Positive Self-Regard Origins, Benefits, Possible Costs Timothy A. Judge University of Florida...
-
Upload
candice-baldwin -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Positive Self-Regard Origins, Benefits, Possible Costs Timothy A. Judge University of Florida...
Positive Self-RegardOrigins, Benefits, Possible Costs
Timothy A. Judge
University of Florida
University of Michigan
January 23, 2006
2
Positivity in Psychology
• Positivity is valued in Western society– Positive psychology movement– Benefits of positive thinking
• Traits are foundation of positive psychology– Mind is source of positive feelings, attitudes,
behaviors– Mind’s functioning is substantially genetic– Ergo the above statement– But logical assertion ≠ empirical estimation
3
Two Preliminary Issues
Issue #1
• Controversy over whether positive self-regard matters
Issue #2
• Positively too many positive traits
4
Issue #1Does Positive Self-Regard Matter?
• Self-esteem most widely studied trait• Baumeister et al. (2003):
– “Self-esteem is thus not a major predictor or cause of almost anything”
• Crocker and Knight (2005):– “Although high self-esteem produces pleasant feelings and
enhanced initiative, it does not cause high academic achievement, good job performance, or leadership”
5
Issue #2Construct Proliferation
• “A fad of one-shot” studies—Eriksen (1957)
• “Craze of proliferation”—Jensen (1958)
• “Pets”—Allport (1958)
• “Gad, what a mess!”—Blake & Mouton (1959)
• “Sprawl and diversity”—Adelson (1969)
• “Escalation without end in sight”—Goldberg (1971)
• “Bewildering array of scales”—John (1990)
6
Role of Construct Validity
• “A necessary condition for a construct to be scientifically admissible is that it occurs in a nomological net” (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955)
• “Rarely do we see the development of a nomological net…frequently the relations among what appear to be similar constructs remain unclear” (Pervin, 1997)
• “Jangle” fallacy (Block, 1996)—using different terms for the same construct
7
Why This State of Affairs?
• Careerism– “obsessive discoverer’s complex”– “new Columbuses” (Sorokin, 1956)
• Attention deficit– Cryptomnesia: tendency to mistake an old
concept for their new, seemingly original one (Merton, 1973)
• Academic tendency toward reductio ad absurdum
8
Broad vs. Specific Traits
• Bandwidth-fidelity paradox: earliest stages of scientific psychology– elements of sensations (Titchener, 1910)– structure of intelligence (Spearman, 1927)– nature of attitudes (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1974)
• Parsimony is a goal of psychology– Ceteris paribus, the simplest explanation, or fewest
number of constructs, is preferred
• If a broad factor explains overlap in measures, unexplained (unique) non-error variance must show incremental validity (Humphreys, 1962)
9
With this preamble—controversy over whether positive self-regard matters and a profusion of positive traits—I’m going to discuss my research on an integrative positive trait, core self-evaluations
10
“The Big Three”
• Self-esteem, locus of control, and neuroticism are the most widely studied individual traits in personality psychology
• Search of PsycINFO database
– Self-esteem: 20,203 articles
– Locus of control: 13,428 articles
– Neuroticism/emotional stability: 20,026 articles
• The 3 traits have been the subject of more than 50,000 studies
11
Core Traits
• Nearly always studied in isolation– In personality research…
• In the few cases where 2 are included, interrelationship typically are not considered
• When interrelationship is considered, results are often bewildering…
– neuroticismlocus of control (Wambach & Panackal, 1979)
– locus of a controlneuroticism (Morelli et al., 1979)
– In organizational behavior research…• Nearly all studies including more than one core trait treat
them as wholly independent
12
Core Self-Evaluations
• Judge, Locke, & Durham (1997) proposed a broad construct, core self-evaluations (CSE), that reflects a positive self-concept
• CSE is a latent trait indicated by– High self-esteem– High self-efficacy (generalized)– Internal locus of control– Low neuroticism (high emotional stability)
13
Two QuestionsNecessary to Establish Legitimacy of CSE
1. Do core traits covary and do they indicate a common factor?
2. Does core self-evaluations predict criteria?
14
Question #1Correlations Among Traits
Trait SE GSE LOC ES
Self-esteem (SE) — 9
2,431 47
14,691 19
5,565
Generalized self-efficacy (GSE) .85 — 13 13,088
7 1,541
Locus of control (LOC) .52 .56 — 31 6,538
Emotional stability (ES) .64 .62 .40 —
Numbers in red are meta-analyzed correlations.Numbers in black are number of studies.Numbers in blue are combined N.
Source: Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 2002)
15
Self-Esteem #1
Self-Esteem #2
Self-Esteem #3
Self-Efficacy #1
Self-Efficacy #2
Self-Efficacy #3
Neuroticism #1
Neuroticism #2
Neuroticism #3
Locus #1
Locus #2
Locus #3
Locusof
Control
Neuroticism
Self-Efficacy
Self-Esteem
CoreSelf
Evaluations
1.00
1.00
.88
.79
-.76
.59
.91
.54
.98
.73
.67
.77
1.00
.58
.75
1.00
16
-0.10
0.10.20.3
0.40.50.60.7
SE GSF LOC ESNotes: SE=self-esteem; GSF=generalized self-efficacy; LOC=locus of control;ES=emotional stability
Question #2Do Core Traits Matter?
Meta Analysis Results-Job Performance
Source: Judge & Bono (Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001)
End points indicatelimits of 80% CV
17
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
SE GSF LOC ES
Notes: SE=self-esteem; GSF=generalized self-efficacy; LOC=locus of control;ES=emotional stability
End points indicatelimits of 80% CV
Source: Judge & Bono (Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001)
Question #2Do Core Traits Matter?
Meta Analysis Results-Job Satisfaction
18
Discriminant Validity?Issue of Incremental Validity
• Controlling for common factor individual core traits almost never contribute to predicting satisfaction or performance– Little specific-factor variance– If a broad factor explains overlap in measures, the
unexplained non-error variance that is unique to the measures must be examined for its usefulness (Lubinski & Dawis, 1992)
– This specific factor variance, beyond the core trait, is rarely (though sometimes) useful
19
Summary
• Core traits load on higher factor
• CSE predicts satisfaction, performance• Rarely does individual core trait (specific-factor)
variance add beyond the core
• Why is CSE predictive?– High CSE people set higher goals and are more
committed to them (Erez & Judge, JAP, 2001)
– High CSE people seek and attain more challenging jobs (Judge et al., JAP, 1998, JAP, 2000)
20
3 Remaining Controversies
1. CSE is a composite concept--a combination of Big Five traits (C,E,ES)
2. CSE is redundant--simply another measure of emotional stability
3. CSE has limited utility (no incremental validity) once the Big Five traits assessments of #1 and #2
4. One can be too positive so CSE isn’t always a good thing
21
CSESCore Self-Evaluations Scale
1. I am confident I get the success I deserve in life.
2. Sometimes I feel depressed. (r)
3. When I try, I generally succeed.
4. Sometimes when I fail I feel worthless. (r)
5. I complete tasks successfully.
6. Sometimes, I do not feel in control of my work. (r)
7. Overall, I am satisfied with myself.
8. I am filled with doubts about my competence. (r)
9. I determine what will happen in my life.
10. I do not feel in control of my success in my career. (r)
11. I am capable of coping with most of my problems.
12. There are times when things look pretty bleak and hopeless to me. (r)
Source: Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (Personnel Psychology, 2003)
r=reverse scored
22
ValidityRelation of CSES to Criteria
.41
.54
.23
.49.45
.24
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
JS LS JP
Sample 1
Sample 2
JS=Job Satisfaction; LS=Life Satisfaction; JP=Job Performance
Corr
ela
tion
(u
nco
rrect
ed
)
Source: Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (Personnel Psychology, 2003)
23
Controversy #1What Does CSE Add?
JS LS JP
CSES beyond 4 core traits 2/2 3/3 2/2
4 core traits beyond CSES 0/2 1/3 0/2
CSES beyond Extraversion 2/2 3/3 2/2
Extraversion beyond CSES 2/2 3/3 0/2
CSES beyond Conscientiousness 2/2 3/3 1/2
Conscientiousness beyond CSES 0/2 0/3 0/2
Source: Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (Personnel Psychology, 2003)
24
Controversy #2CSE=Emotional Stability?
• CSE more related to neuroticism than to conscientiousness, extraversion
• If CSE=emotional stability– Measures of emotional stability (neuroticism) need to be
revisited• Derived from psychopathology• Assess stress/anxiety more than evaluation of one’s self worth
or competence– Am easily disturbed / Change my mood a lot– Get irritated easily / Get upset easily– Have frequent mood swings / Often feel blue– Worry about things / Get stressed out easily– Am relaxed most of the time / Seldom feel blue
26
Further EvidenceNew Study with Amir Erez
• Collected data from (a) fitness center and (b) child car center
• Employees completed CSES, a FFM measure, and job attitudes
• Supervisors rated performance of employees– Two supervisors per employee
27
Addressing Controversies 1-3Incremental Validity: Job Attitudes
Job satisfaction
Org.Commitment
P-OFit
Neuroticism .06 .38** .02
Extraversion .18* .11 .22**
Openness -.05 -.09 .18*
Agreeableness .13 .28** .00
Conscientiousness .07 .15† .16
CSES .33** .12 .08
Notes: N=167. † p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
Source: Judge and Erez (in preparation)
28
Addressing Controversies 1-3Incremental Validity: Stress/Stressors
RoleAmbiguity
LifeStress
SomaticComplaints
Neuroticism -.05 -.05 .30**
Extraversion -.23** -.23** .00
Openness .08 .08 .00
Agreeableness -.21* -.21* .07
Conscientiousness -.07 -.07 -.04
CSES -.21* -.23* .33**
Notes: N=167. † p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
Source: Judge and Erez (in preparation)
29
Addressing Controversies 1-3Incremental Validity: Motivation
Overall Motivation
Intrinsic Motivation
Goal Commitment
Neuroticism .08 .31** .11
Extraversion .12 .20* .22**
Openness .16* .09 .13†
Agreeableness .03 .16† .06
Conscientiousness .14† .16† .05
CSES .23* .06 .32**
Notes: N=165. † p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
Source: Judge and Erez (in preparation)
30
Addressing Controversies 1-3Incremental Validity: Performance
Overall Job Performance
Contextual Performance
Task Performance
Neuroticism .16 .31** .20*
Extraversion .05 -.02 .05
Openness -.07 -.07 -.11
Agreeableness -.05 .13 -.07
Conscientiousness .16† .06 .23**
CSES .32** .39** .28**
Notes: N=164. † p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
Source: Judge and Erez (in preparation)
31
Addressing Controversies 1-3Incremental Validity: Performance
1 2 3 4 5
Neuroticism Measure
1. Big Five Inventory .19
2. Goldberg IPIP .12
3. Goldberg AB5C -.06
4. NEO .15
5. Eysenck .32**
Core Self-Evaluations
CSES .42** .36** .36** .41** .52**
∆R .28** .28** .29** .20** .37**
R2 .12 .11 .12 .11 .15
Source: Judge and Erez (in preparation)
32
Addressing Controversies 1-3Summary
• CSES predicts most criteria, controlling for neuroticism and other Big Five measures
• Surprisingly, CSE better predicts stressors, stress, and strain compared to measures of neuroticism
• CSES predicts performance– Controlling for every measure of neuroticism,
yet reverse not true
33
Controversy #4Can One Be Too Positive?
• Is positivity always good? (Judge & Ilies, AME, 2004)
– Harmful effects of self-esteem pursuit– Costs of self-deception– Extreme self-positivity=narcissism
• Definition: self-love, or an exceptional interest in and admiration for yourself
• Narcissism correlates r=.35 with self-esteem• Many controversies about narcissism in psychology (e.g.,
costs-benefits)• Very little study of narcissism in OB
34
Controversy #4Can One Be Too Positive?
• DSM-IV: narcissism=grandiose self-regard; exaggeration of talents, skills– May lead to enhanced view of self with respect to
various work outcomes
• Collected data in two samples relating self and other ratings of– Leadership– Workplace deviance– Task and contextual performance
35
Controversy #4 Can One Be Too Positive?
Self Rating(SF)
Supervisor Rating (SP)
SF-SP Difference
Neuroticism -.01 -.11 0.90
Extraversion -.01 .01 0.01
Openness .25** .17* 8.93**
Agreeableness .19** -.02 2.74
Conscientiousness .56** .09 29.35**
Narcissism .05 -.25** 5.53**
Notes: Criterion=Contextual performance. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
Source: Judge, LePine, and Rich (in press, JAP)
36
Controversy #4 Can One Be Too Positive?
Self Rating(SF)
Supervisor Rating (SP)
SF-SP Difference
Neuroticism -.21** -.09 3.51**
Extraversion .11 .08 1.45
Openness .29** .16 10.22**
Agreeableness .12 -.01 1.15
Conscientiousness .23** .06 4.09*
Narcissism .22** -.20* 7.09**
Notes: Criterion=Leadership effectiveness. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
Source: Judge, LePine, and Rich (in press, JAP)
37
Conclusions
• Positive traits do matter• Positive traits proliferate the literature and
should be reduced to common core• Common core—CSE—is important
– CSE is not mere composite of FFM– CSE not assessed with measures of ES– CSE has incremental validity– One can be too self-positive, but this is not the
same as CSE
38
http://www.ufstudies.net/tim/michigan/index_UM.htm
Link to Presentation
Contents • Michigan 1-23-06 Presentation
• Bono & Judge - European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology (2003)
• Judge et al. - Journal of Personality & Social Psychology (2002)
• Judge et al. - Personnel Psychology (2003)
• Judge & Bono - Journal of Applied Psychology (2001)
• Judge, LePine, & Rich - Journal of Applied Psychology (in press)
• Judge & Ilies - Academy of Management Executive (2004)