Approach-Avoidance Job Crafting Scale

Abstract

The Approach-Avoidance Job Crafting Scale (AAJCS; Lopper, Horstmann, & Hoppe, 2024) is a psychometrically validated, multidimensional self-report questionnaire designed to operationalize and assess the comprehensive, hierarchical taxonomy of employee job crafting proposed by Zhang and Parker (2019). Developed using an extensive deductive scale development approach, the instrument resolves long-standing theoretical fragmentation within organizational psychology by synthesizing motivational orientation (approach vs. avoidance), crafting action (behavioral vs. cognitive), and job characteristics (job resources vs. job demands). The instrument comprises 40 items distributed across eight specific first-order subscales: Approach Behavioral Resources Crafting, Approach Behavioral Demands Crafting, Approach Cognitive Resources Crafting, Approach Cognitive Demands Crafting, Avoidance Behavioral Resources Crafting, Avoidance Behavioral Demands Crafting, Avoidance Cognitive Resources Crafting, and Avoidance Cognitive Demands Crafting. Items are recorded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Totally Disagree) to 5 (Totally Agree). Psychometric evaluation among working adults demonstrates robust internal consistency reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and McDonald’s omega estimates reaching α = .94 (ω = .95) for overall approach crafting and α = .93 (ω = .95) for overall avoidance crafting, accompanied by adequate test-retest reliability across time. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supports the eight-factor structure and its hierarchical integration into higher-order approach and avoidance dimensions. Furthermore, empirical findings verify convergent, discriminant, criterion-related, and incremental validity: approach crafting dimensions relate positively to work engagement and occupational performance, whereas avoidance crafting dimensions exhibit negative or non-significant relations with engagement and performance, while accounting for unique variance beyond legacy job crafting inventories.

Keywords

Job Crafting, Approach-Avoidance Job Crafting Scale, AAJCS, Proactive Work Behavior, Approach Motivation, Avoidance Motivation, Job Demands-Resources, Work Engagement, Employee Well-Being, Psychometrics, Factorial Validity, Scale Validation

Authors

The Approach-Avoidance Job Crafting Scale was conceptualized, developed, and empirically validated by:

• Elisa Lopper — Department of Psychology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany. ORCID. (Corresponding author: [email protected])
• Kai T. Horstmann — Department of Psychology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
• Annekatrin Hoppe — Department of Psychology, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Purpose

The overarching purpose of the Approach-Avoidance Job Crafting Scale (AAJCS) is to provide organizational researchers, human resource practitioners, and clinical/occupational health psychologists with a rigorous, fine-grained measurement tool that captures the multifaceted ways employees proactively redesign their work. Historically, organizational scholarship on job crafting developed along two divergent streams. The original conceptualization by Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) defined job crafting as the physical and cognitive changes individuals make in their task or relational boundaries to alter their work meaning and identity. In contrast, the subsequent perspective grounded in the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) framework (Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2012) focused primarily on behavioral modifications aimed at balancing structural job resources, social job resources, and challenging or hindering job demands.

While both perspectives advanced organizational science, existing measurement instruments suffered from critical theoretical and psychometric limitations. Primarily, conventional scales frequently conflated behavioral actions with cognitive reframing, omitted cognitive forms of crafting entirely, or failed to adequately distinguish between proactive approach-oriented striving and reactive, withdrawal-oriented avoidance strategies. To resolve this conceptual ambiguity, Zhang and Parker (2019) proposed a three-dimensional hierarchical framework integrating motivational direction (approach vs. avoidance), crafting focus (demands vs. resources), and crafting form (behavioral vs. cognitive). The AAJCS was engineered specifically to translate this integrative theoretical model into an empirically validated, operational psychometric instrument.

In research contexts, the AAJCS enables scholars to investigate nuanced interaction effects, such as how distinct approach versus avoidance crafting behaviors differentially impact employee well-being, burnout, turnover intentions, and objective performance metrics. In occupational health and workplace intervention contexts, the scale serves as a diagnostic assessment. Practitioners can identify whether employees are employing constructive, resource-expanding behaviors (e.g., actively seeking constructive feedback or voluntarily taking on challenging initiatives) or engaging in potentially maladaptive avoidance tactics (e.g., mentally detaching from tasks, procrastinating on demanding responsibilities, or offloading difficult social interactions). This differentiation is vital for tailoring leadership coaching, employee assistance programs (EAPs), and organizational design interventions aimed at fostering sustainable person-job fit.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the AAJCS is Approach-Avoidance Job Crafting, conceptualized as employee-initiated, proactive changes to job boundaries across motivational, cognitive, and behavioral domains. The scale captures this construct through an orthogonal 2 × 2 × 2 matrix yielding eight distinct first-order dimensions:

1. Approach Behavioral Resources Crafting

This dimension reflects tangible, outward actions aimed at expanding, acquiring, or mobilizing social and structural work resources. Employees scoring high on this dimension proactively build professional relationships, seek developmental feedback from supervisors and colleagues, intentionally partner with compatible coworkers, and actively seek out tasks that optimize their unique skillset and career trajectory.

2. Approach Behavioral Demands Crafting

This subscale captures proactive behaviors directed toward seeking growth-inducing work challenges. Rather than remaining passive during periods of low activity, individuals voluntarily take on additional duties, allocate extra effort and time to enhance the quality of work outputs, embrace complex assignments, and proactively expand their professional responsibility.

3. Approach Cognitive Resources Crafting

This facet assesses internal, psychological reframing focused on the value, purpose, and utility of existing work resources. Rather than changing physical workflows, the employee alters their subjective cognitive appraisal to recognize how daily tasks foster long-term professional development, appreciate the societal contribution of their labor, and perceive interpersonal collaboration as an avenue for personal self-expansion.

4. Approach Cognitive Demands Crafting

This dimension operationalizes cognitive reframing centered on challenging work pressures and demanding responsibilities. Employees consciously focus on the positive, invigorating aspects of their work, appraise stressful or intricate tasks as stimulating opportunities for mastery, recognize that difficult decisions build professional competence, and cultivate the mindset that operating under time pressure enhances personal efficacy.

5. Avoidance Behavioral Resources Crafting

This construct represents overt actions aimed at reducing effort, withdrawal, or disengagement from tasks that fail to offer developmental resources. Employees intentionally invest less time or enthusiasm in assignments that lack intrinsic interest or career advancement potential, pass on tasks with minimal responsibility, and deprioritize duties where constructive feedback is absent.

6. Avoidance Behavioral Demands Crafting

This subscale assesses behavioral efforts aimed at evading, reducing, or shedding taxing job demands and stressors. Illustrative actions include placing demanding tasks at the bottom of the work queue, offloading undesirable tasks onto colleagues, postponing responsibilities perceived as unnecessary, avoiding tasks that might provoke interpersonal conflict, or rushing through tough decision-making processes to minimize discomfort.

7. Avoidance Cognitive Resources Crafting

This dimension captures psychological detachment and cognitive withdrawal from work tasks that provide insufficient resources or career value. Employees actively suppress thoughts about duties that offer no decision-making autonomy, maintain mental distance from responsibilities that do not support professional growth, dismiss tasks devoid of social support, and consciously minimize the personal seriousness attached to under-stimulating assignments.

8. Avoidance Cognitive Demands Crafting

This final subscale reflects internal, cognitive strategies designed to mentally shield oneself from emotionally taxing, stressful, or overwhelming job demands. Individuals deliberately create mental distance from tasks causing emotional strain, avoid ruminating on distressing obligations, push thoughts of difficult interpersonal encounters out of their awareness, and actively suppress contemplation of stressful work elements.

Theoretical Framework

The AAJCS is grounded in the convergence of three foundational paradigms within psychological science: approach and avoidance motivation theory, the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, and regulatory focus theory.

The distinction between approach and avoidance constitutes one of the most fundamental motivational dichotomies in psychology (Elliot & Thrash, 2002). Approach motivation is energized by appetitive, positive stimuli, directing physical and psychological energy toward desirable possibilities, goals, and opportunities for advancement. Conversely, avoidance motivation is triggered by aversive stimuli, directing behavior away from negative events, threats, strain, and potential failure. While early organizational crafting frameworks treated all proactive adaptations as uniformly beneficial, incorporating approach-avoidance theory highlights that the underlying valence of proactive action dictates its psychological consequences.

Within the JD-R perspective (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), workplace environments are bifurcated into demands (physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects requiring sustained effort that entail physiological/psychological costs) and resources (aspects that are functional in achieving work goals, reducing demands, or stimulating personal growth). When synthesized with Zhang and Parker’s (2019) hierarchical taxonomy, job crafting is structured along three interrelated axes:

• Motivational Orientation (Approach vs. Avoidance): Seeking positive gains, mastery, and meaning versus evading stressors, conflicts, and negative affect.
• Crafting Form (Behavioral vs. Cognitive): Changing observable, physical boundaries and activities versus reframing internal perceptions, meanings, and psychological boundaries.
• Crafting Content (Resources vs. Demands): Modulating structural/social support systems versus modifying workload, task complexities, and challenge pressures.

This theoretical matrix clarifies why prior empirical findings regarding “reducing hindering demands” were inconsistent. When employees reduce demands through avoidance behaviors (e.g., withdrawal or shirking), it often undermines performance and impairs social capital. Conversely, approach-oriented framing of demands (viewing them as challenges) fuels vigor, absorption, and dedication. The AAJCS provides the psychometric architecture necessary to empirically test these nuanced theoretical propositions.

Validity

The psychometric validation of the AAJCS was executed across multi-stage independent samples of working professionals in Germany, following stringent deductive scale development guidelines (Lopper et al., 2024).

Construct and Factorial Validity

Initial content validation involved rigorous cognitive interviews with heterogeneous employees to ensure face validity, item comprehension, and semantic clarity. Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) evaluated competing measurement models, demonstrating that the hypothesized eight-factor oblique structure provided superior fit over single-factor, two-factor (approach vs. avoidance), four-factor (behavioral vs. cognitive crossed with resources vs. demands), and higher-order alternative structures. The eight first-order dimensions load cleanly onto their designated factors without cross-loadings above standard thresholds.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity was verified by inspecting the correlations between AAJCS subscales and established personality and motivational constructs. Approach crafting dimensions correlated strongly and positively with dispositional approach temperament, promotion focus, proactive personality, and general self-efficacy. Conversely, avoidance crafting dimensions correlated with avoidance temperament, prevention focus, and neuroticism. Discriminant validity was supported using the Fornell-Larcker criterion and heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations, confirming that each of the eight subscales represents a distinct construct rather than measurement artifact.

Criterion-Related and Incremental Validity

Criterion-related validity was established by examining associations with key organizational outcomes:

• Work Engagement: Approach crafting dimensions (both behavioral and cognitive) showed robust, positive associations with employee vigor, dedication, and absorption as measured by the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES). In contrast, avoidance crafting subscales demonstrated significant negative or negligible correlations with work engagement.
• Job Performance: Approach behavioral demands and resources crafting positively predicted both self-rated and supervisor-rated task and contextual performance. Avoidance crafting subscales were negatively associated with task performance, reflecting the detrimental occupational impact of behavioral withdrawal and psychological distancing.
• Incremental Validity: Hierarchical multiple regression analyses confirmed that the AAJCS accounted for significant additional variance in work engagement, job strain, and occupational performance beyond existing instruments such as the Job Crafting Scale (Tims et al., 2012) and Slemp and Vella-Brodrick’s (2013) cognitive-task-relational measure.

Reliability

The AAJCS demonstrates exceptional internal consistency and satisfactory temporal stability across samples (Lopper et al., 2024):

Internal Consistency

Across validation studies, the composite higher-order dimensions and individual subscales displayed elevated reliability indices, exceeding the standard .70 and .80 thresholds:

• Overall Approach Crafting: Cronbach’s alpha α = .94 (95% CI [.93, .95]); McDonald’s omega ω = .95.
• Overall Avoidance Crafting: Cronbach’s alpha α = .93 (95% CI [.92, .94]); McDonald’s omega ω = .95.
• Individual Subscales: Alpha coefficients across the eight individual subscales ranged from .79 to .89, demonstrating that each 4- to 6-item scale possesses sufficient homogeneity while avoiding redundant item formulation.

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

Test-retest reliability was evaluated across a multi-week longitudinal measurement interval:

• Approach Crafting: Exhibited strong temporal stability with a test-retest correlation of r_tt = .76, indicating that approach-oriented proactive strategies represent relatively stable behavioral patterns over time.
• Avoidance Crafting: Exhibited moderate temporal stability with a test-retest correlation of r_tt = .57. This lower coefficient is theoretically coherent, as avoidance behaviors and cognitive withdrawal often fluctuate dynamically in response to transient workplace stressors, acute exhaustion, or short-term interpersonal friction.

Factor Analysis

The structural development of the AAJCS adhered to strict psychometric guidelines, transitioning from an initial deductive item pool to a refined confirmatory model (Lopper et al., 2024):

Item Pool Generation and Refinement

A comprehensive initial pool of 80 items was deductively generated based on Zhang and Parker’s (2019) conceptual matrix (10 candidate items per dimension). Following cognitive testing with working professionals and exploratory item analyses evaluating distribution parameters, item difficulties, and item-total correlations, poorly performing items were systematically removed. Subsequent Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) led to the elimination of 8 psychometrically problematic items displaying cross-loadings or high residual covariances, resulting in the final, optimized 40-item scale.

Confirmatory Factor Analytic Model Fit

In CFA testing using robust maximum likelihood estimation (MLR), the hypothesized eight-factor model demonstrated good fit to the empirical data:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): ≥ .92 (exceeding standard acceptable cutoffs).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): ≥ .91.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): ≤ .048 (90% CI [.044, .052]), indicating close fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): ≤ .055, confirming minimal residual variance.

Standardized factor loadings across all 40 items were statistically significant (p < .001) and substantial in magnitude (generally ranging from .62 to .86). Higher-order and bifactor modeling confirmed that the eight subscales successfully aggregate into distinct higher-order latent factors representing approach crafting and avoidance crafting, while retaining unique subscale-specific variance.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Full Instrument Name: Approach-Avoidance Job Crafting Scale (AAJCS)
• Authors: Elisa Lopper, Kai T. Horstmann, and Annekatrin Hoppe (2024)
• Instrument Type: Self-report psychometric questionnaire / multi-factor inventory
• Intended Population: Employed adults across diverse occupational sectors and industries
• Administration Method: Electronic survey (online/computer-administered) or traditional paper-and-pencil
• Completion Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes
• Number of Items: 40 items
• Dimensional Structure: 8 first-order dimensions (organized hierarchically into 2 overarching domains):
• Approach Crafting (20 items): Behavioral Resources (5 items), Behavioral Demands (5 items), Cognitive Resources (4 items), Cognitive Demands (6 items)
• Avoidance Crafting (20 items): Behavioral Resources (5 items), Behavioral Demands (5 items), Cognitive Resources (5 items), Cognitive Demands (5 items)
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type scale:
• 1 = Totally Disagree
• 2 = Disagree
• 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree
• 4 = Agree
• 5 = Totally Agree
• Scoring Protocol: No items are reverse-scored. Subscale scores are computed by calculating the arithmetic mean of items belonging to each respective dimension (scores range from 1.0 to 5.0). Composite Approach Crafting and Avoidance Crafting scores can be derived by averaging the respective 20 approach items and 20 avoidance items. Higher mean scores indicate greater engagement in that specific job crafting strategy.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Approach-Avoidance Job Crafting Scale was formally published in 2024. The instrument was developed and validated within an open scientific framework under an Open Access Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license via Applied Psychology: An International Review.

Researchers and educators may utilize the AAJCS for non-commercial academic research, empirical studies, and educational investigations free of charge, without requiring explicit written permission, provided appropriate scientific attribution is given to the original authors (Lopper et al., 2024). Commercial usage, including fee-for-service executive assessments, commercial corporate consulting platforms, and proprietary software integration, requires permission from the authors and the publishing entity. Note: The original psychometric validation was conducted using the German-language instrument; the English translation provided below was translated from German and presented in the 2024 publication for academic dissemination.

References

• Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
• Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 804–818. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.804
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
• Lopper, E., Horstmann, K. T., & Hoppe, A. (2024). The Approach‐Avoidance Job Crafting Scale: Development and validation of a measurement of the hierarchical structure of job crafting. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 73(1), 93–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12466
• Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
• Slemp, G. R., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2013). The Job Crafting Questionnaire: A new scale to measure the model of job crafting. International Journal of Wellbeing, 3(2), 126–146. https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v3i2.4
• Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Derks, D. (2012). Development and validation of the Job Crafting Scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.009
• Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378011
• Zhang, F., & Parker, S. K. (2019). Reorienting job crafting research: A hierarchical structure of job crafting concepts and integrative review. Journal of Management, 45(4), 1266–1296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318788435

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)