Importance of Various Job Characteristics

Abstract

The Importance of Various Job Characteristics Scale (known in German sociological methodology as the Wichtigkeit von Berufsmerkmalen module) is a foundational psychometric instrument developed for the German General Social Survey (ALLBUS / Allgemeine Bevölkerungsumfrage der Sozialwissenschaften) administered by GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. Rooted theoretically in the value-expectancy framework of the Theory of Planned Behavior formulated by Icek Ajzen and Martin Fishbein (1980) alongside foundational sociological work on occupational values by Morris Rosenberg (1957), the instrument evaluates subjective work values, occupational orientations, and the relative utility individuals assign to distinct job dimensions. The standard battery comprises 13 items evaluated along a 7-point Likert rating scale ranging from 1 (unwichtig / unimportant) to 7 (sehr wichtig / very important). Across representative population surveys of the Federal Republic of Germany (beginning in 1980 and expanded in 1982, 1991, and subsequent iterations), exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrate that occupational evaluations consistently load across three substantive latent dimensions: Intrinsic Work Orientation (e.g., interesting tasks, autonomous execution, meaningfulness), Extrinsic Work Orientation (e.g., job security, high income, promotion opportunities, favorable leisure time), and Social Work Orientation (e.g., helping others, public utility, interpersonal contact). The instrument exhibits strong internal consistency, yielding an overall scale Cronbach’s alpha of .85. Extensive subgroup stability analyses indicate that the instrument demonstrates robust psychometric properties across diverse sociodemographic strata, with minor variance observed across age cohorts and subjective social classes. Methodologists strongly advise the application of structural equation modeling (SEM) rather than unweighted composite indices to appropriately account for differential item factor loadings, latent dimensionality, and measurement error.

Keywords

occupational values, work orientations, job characteristics, ALLBUS, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, social orientation, GESIS, psychometrics, Theory of Planned Behavior

Authors

The scale was integrated into the German General Social Survey program by methodologists and sociologists associated with the GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences (incorporating ZUMA – Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen, Mannheim, Germany) in collaboration with the ALLBUS Scientific Advisory Board. Key empirical validation, psychometric evaluation, and methodological documentation were conducted by Rolf Porst and Peter Schmidt (1982) at ZUMA. Baseline items (Items 1–4 and 6–10) were originally adapted from higher education socialization studies conducted by the Forschungsgruppe Hochschulsozialisation led by Hansgert Peisert at the University of Konstanz (Peisert et al., 1973).

Institutional Contact for Data Archive and Administration:

• Institution: GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
• Postal Address: B2 1, 68159 Mannheim, Germany / Unter Sachsenhausen 6–8, 50667 Cologne, Germany
• Data Archive URL: https://www.gesis.org/allbus/ (Digital Object Identifier: 10.4232/1.11898)

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Importance of Various Job Characteristics Scale is to assess the normative priorities, value structures, and expectations that individuals attach to employment. In modern industrial and post-industrial economies, work is not merely a source of financial compensation but also a central domain for personal identity, social integration, status attainment, and psychological well-being. Understanding how citizens evaluate various facets of employment provides vital insight into labor market dynamics, occupational mobility, societal modernization, and shifting cultural value priorities.

From an applied research and public policy perspective, the scale serves several essential functions:

• Sociological Trend Monitoring: By deploying identical or harmonized item batteries across longitudinal population cohorts (e.g., ALLBUS 1980, 1982, 1991, 1992, and beyond), researchers track macroscopic shifts in the German workforce, such as post-materialist value changes, the erosion or stabilization of the traditional work ethic, and changing gender roles in professional aspirations.
• Organizational and Occupational Psychology: The instrument facilitates the analysis of person–environment fit (specifically person–job fit). Discrepancies between what an employee considers essential (e.g., autonomy, societal impact) and their actual workplace reality predict turnover intentions, job dissatisfaction, emotional exhaustion, and occupational alienation.
• Cross-National and Comparative Research: The scale serves as a methodological anchor for international comparative surveys, such as the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP Work Orientations modules) and the European Values Study (EVS), enabling cross-cultural comparisons of labor market expectations.
• Vocational Guidance and Counseling: In applied occupational counseling, evaluating a client’s profile across intrinsic, extrinsic, and social job characteristics helps align career trajectories with core psychological needs, thereby fostering sustained vocational commitment.

Psychological Construct

The scale measures the multidimensional psychological construct of Work Values and Occupational Orientations (Arbeitsorientierungen). Occupational values are enduring cognitive representations of desirable professional goals or workplace conditions that guide the selection and evaluation of employment alternatives. Drawing upon classic value taxonomies in social psychology, the instrument captures three distinct but positively correlated latent dimensions:

1. Intrinsic Work Orientation (Intrinsische Arbeitsorientierung)

Intrinsic orientation reflects the desire for internal psychological satisfaction, self-actualization, cognitive stimulation, and autonomy derived directly from executing work tasks. Rather than focusing on what work provides as an indirect reward, intrinsic values emphasize the qualitative content of labor. Within this scale, intrinsic work orientation is represented by:

• Interesting Activity (Item 6): The subjective requirement that tasks must engage intellectual curiosity and prevent boredom or psychological stagnation.
• Autonomous Work (Item 7): The degree to which an employee values self-direction, personal initiative, and independence from direct supervisory surveillance in daily task execution.
• Responsibility (Item 8): The importance placed on carrying out tasks that demand high levels of conscientiousness, personal accountability, and decision-making authority.
• Meaningfulness (Item 12): The existential conviction that one’s occupational labor accomplishes something purposeful, significant, and personally worthwhile.

2. Extrinsic Work Orientation (Extrinsische Arbeitsorientierung)

Extrinsic work orientation represents instrumental attitudes toward employment, viewing labor as a pragmatic mechanism to obtain external rewards, material security, social status, and lifestyle benefits. In this perspective, work is an exchange relationship wherein human effort is traded for economic and life-sustaining resources. This dimension comprises:

• Job Security (Item 1): The need for stable, predictable employment contracts protected against sudden termination, unemployment risks, or structural labor market shocks.
• High Income (Item 2): The degree of importance placed on financial compensation, wealth accumulation, and purchasing power.
• Advancement Opportunities (Item 3): The aspiration for upward social and occupational mobility, hierarchical promotion, and career progression.
• Occupational Prestige (Item 4): The value attached to holding an occupation that enjoys societal respect, public esteem, and high social status.
• Ample Leisure Time (Item 5): The demand for manageable working hours, predictable schedules, and sufficient personal time to pursue private life, family, and recreation.
• Safe and Healthy Working Conditions (Item 13): The prioritization of workplace ergonomics, physical safety, and the absence of health hazards or debilitating environmental stressors.

3. Social and Prosocial Work Orientation (Sozialorientierte Arbeitsorientierung)

The social dimension captures the interpersonal and altruistic facets of vocational life, addressing the psychological need for belonging, communal connectedness, and contribution to the collective welfare. This dimension includes:

• Interpersonal Contact (Item 9): The valuation of frequent, supportive, and stimulating social interactions with colleagues, clients, or the general public during work.
• Altruistic Utility / Helping Others (Item 10): The subjective importance of holding a job that directly assists vulnerable individuals, alleviates suffering, or offers immediate interpersonal aid.
• Societal Contribution (Item 11): The valuation of whether an occupation produces public goods, supports societal functioning, and contributes positively to the broader community.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the Importance of Various Job Characteristics Scale synthesizes two influential theoretical paradigms: the sociological typology of work values established by Morris Rosenberg (1957) and the attitude-behavior model developed by Icek Ajzen and Martin Fishbein (1980).

Rosenberg’s Occupational Values Framework

In his landmark monograph Occupations and Values (1957), Morris Rosenberg postulated that occupational choice is not an isolated technical decision, but rather a direct manifestation of an individual’s basic value orientation. Rosenberg delineated three primary value orientations toward work:

1. Self-expression-oriented values: Emphasizing the exercise of creative agency, intelligence, and autonomous skills (the conceptual precursor to the intrinsic dimension).
2. Extrinsic-reward-oriented values: Prioritizing financial success, status, prestige, and power over others.
3. People-oriented values: Centering on working with people and fulfilling prosocial obligations to society.

The ALLBUS scale directly operationalizes Rosenberg’s tripartite division within modern social survey methodology, demonstrating that work orientations retain these distinct clusters across heterogeneous societal strata.

Ajzen and Fishbein’s Value-Expectancy Architecture

Under the Theory of Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), human social behavior is guided by beliefs regarding the likely consequences of behavior (behavioral beliefs), normative expectations of others (normative beliefs), and perceived control factors. In this context, the items of the Job Characteristics Scale measure the evaluative weight or relative importance ($e_i$) attributed to specific occupational outcomes.

According to expectancy-value formulations, an individual’s overall attitude toward pursuing or remaining in a particular profession ($A$) is a function of the strength of the belief that the job possesses a given characteristic ($b_i$) multiplied by the subjective evaluation of the importance of that characteristic ($e_i$):

A = ∑ (b_i × e_i)

By capturing the $e_i$ component across 13 diverse job dimensions, the ALLBUS battery isolates the normative criteria individuals apply when making career choices, evaluating occupational satisfaction, or contemplating job termination. The scale assumes that while belief strengths ($b_i$) fluctuate rapidly depending on specific workplace conditions, value evaluations ($e_i$) reflect deeper, more stable psychological dispositions formed through early vocational socialization and educational experiences.

Validity

Although the initial ALLBUS 1980 documentation observed that formal construct validation was not comprehensively reported in early archive manuals (“keine Hinweise dokumentiert”), extensive subsequent secondary analyses, structural equation models, and construct validation investigations conducted across multiple decades have firmly established its empirical validity.

Construct and Factorial Validity

The factorial validity of the instrument was originally demonstrated through exploratory factor analysis by Porst and Schmidt (1982) using the representative ALLBUS 1980 sample ($N = 2,991$). A three-factor solution emerged cleanly in the total population, reflecting Intrinsic, Extrinsic, and Social dimensions:

• Item 7 (Selbständig arbeiten) exhibited an exceptionally high loading of .96 on Factor 1 (Intrinsic), accompanied by Item 6 (Interessante Tätigkeit, .60) and Item 8 (Verantwortungsbewusstsein, .53).
• Factor 2 (Extrinsic) captured Item 3 (Gute Aufstiegsmöglichkeiten, .88), Item 2 (Hohes Einkommen, .79), Item 1 (Sichere Berufsstellung, .61), and Item 4 (Anerkannt und geachtet, .61).
• Factor 3 (Social) was marked by Item 10 (Anderen helfen, .80) and Item 9 (Viel Kontakt, .72).

In subsequent waves (1982, 1991), when Items 11 (Für die Gesellschaft nützlich), 12 (Etwas Sinnvolles tun), and 13 (Sichere und gesunde Arbeitsbedingungen) were integrated, the factorial integrity of the three dimensions was reaffirmed, with Item 11 loading onto the Social dimension, Item 12 onto the Intrinsic dimension, and Item 13 onto the Extrinsic dimension.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Porst and Schmidt (1982) examined inter-factor correlations to evaluate whether intrinsic, extrinsic, and social orientations function as mutually exclusive constructs. In the total population, factor correlations were substantial and positive:

• Correlation between Intrinsic and Extrinsic orientation: r = .60
• Correlation between Intrinsic and Social orientation: r = .63
• Correlation between Extrinsic and Social orientation: r = .43

These findings demonstrate that intrinsic and extrinsic orientations are not opposite poles of a unidimensional spectrum; rather, respondents can simultaneously value both extrinsic rewards (e.g., job security and pay) and intrinsic rewards (e.g., meaningful, autonomous work). This provides strong discriminant validity against oversimplified unidimensional models of work motivation.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

Extensive sociological literature utilizing ALLBUS data has linked scores on these three dimensions to objective career outcomes, occupational choices, and sociodemographic strata:

• Educational Level: Higher educational attainment (e.g., Abitur or university degree) correlates positively with intrinsic orientation and negatively with purely extrinsic security concerns.
• Sectoral Selection: High scores on the social orientation factor predict employment in healthcare, education, and civil service sectors, confirming prospective predictive validity.
• Cohort Modernization: Longitudinal tracking reveals steady increases in intrinsic and expressive job expectations across successive birth cohorts, aligning with broader post-materialist modernization hypotheses.

Reliability

The scale demonstrates solid internal consistency across national probability samples. For the complete 13-item battery, the overall scale internal consistency reaches a Cronbach’s alpha of .85, reflecting high consistency in respondent evaluations.

Item-Level Reliabilities

Item reliabilities ($r_{it}$ or squared multiple correlations in measurement models) evaluated in the ALLBUS 1980 and ALLBUS 1982 surveys demonstrated marked temporal stability and measurement quality:

• Item 1 (Job security): .55 (1980) → .64 (1982)
• Item 2 (High income): .50 (1980) → .53 (1982)
• Item 3 (Promotion prospects): .64 (1980) → .67 (1982)
• Item 4 (Prestige / respected job): .61 (1980) → .69 (1982)
• Item 5 (Ample leisure): .43 (1980) → .52 (1982)
• Item 6 (Interesting work): .63 (1980) → .73 (1982)
• Item 7 (Independent work): .63 (1980) → .68 (1982)
• Item 8 (High responsibility): .62 (1980) → .70 (1982)
• Item 9 (Contact with others): .48 (1980) → .52 (1982)
• Item 10 (Helping others): .46 (1980) → .56 (1982)
• Item 11 (Useful to society): — (1980) → .58 (1982)
• Item 12 (Sense of doing something meaningful): — (1980) → .67 (1982)
• Item 13 (Safe and healthy conditions): — (1980) → .68 (1982)

Subgroup Stability Analyses

To establish whether measurement reliability was vulnerable to demographic, situational, or survey-contextual artifacts, Porst and Schmidt (1982) conducted systematic subgroup split analyses. They calculated difference statistics (Δα = α_max − α_min) across ten background variables:

1. Subjective social class (5 strata) → Δα = .11
2. Age groups (5 cohorts) → Δα = .14
3. Political interest (5 categories) → minimal divergence
4. Social desirability (4 items, 2 categories) → minimal divergence
5. Schooling level (5 tiers) → minimal divergence
6. Church attendance frequency (5 tiers) → minimal divergence
7. Presence of a third person during the interview (2 conditions) → no significant impact
8. Interference by third parties in the interview (3 levels) → no significant impact
9. Respondent willingness / cooperation (5 ratings) → no significant impact
10. Interviewer-evaluated reliability of answers → no significant impact

These findings confirmed that the scale’s internal consistency is exceptionally stable across diverse interview settings, with systematic differences emerging only across age cohorts and subjective social classes.

Factor Analysis

Extensive exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses highlight both the structural robustness of the three-factor model and specific measurement invariance challenges across generational cohorts.

Factor Loadings (ALLBUS 1980 Total Sample)

In the initial 10-item exploratory factor analysis using oblique rotation, the three latent factors accounted for the observed variance with clear factor loading patterns:

• Factor 1: Intrinsic Orientation: Item 07 (.96), Item 06 (.60), Item 08 (.53).
• Factor 2: Extrinsic Orientation: Item 03 (.88), Item 02 (.79), Item 01 (.61), Item 04 (.61), Item 05 (.37).
• Factor 3: Social Orientation: Item 10 (.80), Item 09 (.72).

Cohort-Specific Invariance and Model Fit

Porst and Schmidt (1982) tested the invariance of this three-factor model across five distinct age cohorts:

• 18–29 Years: χ²(18) = 102.94, p = 0.00
• 30–44 Years: χ²(18) = 118.07, p = 0.00
• 45–59 Years: χ²(18) = 105.69, p = 0.00
• 60–74 Years: χ²(18) = 32.28, p = 0.02
• 75 Years and older: χ²(18) = 32.57, p = 0.02
• Total Sample: χ²(18) = 291.37, p = 0.00

The statistical test of exact model fit (χ² test) was rejected across the younger cohorts, reaching marginal statistical fit only in the two oldest cohorts (60–74 and ≥75). Substantive analysis of factor loadings across cohorts revealed that younger respondents (18–29 years) load exceptionally heavily on Item 8 (Responsibility, .98) on Factor 1, while older cohorts display restructuring where job security and status interrelate differently with leisure and independence.

Porst and Schmidt emphasized that high Cronbach’s alpha values (.85) do not automatically guarantee factorial equivalence across demographic subgroups. Consequently, methodologists recommend using multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) and structural equation modeling to test for metric and scalar invariance before conducting cross-cohort latent mean comparisons.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Type: Standardized self-report survey scale / interviewer-administered rating battery (utilizing flashcards in face-to-face CAPI/PAPI surveys).
• Number of Items: 13 items in the comprehensive version (10 items in the baseline 1980 iteration; 6 items in the abbreviated 1992 subset).
• Administration Format: Paper-and-Pencil Interviewing (PAPI), Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI), or self-administered questionnaire.
• Target Population: General population aged 18 and older living in private households.
• Response Format: 7-point Likert-type rating scale:
  • 1 = unwichtig (unimportant)
  • 2 = [scale point 2]
  • 3 = [scale point 3]
  • 4 = [scale point 4]
  • 5 = [scale point 5]
  • 6 = [scale point 6]
  • 7 = sehr wichtig (very important)
• Administration Instructions: Respondents are presented with cards listing various aspects of employment and instructed:

  “Auf diesen Kärtchen steht Verschiedenes über die berufliche Arbeit und den Beruf. Für wie wichtig halten Sie persönlich diese Merkmale für die berufliche Arbeit und den Beruf? Benutzen Sie bitte auch diesmal die Skala von 1 bis 7 für Ihre Antwort.”

  (English translation for reference: “On these cards, various aspects concerning occupational work and the profession are described. How important do you personally consider these characteristics for occupational work and the profession? Please use the scale from 1 to 7 for your answer.”)

• Scoring and Analytic Guidelines:
  • Unweighted Indices: Summed or averaged composite scores across the three subdimensions (Intrinsic = Items 6, 7, 8, 12; Extrinsic = Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13; Social = Items 9, 10, 11) may be computed for exploratory purposes.
  • Recommended Latent Variable Modeling: As emphasized by GESIS psychometricians, researchers should specify latent variable models within a structural equation modeling (SEM) framework rather than simple additive indices to account for unequal factor loadings, residual covariances, and random/systematic measurement error.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Initial Release: 1980 (ALLBUS 1980: Items 1–10); expanded in 1982 (ALLBUS 1982: Items 1–13); replicated in 1991, 1992 (subset), and later ALLBUS waves.
• Copyright & Custodianship: GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Mannheim/Cologne, Germany.
• Permissions & Availability: The instrument items, codebooks, methodological reports, and representative survey datasets are in the public academic domain. They are freely accessible for scientific research, academic teaching, and non-commercial public interest analysis via the GESIS Data Archive.
• Licensing / Data Access: Survey data can be downloaded via the GESIS Data Catalogue (GESIS Search) under standard academic registration requirements without licensing fees. Commercial utilization or proprietary redistribution requires formal institutional permission from GESIS.

References

• Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall.
• Allerbeck, K., Hoag, W. J., Schmidt, P., & Steffens, W. (1982). Allgemeine Bevölkerungsumfrage der Sozialwissenschaften (ALLBUS 1980): Methodenbericht. ZUMA-Technischer Bericht. GESIS.
• GESIS – Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften. (2012). ALLBUS/GGSS 1980 (Allgemeine Bevölkerungsumfrage der Sozialwissenschaften 1980) [Data file and documentation]. GESIS Datenarchiv, Köln. ZA11898 Datenfile Version 1.0.0. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.11898
• Peisert, H., Bargel, T., Framheim, G., & Kaase, M. (1973). Forschungsgruppe Hochschulsozialisation: Befragung von Studienanfängern [Research report]. Universität Konstanz.
• Porst, R., & Schmidt, P. (1982). Wichtigkeit von Berufsmerkmalen: Methodische Untersuchungen zu einem ALLBUS-Fragenkomplex. ZUMA-Arbeitsbericht Nr. 1982/13. Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen, Mannheim.
• Rosenberg, M. (1957). Occupations and values. Free Press.
• Terwey, M. (2000). ALLBUS: A German general social survey. Schmollers Jahrbuch: Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften, 120(4), 635–644.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)