leonardelli, which is available online at We also computed 95% confidence interval for the suppressor effect using the distribution of the product of two regression coefficients (z test). In this case, we used the PRODCLIN program developed by MacKinnon, Fritz, et al. (2007). Sobel test was -9.97 (p < .001), z test was -.12 (p < .01), and upper and lower limits of the 95% confidence interval were -.146 and -.105. Therefore, the three criteria showed that the suppressor effect was significant.

The finding that cognitive SWB suppresses some affective SWB variance in the case of supervisory ratings of job performance agrees with previous finding of Salgado et al. (2019). Also, it supports Diener's suggestion that both components of SWB should be assessed and measured independently. This suppressor relationship has both theoretical and practical implications that we will discuss later.

In summary, findings also revealed that the source of job performance ratings (i.e., self-reported vs. supervisory ratings) moderates the relationship of SWB and its components with job performance. Also, we found that there was a cross-over suppression relationship between affective and cognitive SWB in the prediction of supervisory ratings of job performance.


This meta-analysis examined the current empirical evidence on the relationship between job performance and SWB, using Diener's two-component model of SWB to categorize the studies conducted in the last three decades. The findings based on primary studies showed an enormous variability in the estimates of the SWB-performance relationship, with some studies reporting negative correlations, several reporting no relationships, and other studies reporting correlations of small-to-medium size.

Previous meta-analyses by Erdogan et al. (2012), Ford et al. (2011), and Shockley et al. (2012) estimated the average correlation of SWB cognitive and affective components with job performance, but it remained untested (a) whether the two components of SWB showed similar correlation with job performance; (b) whether despite the variability reported, there was evidence of generalizability in the relationships; (c) whether the correlation had been influenced by the source of job performance ratings (i.e., self-report vs. supervisory ratings); (d) whether a compound of cognitive and affective SWB measures shows higher explained variance than an overall measure of SWB or the variance explained by the respective SWB components taken separately, and (e) whether they were affected by publication bias.

In examining the empirical evidence with meta-analytic techniques, the present research made several unique contributions to the clarification of the relationships between SWB and its two components with overall job performance and aimed to answer three research questions.

The first unique contribution has been to show that SWB and job performance are moderately correlated, regardless of whether SWB is evaluated as overall, cognitive, or affective SWB. This correlation means that the higher the SWB level, the higher the job performance level. Therefore, overall SWB and its two components are valid predictors of performance ratings at work. The correlation is similar or even higher than the correlation found for other well-known variables related to job performance, such as the Big Five personality dimensions, cognitive abilities, emotional intelligence, the situational judgment test, interviews, and in-basket tests (see, for instance, Aguado et al. 2019; Alonso et al., 2015; Alonso et al., 2017; Herde et al., 2019; García-Izquierdo et al., 2012; García-Izquierdo et al., 2020; Joseph & Newman, 2010; Judge et al., 2013; Morillo et al., 2019; Moscoso et al., 2012; Moscoso & Salgado, 2001; Ones et al., 1993; Otero et al., 2020; Ryan & Derous, 2019; Salgado et al. (2015), Salgado, 2017; Salgado & Lado, 2018; Salgado & Moscoso, 2019b; Salgado & Tauriz, 2014; Van Rooy & Viswesvaran, 2004; Whetzel et al., 2014). Moreover, as evidenced by 90% credibility values, overall SWB, cognitive SWB, and affective SWB generalize validity across samples, instruments, occupations, organizations, and countries.

The second contribution has been to demonstrate that affective SWB is a much more valid predictor of job performance than cognitive SWB. Affective SWB also showed higher validity than overall SWB. This finding suggests that emotions at work are a very critical characteristic of individual differences in predicting job performance.

The third unique contribution has been to determine the moderating role of the source of job performance measures. Our findings showed that the validity of SWB is very similar for supervisor ratings and self-ratings of job performance (.33 vs. .35), although the validity is, on average, 6.1% larger for supervisor ratings. This finding is important because it had been believed that the validity for predicting self-ratings was typically higher due to common-method variance, among other factors. The findings of this meta-analysis, therefore, indicate that job performance self-ratings are acceptable estimates of job performance in the case of SWB, that they do not inflate the magnitude of validity, and that they can be a substitute for supervisory job performance ratings in this psychological domain.

The fourth unique contribution has been to demonstrate that the predictive capacity of a compound of cognitive and affective SWB depends powerfully on how job performance has been assessed. If we do not consider the source of job performance ratings, then a compound of cognitive and affective SWB shows similar validity to a measure of overall SWB. Therefore, both alternative SWB estimates are similarly useful. Nevertheless, our findings showed that the contribution of cognitive SWB to predicting job performance, in the presence of affective SWB, is different when one takes into account the source of job performance ratings.

In the case of self-reported job performance, cognitive SWB added explained variance to the variance accounted for by affective SWB. Moreover, the effects of cognitive and affective SWB are very similar, given the respective beta weights. However, this finding does not hold when job performance is assessed with supervisory ratings. Interestingly, in this last case, the relationship with cognitive and affective well-being showed a suppressor cross-over relationship, as beta for affective SWB increased, and beta for cognitive SWB became negative. This suppressor relationship had been found in a primary study by Salgado et al. (2019).

This meta-analysis also has implications for the theory and practice of psychology at work. The present meta-analytic findings provide empirical support for the Happy-Productive-Worker Hypothesis (HPWH), as both components of SWB correlated with job performance. Findings indicate that employees scoring higher on cognitive SWB (i.e., life satisfaction) and affective SWB also showed a higher level of job performance. As cognitive SWB has been termed life satisfaction or happiness on many occasions, so, by extension, we can conclude that the happier the employees, the better their job performance.

Another potential implication for the theory is about the relationship between SWB's cognitive and affective components. Many primary studies and a meta-analysis (e.g., Busseri, 2018) showed that the two components are highly related. However, potential cross-over effects between cognitive and affective components have been overlooked. Based on the findings of this research, it can be speculated that cognitive SWB may be a valid predictor of job performance due to its strong relationship with affective SWB. For instance, people that tend to experience more positive emotions might "generate" a higher level of satisfaction with life, and people that tend to experience more negative emotions might "generate" a lower level of satisfaction with life. In this conjecture, emotions will function as a trigger for satisfaction with life. This meta-analysis cannot clarify this hypothesis, and future studies should test it. A third implication for the theory has been to show that feelings can play a critical role in employees' job performance.

Salgado et al. (2019) suggested a theoretical explanation for the cross-over suppression situation finding, according to which cognitive SWB would function as an emotional regulation mechanism. As affective SWB is a balance of positive and negative emotions, cognitive SWB would act "suppressing" (avoiding) negative emotions, which, subsequently, would produce a higher frequency of positive emotions. Thus, affective SWB would have a more substantial effect on job performance. Moreover, as cognitive SWB is more stable over time than affective SWB, the former would reinforce or improve the stability of the effect of affective SWB on job performance over time.

The comparison of the validity of overall SWB (R = .42) with the validity of affective SWB plus cognitive SWB (R = .516) for predicting supervisory ratings of job performance highlights the importance of taking into account suppressor effects when the construct validity of SWB components is examined.

From a personnel selection perspective, as the findings showed that overall SWB predicts similarly well self-report and supervisory ratings of job performance, and this is not true for cognitive and affective SWB, an estimate of overall SWB could be the best choice when both informative sources of job performance are simultaneously used (e.g., when multi-source feedback is collected). However, if supervisory ratings of job performance are the criterion to be predicted, the best option is to supplement a measure of affective SWB with a measure of cognitive SWB.

Another practical strategy to increase employees' job performance is to develop workplace settings that activate and reinforce employees' positive emotions. Two potential ways of increasing affective SWB are (a) increasing the frequency of positive feedback and controlling the frequency of negative feedback and (b) increasing positive feedback and reducing negative emotions by lowering negative feedback, and implanting stress at work-reducing programs (Rahm et al., 2017). Recently, Heintzelman et al. (2020) developed an intervention program to increase SWB that can be applied both in in-person and online formats. A randomized controlled trial showed the efficacy of the program in increasing SWB. This kind of program, particularly in the on-line format, may be promising as a tool for improving SWB in the workplace.

As with all studies, the current one also has some limitations. This meta-analysis examined the relationship of SWB and its components with overall job performance. However, as job performance is a multi-dimensional construct (Campbell & Wiernik, 2015; Harari et al., 2016; Hoffman et al., 2007; Salgado & Moscoso, 2019a), the current estimates cannot be generalized to other job performance dimensions (e.g., citizenship performance, counterproductive behaviors at work, and innovative performance). This is the first limitation of this study. For example, we found no studies examining the relationship between SWB and its components with innovative performance, two studies for the combination SWB-task performance, three for the combination cognitive SWB-citizenship performance, and four studies for the combinations affective SWB-task performance and affective SWB-citizenship performance. Also, we were not able to find studies on the relationships between SWB and its components and non-rating measures of performance. This would be the second limitation of this meta-analysis. Future studies should examine the validity of SWB measures as predictors of other measures of job performance (e.g., production records, work sample tests, simulations, and other performance dimensions, such as task, citizenship, innovation, counterproductivity). Similarly, current validity estimates cannot be generalized to other relevant organizational criteria, such as turnover and absenteeism. Future studies should also be devoted to determining the validity of SWB measures to predict organizational criteria. A fourth limitation is that current findings do not permit us to assess the causal direction of the SWB relationship. Although longitudinal studies, on average, point out that the level of SWB at Time 1 correlates with the level of job performance at Time 2, in other words, that in those studies SWB precedes job performance, the nature of designs does not allow us to establish if previous job performance determined the level of SWB at Time 1 or if the SWB-job performance relationship is due to the effect of a third variable correlated with SWB, with job performance, or with both (Boehm & Lyubomirsky, 2008; Walsh et al., 2018). A fifth limitation of this meta-analysis refers to whether the relationship between cognitive SWB and affective SWB remains stable or declines over time, as it was found in previous research (e.g., Cropanzano & Wright, 1999, 2001; Salgado et al., 2019). The studies included in the database do not contain information to examine this issue.

In summary, this study contributes to the clarification of the relationships between SWB and job performance. It demonstrates that there is a substantial relationship between these two variables. Using Diener's two-component model of SWB, findings show that affective SWB correlates stronger with job performance than cognitive SWB and that there is a cross-over suppression relationship between cognitive and affective SWB for predicting supervisory ratings of job performance. Also, the study clarifies that the source of performance ratings moderates the relationship.


Dr. A. Berges (U. Zaragoza) and Dr. M. Iglesias (Magna Gestio) served as action editors for this manuscript. We wish to acknowledge Dr. Berges and Dr. Iglesias and three anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions on earlier versions of the current article.

Cite this article as: Moscoso, S. & Salgado, J. F. (2021). Meta-analytic examination of a suppressor effect on subjective well-being and job performance relationship. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 37(2), 119-131.

Funding: This research was partially supported by grant PSI2017-87603-P from the Spanish Ministry of Education to Silvia Moscoso and Jesús F. Salgado.


Aguado, D., Andrés, J. C., García-Izquierdo, A. L., & Rodríguez, J. (2019). LinkedIn "Big Four": Job performance validation in the ICT sector. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 35(2), 53-64. [ Links ]

*Ahmed, N., & Malik, B. (2019). Impact of psychological empowerment on job performance of teachers: Mediating role of psychological well-being. Review of Economics and Development Studies, 5(3), 451-460. [ Links ]

*Alessandri, G., Vecchione, M., Tisak, J., Deiana, G., Caria, S., & Caprara, G. V. (2012). The utility of positive orientation in predicting job performance and organisational citizenship behaviors: International review of applied psychology. Applied Psychology, 61(4), 669-698. [ Links ]

*Alonso, P., & Llovo, A. (2020). Relationships between job satisfaction, subjective well-being, and job performance. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Work Psychology, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela. [ Links ]

Alonso, P., Moscoso, S., & Cuadrado, D. (2015). Procedimientos de selección en pequeñas y medianas empresas españolas. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31(2), 79-89. [ Links ]

Alonso, P., Moscoso, S., & Salgado, J.F. (2017). Structured behavioral interview as a legal guarantee for ensuring equal employment opportunities for women: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 9(1), 15-23. [ Links ]

American Psychological Association. (2019). Publication manual (seventh edition). American Psychological Association. [ Links ]

*Athota, V. S., Budhwar, P., & Malik, A. (2020). Influence of personality traits and moral values on employee well-being, resilience and performance: A cross-national study. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 69(3), 653-685. [ Links ]

*Babin, B. J., & Boles, J. S. (1998). Employee behavior in a service environment: A model and test of potential differences between men and women. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 77-91. [ Links ]

*Baranik, L. E., Wang, M., Gong, Y., & Shi, J. (2017). "Customer mistreatment, employee health, and job performance: Cognitive rumination and social sharing as mediating mechanisms". Corrigendum. Journal of Management, 43(4), 1. [ Links ]

Beal, D. J., Corey, D. M., & Dunlap, W. P. (2002). On the bias of Huffcutt and Arthur's (1995) procedure for identifying outliers in the meta-analysis of correlations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 583-590. [ Links ]

*Bhuian, S. N., Menguc, B., & Borsboom, R. (2005). Stressors and job outcomes in sales: A triphasic model versus a linear-quadratic-interactive model. Journal of Business Research, 58(2), 141-150. [ Links ]

Boehm, J. K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Does happiness promote career success? Journal of Career Success, 16(1), 101-116. [ Links ]

Borenstein, M. (2005). Software for publication bias. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, M., & Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 193-220). Wiley. [ Links ]

*Boyar, S. L., Wagner, T. A., Petzinger, A., & McKinley, R. B. (2016). The impact of family roles on employee's attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management Development, 35(5), 623-635. [ Links ]

*Briggs, E., Jaramillo, F., & Weeks, W. A. (2012). The influences of ethical climate and organization identity comparisons on salespeople and their job performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 32(4), 421-436. [ Links ]

Busseri, M. A. (2015). Toward a resolution of the tripartite structure of subjective well-being. Journal of Personality, 83 (4) 413- 428. [ Links ]

Busseri, M. A. (2018). Examining the structure of subjective well-being through meta-analysis of the association among positive affect, negative affect, and life satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 122(2), 68-71. [ Links ]

Busseri, M. A., & Sadava, S. W. (2011). A review of the tripartite structure of subjective well-being: Implications for conceptualization, operationalization, and synthesis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(3), 290-314. [ Links ]

Campbell, J. P., & Wiernik, B. M. (2015). The modelling and assessment of work performance. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 47-74. [ Links ]

*Chughtai, A. A. (2021). A closer look at the relationship between life satisfaction and job performance. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 16(2), 805-825. [ Links ]

*Clarke, N., & Mahadi, N. (2017). Mutual recognition respect between leaders and followers: Its relationship to follower job performance and well-being. Journal of Business Ethics, 141(1), 163-178. [ Links ]

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioural sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum. [ Links ]

*Cropanzano, R., & Wright, T. A. (1999). A 5-Year of change in the relationship between well-being and job performance. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 51(4), 252-265. [ Links ]

Cropanzano, R., & Wright, T. A. (2001). When a "happy" worker is really a "productive" worker: A review and further refinement of the happy-productive worker thesis. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 53(3), 182-199. [ Links ]

*De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2006). The impact of job insecurity and contract type on attitudes, well-being and behavioural reports: A psychological contract perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79(3), 395-409. [ Links ]

*De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2007). Job insecurity in temporary versus permanent workers: Associations with attitudes, well-being, and behaviour. Work & Stress, 21(1), 65-84. [ Links ]

*Devonish, D. (2013). Workplace bullying, employee performance and behaviors: The mediating role of psychological well-being. Employee Relations, 35(6), 630-647. [ Links ]

Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542-575. [ Links ]

Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness, and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34-43. [ Links ]

Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2008). Happiness: Unlocking the mysteries of psychological wealth. Blackwell. [ Links ]

Diener, E., Kakneman, D., Tov, W. R., & Arora, R. (2010). Income's association with judgments of life versus feelings. In E. Diener, J.F. Helliwell, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), International differences in well-being (pp. 3-15). Oxford University Press. [ Links ]

Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 403-425. [ Links ]

Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi. D., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2009). New measures of well-being: Flourishing and positive and negative feelings. In E. Diener (Ed.), Assessing well-being: The collected works of Ed Diener, social indicators research series 39. [ Links ]

*Donaldson, S. I., & Blanchard, M. A. (1995). The seven health practices, well-being, and performance at work: Evidence for the value of reaching small and underserved worksites. Preventive Medicine, 24(3), 270-277. [ Links ]

*Edgar, F., Geare, A., & Zhang, J. A. (2017). A comprehensive concomitant analysis of service employees' well-being and performance. Personnel Review, 46(8), 1870-1889. [ Links ]

Erdogan, B., Bauer, T. N., Truxillo, D. N., & Mansfield, L. R. (2012). Whistle while you work: A review of the life satisfaction literature. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1038-1083. [ Links ]

Fisher, C. D. (2010). Happiness at work. International Journal of Management Review, 12(4), 384-412. [ Links ]

Ford, M. T., Cerasoli, C. P., Higgins, J. A., & Decesare, A. L. (2011). Relationships between psychological, physical, and behavioural health and work performance: A review and meta-analysis. Work & Stress, 25(3), 185-204. [ Links ]

García-Izquierdo, A. L., Moscoso, S., & Ramos-Villagrasa, P. J. (2012). Reactions to the fairness of promotion methods: Procedural justice and job satisfaction. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(4), 394-403. [ Links ]

García-Izquierdo, A. L., Ramos-Villagrasa, P. J., & Lubiano, M. A. (2020). Developing biodata for public manager selection purposes: A comparison between fuzzy logic and traditional methods. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 36(3) 231-242. [ Links ]

*Greenhaus, J. H., Bedeain, A. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1987). Work experiences, job performance, and feelings of personal and family well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(2), 200-215. [ Links ]

*Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2010). Why does proactive personality predict employee life satisfaction and work behaviors? A field investigation of the mediating role of the self-concordance model. Personnel Psychology, 63(3), 539-560. [ Links ]

*Haider, S., Jabeen, S., & Ahmad, J. (2018). Moderated mediation between work life balance and employee job performance: The role of psychological well-being and satisfaction with coworkers. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 34(1), 29-37. [ Links ]

Harari, M. B., Reaves, A. C., & Viswesvaran, C. (2016), Creative and innovative performance: A meta-analysis of relationships with task, citizenship, and counterproductive job performance dimensions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(4), 495-511. [ Links ]

Heintzelman, S. J., Kushlev, K., Lutes, L. D., Wirtz, D., Kanipoor, J. M., Leitner, D., Oisihi, S., & Diener, E. (2020). ENHANCE: Evidence for the efficacy of a comprehensive intervention program to promote subjective well-being. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 26(2), 360-383. [ Links ]

Herde, C. N., Lievens, F., Solberg, E. G., Harbaugh, J. L., Strong, M. H., & Burkholder, G. J. (2019). Situational judgment tests as measures of 21st century skills: Evidence across Europe and Latin America. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 35(2), 65-74. [ Links ]

Hoffman, B. J., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., & Woehr, D. J. (2007). Expanding the criterion domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 555-566. [ Links ]

Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W. (1995). Development of a new outlier statistic for meta-analytic data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(3), 327-334. [ Links ]

*Hyland, M. M. (1999). Flexibility in work arrangements: How availability, preferences, and use affect business outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). State University of New Jersey. [ Links ]

*Jalali, Z., & Heidari (2016). The relationship between happiness, subjective well-being, creativity and job performance of primary school teachers in Ramhormoz City. International Education Studies, 9(6), 45-52. [ Links ]

*Jones, M. D. (2006). Which is a better predictor of job performance: Job satisfaction or life satisfaction? Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 8(1), 20-42. [ Links ]

Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54-78. [ Links ]

Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R. L., Simon, L. S., & Crawford, E. R. (2013). Hierarchical representations of the five-factor model of personality in predicting job performance: integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 875-925. [ Links ]

*Junça-Silva, A., Caetano, A., & Lopes, R. R. (2017). Daily uplifts, well-being and performance in organizational settings: The differential mediating roles of affect and work engagement. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-being, 18(2), 591-606. [ Links ]

*Karatepe, O. M., & Bekteshi, L. (2008). Antecedents and outcomes of work-family facilitation and family-work facilitation among frontline hotel employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(4), 517-528. https.// [ Links ]

Kepes, S. Banks, G. C., McDaniel, M. A., & Whetzel, D. L. (2012). Publication bias in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 15(4), 624-662. [ Links ]

*Kossek, E. J., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2001). Caregiving decisions, well-being, and performance: The effects of place and provider as a function of dependent type and work-family climates. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 29-44. [ Links ]

*Kovacs, C., Stiglbauer, B., Batinic, B., & Gnambs, T. (2018). Exploring different forms of job (dis)satisfaction and their relationship with well-being, motivation and performance: Applied Psychology: An International Review, 67(3), 523-556. [ Links ]

*Lado, M., Otero, I., & Salgado, J. F. (2021). Cognitive reflection, life satisfaction, emotional balance, and job performance. Psicothema, 33(1), 118-124. [ Links ]

*Law, K., Wong, C., Huang, G., & Li, X. (2008). The effects of emotional intelligence on job performance and life satisfaction for the research and development scientists in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(1), 51-69. [ Links ]

*Levine, E. L., Zu, X., Yang, L-Q, Ispas, D., Pitariu, H., Bian, R., Ding, D., Capotescu, R., Che, H., & Musat, S. (2011). Cross-national explorations of the impact of affect at work using the state-trait emotion measure: A coordinate series of studies in the United States, China, and Romania. Human Performance, 24(5), 405-442. [ Links ]

*Li, L. J. (2009). An extended model of expatriate effectiveness: The role of social networks. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Western Ontario. [ Links ]

*Lim, D. H., Song, J. H., & Choi, M. (2012). Work-family interface: Effect of enrichment and conflict on job performance of Korean workers. Journal of Management & Organization, 18(3), 383-397. [ Links ]

Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803-855. [ Links ]

MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum. [ Links ]

MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M. S., Williams, J., & Lockwood, C. M. (2007). Distribution of the product confidence limits for the indirect effect: Program PRODCLIN. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 384-389. [ Links ]

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 83-104. [ Links ]

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2007). Confidence limits for indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99-128. [ Links ]

*Magnier-Watanabe, R., Uchida, T., Orsini, P., & Benton, C. (2017). Organizational virtuousness and job performance in Japan: Does happiness matter? International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 25(4), 628-646. [ Links ]

*Merriman, K. K. (2016). Extrinsic work values and feedback: Contrary effects for performance and well-being. Human Relations, 70(3), 339-361. [ Links ]

*Moradi, S., Nima, A., Ricciardi, M. R., Archer, T., & García, D. (2014). Exercise, character strengths, well-being, and learning climate in the prediction of performance over a 6-month period at a call center. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, a497. [ Links ]

Morillo, D., Abad, F. J., Kreitchmann, R. S., Leenen, I., Hontangas, P., & Ponsoda, V. (2019). The journey from Likert to forced-choice questionnaires: Evidence of the invariance of item parameters Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 35(2), 75-83. [ Links ]

Moscoso, S., García-Izquierdo, A. L., & Bastida, M. (2012). A mediation model of individual differences in attitudes toward affirmative actions for women. Psychological Reports, 110(3), 764-780. [ Links ]

Moscoso, S., & Salgado, J. F. (2001). Psychometric properties of a structured behavioral interview to hire private security personnel. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(1), 51-59. [ Links ]

*Odle-Dusseau, H. N. (2008). Organizational and family resources as predictors of well-being, family functioning, and employee performance: A longitudinal study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Clemson University. [ Links ]

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 679-703. [ Links ]

Otero, I., Cuadrado, D., & Martínez, A. (2020). Convergent and predictive validity of the Big Five factor assessed with single-stimulues and quasi-ipsative questionnaires. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 36(3), 212-222. [ Links ]

Paulhus, D. L., Robins, R. W., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Tracy, J. L. (2004). Two replicable suppressor effects in personality research. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(2), 303-328. [ Links ]

*Rabenu, E., Yaniv, E., & Elizur, D. (2017). The relationship between psychological capital, coping with stress, well-being, and performance. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 36(4), 875-887. [ Links ]

Rahm, T., Heise, E., & Schuldt, M. (2017). Measuring the frequency of emotions - validation of the scale of positive and negative experience (SPANE) in Germany. PLOS One, 12, e0171288. [ Links ]

*Rego, A., & Cunha, M. P. E. (2008). Authentizotic climates and employee happiness: Pathways to individual performance? Journal of Business Research, 61(7), 739-752. [ Links ]

*Riaz, M. N., Riaz, M. A., & Batool, N. (2014). Managerial decision-making styles as predictors of personal and organizational outcomes of in-service employees. Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 24(2), 100-116. [ Links ]

Ryan, A. M., & Derous, E. (2019). The unrealized potential of technology in selection assessment. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 35(2), 85-92. [ Links ]

Salgado, J. F. (2017). Moderator effects of job complexity on the validity of forced-choice personality inventories for predicting job performance. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 33(3), 229-238. [ Links ]

Salgado, J. F., Anderson, N., & Táuriz, G. (2015). The validity of ipsative and quasi-ipsative forced-choice personality inventories for different occupational groups: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(4), 797-834. [ Links ]

*Salgado, J. F., Blanco, S., & Moscoso, S. (2019). Subjective well-being and job performance: Testing of a suppressor effect. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 35(2), 93-102. [ Links ]

*Salgado, J. F., & Lado, M. (2018). Subjective well-being, satisfaction with life, positive and negative affect, and job performance. Unpublished manuscript. University of Santiago de Compostela. [ Links ]

Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (1996). Meta-analysis of the interrater reliability of job performance ratings in validity studies of personnel selection. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83(3), 1195-1201. [ Links ]

Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (2000, April). The Big Five personality dimensions as predictors of alternative criteria. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA. [ Links ]

Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (2019a). Meta-analysis of interrater reliability of supervisory performance ratings: Effects of the appraisal purpose, range restriction, and scale type. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2281. [ Links ]

Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (2019b). Meta-analysis of the validity of general mental ability for five performance criteria: Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2227. [ Links ]

*Salgado, J. F., & Moscoso, S. (2020). Experiencia del tele-trabajo en municipios asturianos de menos de 20.000 habitantes. Consorcio Asturiano de Servicios Tecnológicos (CAST). [ Links ]

Salgado, J. F., Moscoso, S., & Anderson, N. R. (2016). Corrections for criterion reliability in validity generalization: The consistency of Hermes, the utility of Midas. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 32(1), 17-23. [ Links ]

*Salgado, J. F., Moscoso, S., Lado, M., Alonso, P., Cuadrado, D., Otero, I., & Martínez, A. (2020). COVID-19 Crisis, economic stress, employee commitment, and psychological well-being. Unpublished manuscript. University of Santiago de Compostela. [ Links ]

Salgado, J. F., & Táuriz, G. (2014). The five-factor model, forced-choice personality inventories and performance: A comprehensive meta-analysis of academic and occupational validity studies. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(1), 3-30. [ Links ]

*Sargent, L. D., & Terry, D. J. (1998). The effects of work control and job demands on employee adjustment and work performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 71(2), 219-236. [ Links ]

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015). Methods of meta-analysis (3rd edition). Sage. [ Links ]

Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. (2014). Software for the Hunter-Schmidt meta-analysis methods, version 2.0. University of Iowa, Department of Management & Organizations, Iowa City, IA. [ Links ]

Schmidt, F. L., Le, H., & Ilies, R. (2003). Beyond Alpha: An empirical examination of the effects of different sources of measurement error on reliability estimates for measures of individual differences constructs. Psychological Methods, 8(2), 206-224. [ Links ]

*Shaw, J. D., & Gupta, N. (2001). Pay fairness and employee outcomes: Exacerbation and attenuation effects of financial need. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(2) 299-320. [ Links ]

Shockley, K. M., Ispas, D., Rossi, M. E., & Levine, E. E. (2012). A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between state affect, discrete emotions, and job performance. Human Performance, 25(5), 377-411. https://10.1080/08959285.2012.721832 [ Links ]

*Singh, P., Suar, D., & Leiter, M. P. (2012). Antecedents, work-related consequences, and buffers of job burnout among Indian software developers. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(1), 83-104. [ Links ]

Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13, 290-312. [ Links ]

*Sora Miana, B., González-Morales, M. G., Caballer, A., & Peiró, J. M. (2011). Consequences of job insecurity and the moderator role of occupational group. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14(2), 820-831. [ Links ]

*Staw, B. M., & Barsade, S. G. (1993). Affect and managerial performance: A test of the sadder-but-wiser vs. happier-and-smarter hypotheses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(2), 304-331. [ Links ]

*Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee positive emotion and favorable outcomes at the workplace. Organization Science, 5(1), 51-71. [ Links ]

*Talukder, A. K. M., Vickers, M., & Khan, A. (2018). Supervisor support and work-life balance: Impacts on job performance in the Australian financial sector. Personnel Review, 47(3), 727-744. [ Links ]

Tov, W. (2018). Well-being concepts and components. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay (Eds.), Handbook of well-being (pp. 1-15). DEF Publishers. [ Links ]

*Vahle-Hinz, T. (2016). Stress in nonregular work arrangements: A longitudinal study of task and employment-related aspects of stress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21(4), 415-431. [ Links ]

*van Erp, K. J. P. M., Gevers, J. M. P., Rispens, S., & Demerouti, E. (2018). Empowering public service workers to face bystander conflict: Enhancing resources through a training intervention. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 91(1), 84-109. [ Links ]

Van Rooy, D. L., & Viswesvaran, C. (2004). Emotional intelligence: A meta-analytic investigation of predictive validity and nomological net. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 71-95. [ Links ]

*Virick, M., DaSilva, N., & Arrington, K. (2010). Moderators of the curvilinear relation between the extent of telecommuting and job and life satisfaction: The role of performance outcome orientation and worker type. Human Relations, 63(1), 137-154. [ Links ]

Viswesvaran, C., Ones, D. S., & Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 557-574. [ Links ]

*Wadhawan, K. (2016). Psychological well-being as a predictor of job performance and job satisfaction. International Journal of Academic Research and Development, 1(3), 1-3. [ Links ]

*Walker, A. G. (2013). The relationship between the integration of faith and work with life and job outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 112(3), 453-461. [ Links ]

Walsh, L.C., Boehm, J. K., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2018). Does happiness promote career success? Revisiting the evidence. Journal of Career Assessment, 26(2), 199-219. https://10.1177/1069072717751441 [ Links ]

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., Chmielewski, M., & Kotov, R. (2013). The value of suppressor effects in explicating the construct validity of symptom measures. Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 929-941. [ Links ]

Whetzel, D. L., Rotenberry, P. F., & McDaniel, M. A. (2014). In-basket validity: A systematic review. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22(1), 62-79. [ Links ]

Wilcox, R. R. (2014). Introduction to robust estimation and hypothesis testing (third edition). Elsevier. [ Links ]

*Wright, T. A., & Bonett, D. G. (1997). The role of pleasantness and activation-based well-being in performance prediction. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Health Psychology, 2(3), 212-219. [ Links ]

*Wright, T. A., & Bonett, D. G. (2007). Job satisfaction and psychological well-being as nonadditive predictors of workplace turnover. Journal of Management, 33(1), 141-160. [ Links ]

*Wright, T. A., Bonett, D. G., & Sweeney, D. A. (1993). Mental health and work performance: Results of a longitudinal field study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66(4), 277-284. [ Links ]

*Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as predictors of job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 84-94. [ Links ]

Wright, T. A. & Cropanzano, R. (2007). The happy/productive worker thesis revisited. Research in Personnel and Human Resources, 26, 269-307. [ Links ]

*Wright, T. A., Cropanzano, R., & Bonett, D. G. (2007). The moderating role of employee positive well-being on the relation between job satisfaction and job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(1), 93-104. [ Links ]

*Wright, T. A., Cropanzano, R., Denney, P. J., & Moline, G. L. (2002). When a happy worker is a productive worker: A preliminary examination of three models. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 34(3), 146-150. [ Links ]

*Wright, T. A., Cropanzano, R., & Meyer, D. G. (2004). State and trait correlates of job performance: A tale of two perspectives. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(3), 365-383. [ Links ]

*Wright, T. A., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2004). Commitment, psychological well-being and job performance: An examination of conservation of resources (COR) theory and job burnout. Journal of Business and Management, 9(4), 389-405. [ Links ]

*Wright, T. A., & Staw, B. M. (1999). Affect and favorable work outcomes: Two longitudinal tests on the happy-productive worker thesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(1), 1-23.<1::AID-JOB885>3.0.CO;2-W [ Links ]

*Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational behavior in the workplace: The impact of hope, optimism, and resilience. Journal of Management, 33(5), 774-800. [ Links ]

*Zelenski, J. M., Murphy, S. A., & Jenkins, D. A. (2008). The happy-productive worker thesis revisited. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(4), 521-537. [ Links ]

*Zheng, X., Zhu, W., Zhao, H., & Zhang, C. (2015). Employee well-being in organizations: Theoretical model, scale development, and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(5), 621-644. [ Links ]


Studies Included in the Psychometric Meta-analysis of the SWB-Job Performance Relationship 

Note. ASWB = affective SWB; CSWB = cognitive SWB; OSWB = overall SWB; N = sample size; r = observed correlation; rxx = reliability of SWB measure; ryy = reliability of performance ratings.

Received: April 28, 2021; Accepted: May 10, 2021; pub: June 01, 2021

Conflict of Interest

The authors of this article declare no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: (S. Moscoso).

Creative Commons License This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial No Derivative License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited and the work is not changed in any way.