Editorial summary. This is our text summary of an article published by plos. Charts, figures, and the author’s full voice are at the original — read it there .
Editorial verdict
Methodologically rigorous. The four-study scale development is sound and the MQQS demonstrates consistent psychometric validity across diverse samples, though self-report limitations and the emerging nature of the construct warrant cautious interpretation of findings.
Executive summary
This article addresses the absence of a conceptually grounded definition and empirically validated measure of 'Quiet Quitting' — the pattern of employee behavior involving minimal workplace contribution just sufficient to avoid involuntary dismissal. The authors argue that Quiet Quitting is a distinct, multidimensional construct that differs meaningfully from adjacent phenomena such as burnout, turnover intentions, continuance commitment, and psychological contract breach. Through four sequential studies — an MBA student content validation sample, a Prolific panel of U.S. full-time employees (n=985), a global snowball sample across European countries (n=2,128), and a Portuguese field sample of full-time employees (n=1,897) — the authors develop and validate the Multidimensional Quiet Quitting Scale (MQQS), comprising behavioral and emotional dimensions. Key findings indicate that behavioral quiet quitting is negatively associated with interpersonal organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB-I), while emotional quiet quitting is negatively associated with organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB-O) and positively associated with turnover intentions. The authors conclude that the MQQS provides a valid, reliable instrument for future research into the nomological network, antecedents, and consequences of quiet quitting across organizational contexts.
Key insights
- 1Quiet Quitting is conceptualized as a two-dimensional construct comprising a behavioral dimension (deliberate restriction of effort to the minimum necessary to avoid dismissal) and an emotional dimension (comfort and satisfaction with that minimal contribution level), distinguishing it from burnout, turnover intentions, continuance commitment, and psychological contract breach.
- 2Across three field samples, behavioral quiet quitting was consistently negatively associated with interpersonal organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB-I), while emotional quiet quitting was more strongly associated with reduced OCB-O and heightened turnover intentions, suggesting the two dimensions carry distinct predictive profiles.
- 3The MQQS demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties — including internal consistency, factor structure, and nomological validity — across culturally diverse samples spanning the United States, 33 European countries, and Portugal, though cross-cultural variations in the prevalence and expression of quiet quitting remain an open empirical question.
Practical takeaways
- Organizations and researchers now have access to a validated 13-item scale (MQQS) that can be used to measure quiet quitting separately from related constructs such as commitment, burnout, or turnover intentions, enabling more precise diagnostic assessment of this behavioral pattern.
- The differentiated predictive validity of the behavioral and emotional dimensions suggests that interventions targeting withdrawal may need to address both the observable restriction of effort and the underlying affective comfort employees associate with minimal contribution — these may require distinct managerial responses.
Frameworks mentioned
Social Exchange Theory
A theoretical framework used to explain behavioral and emotional quiet quitting as responses to perceived imbalance between workplace contributions and received benefits, predicting that employees reduce contributions when costs exceed perceived rewards.
References
- Meyer, Allen, and colleagues (1990).Organizational Commitment Scale (affective, continuance, normative subscales).
- Robinson & Morrison (2000).Psychological Contract Breach and Violation Scale.
- Williams and Anderson (1991).OCB-I and OCB-O Subscales.
- Van Dyne & LePine (1998).Voice Behavior Scale.
- Camman et al. (1983).Turnover Intentions Scale.
- Haghighat (2007).Social Desirability Scale.
- Hinkin (1998).Scale Development Guidelines.
- Hinkin and Tracey (1999).Item Sort Procedure for Content Validity.
- Ximénez et al. (2022).Fit Index Guidance for CFA.
- Mokken (1971).Mokken Scale Analysis and Loevinger Coefficients.
Source & Provenance
plos
Pankaj C. Patel, Maria Joao Guedes, Daniel G. Bachrach, Younsung Cho
April 15, 2025
Research Study
Multi-Region
Original source metadata is preserved. AI analysis is generated separately.
Like this? Get the Monday Decision Brief — free, every week.
No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
Rate this article
Want the full article? Read it at the original source — free, no paywall.
Read original article