21
Person-Environment Fit, Satisfaction, & Expected Stay in Oxford House Christopher R. Beasley Leonard A. Jason Steven A. Miller 2012 OH World Convention
| Date post: | 26-Jun-2015 |
| Category: |
Education |
| Upload: | christopher-beasley |
| View: | 189 times |
| Download: | 0 times |
Person-Environment Fit,
Satisfaction, & Expected Stay in
Oxford House Christopher R. Beasley
Leonard A. JasonSteven A. Miller
2012 OH World Convention
Mental Health & Community
(Mis)Fit Alienation 1
Anxiety 2
Depression 2
Diminished well-being 2
Fit Satisfaction 3,4,5,6,7, Commitment 3,6,8
Identification with a setting 3
Citizenship behaviors 3
Social integration 9
Intent to stay in a setting 6
Attendance of meetings 10,11
Group involvement 12
Conceptualization
GEFS Methods Results DiscussionIntroduction
Workplace Ideas about FitIntroduction GEFS Methods Results Discussion
Value Congruence
Value Congruence 13
When an individual’s values are similar to those of the setting
Example Individual value for
12-step recovery and setting emphasis on 12-step recovery
Conceptualization
Workplace Ideas about Fit
Interpersonal Similarity
Value Congruence
Supplementary 14
When individuals are similar to other members of an environment
Example Military veterans
living with other veterans
Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualizat
ion
Needs Supplies
Interpersonal Similarity
Value Congruence
Needs-Supplies 15
When a setting supplies what an individual needs psychologically and physically
Example An individual with a
high need for structure in a highly structured environment
Workplace Ideas about FitIntroduction GEFS Methods Results Discussion
Conceptualization
Needs Supplies
Workplace Ideas about Fit
Individual Contributions
Interpersonal Similarity
Value Congruence
Complementary 14
When individuals complement environments
Example Individuals with
leadership skills in a house that otherwise lacks leadership
Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualizat
ion
Needs Supplies
I/O Conceptualization of Fit
Interpersonal Similarity
Demands Abilities
Value Congruence
Demands-Abilities 15
When individuals have the ability to meet the demands of their environment
Example When a person has
the life skills and mental abilities needed to live in a self-sufficient setting
Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualizat
ion
Individual Contributions
Needs Supplies
Workplace Ideas about Fit
Interpersonal Similarity
Demands Abilities
Value Congruence
Direct Subjective
Direct vs. Indirect 16
Direct assesses P & E simultaneously
Indirect assesses P & E separately
Subjective vs. Objective Subjective is a person’s
perception of fit
Objective is a third-party assessment of fit
Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualizat
ion
Individual Contributions
Needs Supplies
Workplace Ideas about Fit
Interpersonal Similarity
Demands Abilities
Value Congruence
Oxford House Fit Directly,
Subjectively Value Congruence Interpersonal
Similarity Needs-Supplies Fit Individual
Contributions Demands-Abilities
Fit
Direct Subjective
Introduction GEFS Methods Results DiscussionConceptualizat
ion
Individual Contributions
Person-Environment
Fit
IntroductionConceptualizat
ion
General Environment Fit Scale
Value Congruence
My personal values are similar to those of my Oxford House.
My values prevent me from fitting in with my Oxford House.*
The values of my Oxford House do not reflect my own values.*
* Indicates a reverse-scored item
Methods Results DiscussionGEFS
General Environment Fit Scale
Interpersonal Similarity
The other residents of my Oxford House are similar to me.
The other residents of my Oxford House are different from me.*
I am different than the other residents of my Oxford House.*
* Indicates a reverse-scored item
IntroductionConceptualizat
ionMethods Results DiscussionGEFS
General Environment Fit Scale
Individual Contributions
My unique differences add to the success of my Oxford House.
Nothing unique about me adds to the success of my Oxford House.*
I make unique contributions to my Oxford House.
* Indicates a reverse-scored item
IntroductionConceptualizat
ionMethods Results DiscussionGEFS
General Environment Fit Scale
Needs-Supplies Fit
The Oxford House that I currently live in gives me just about everything I could ever need from a recovery home
There is a poor fit between what my Oxford House offers me and what I need in a recovery home.*
The Oxford House that I live in does not have the attributes that I need in a recovery home.*
* Indicates a reverse-scored item
IntroductionConceptualizat
ionMethods Results DiscussionGEFS
General Environment Fit Scale
Demands-Abilities Fit
I have the ability to meet the demands of my Oxford House.
The match is very good between the demands of my Oxford House and my personal skills.
I am not able to meet the demands of my Oxford House.*
* Indicates a reverse-scored item
IntroductionConceptualizat
ionMethods Results DiscussionGEFS
Survey Respondents
246 attendees of the 2010 Oxford House World Convention
Survey demographics 71% White, 19% Black, 11% Multiple or
Other 52% Male, 48% Female Recovery time = 2 years
IntroductionConceptualizat
ionGEFS Results DiscussionMethods
Measures
Fit Measure Oxford House Satisfaction Future Stay
How much longer do you expect to live in your Oxford House? Years? Months?
IntroductionConceptualizat
ionGEFS Results DiscussionMethods
Relationship to Satisfaction
Needs-Supplies fit Explained 25% of satisfaction
Interpersonal Similarity Explained 2% of satisfaction
These two aspects of fit explained 33% resident satisfaction
IntroductionConceptualizat
ionGEFS DiscussionMethods Results
Relationship to Intended Stay
Interpersonal Similarity Explained 4% of future length of stay
IntroductionConceptualizat
ionGEFS DiscussionMethods Results
IntroductionConceptualizat
ionGEFS Methods Results
Summary
Interpersonal similarity seems to be somewhat important for Oxford House satisfaction
Need fulfillment may be more important in recovery settings than the workplace
Unique contributions may need to be reconsidered
Discussion
Future Directions
Relationship of fit to commitment and citizenship behavior
Multiple setting fit
IntroductionConceptualizat
ionGEFS Methods Results Discussion
References
1.Thomson, W.C. & Wendt, J.C. (1995). Contribution of hardiness and school climate to alienation experienced by student teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(5), 269-274.
2.Caplan, R.D., Tripathi, R.C., & Naidu, R.K. (1985). Subjective past, present, and future fit: Effects on anxiety, depression, and other indicators of well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(1), 180-197.
3.Cable, D.M., & DeRue, D.S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875-884.
4.DeRue, D.S & Morgeson, F.P. (2007). Stability and change in person–team and person–role fit over time: The effects of growth satisfaction, performance, and general self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1242-1253.
5.Kahana, E., Lovegreen, L., Kahana, B., & Kahana, M. (2003). Person, environment, and person-environment fit as influences on residential satisfaction of elders. Environment and Behavior, 35(3), 434-453.
6.Verquer, M.L., Beehr, T.A., & Wagner, S.H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person-organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 473-489.
7.Wheeler, A.R., Gallagher, V.C., Brouer, R.L., & Sablynski, C.J. (2007). When person-organization (mis)fit and (dis)satisfaction lead to turnover: The moderating role of perceived job mobility. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(2), 203-219.
8.Greguras, G.J. & Diefendorff, J.M. (2009). Different fits satisfy different needs: Linking person-environment fit to employee commitment and performance using self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 465-477.
9.Segal, S.P., Silverman, C., & Baumohl, J. (1989). Seeking person-environment fit in community care placement. Journal of Social Issues, 45(3), 49-64.
10.Humphreys, K. & Woods, M.D. (1993). Researching mutual help group participation in a segregated society. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 29(2), 181-201.
11.Luke, D.A., Roberts, L., & Rappaport, J. (1993). Individual, group context, and individual-fit predictors of self-help group attendance. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 29(2), 216-238.
12.Mankowski, E.S., Humphreys, K., & Moos, R.H. (2001). Individual and contextual predictors of involvement in twelve-step self-help groups after substance use treatment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(4), 537-563.
13.Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 333-349.
14.Muchinsky, P.M. & Monahan, C.J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 268-277.
15.Caplan, R.D. (1987). Person-environment fit theory and organizations: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 248-267.
16.Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1-49.
NE
T
D
HE
?
