Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Positive Self-Regard Origins, Benefits, Possible Costs Timothy A. Judge University of Florida University of Michigan January 23, 2006.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Positive Self-Regard Origins, Benefits, Possible Costs Timothy A. Judge University of Florida University of Michigan January 23, 2006."— Presentation transcript:

1 Positive Self-Regard Origins, Benefits, Possible Costs Timothy A. Judge University of Florida University of Michigan January 23, 2006

2 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 3 Two Preliminary Issues Issue #1 Controversy over whether positive self- regard matters Issue #2 Positively too many positive traits

4 4 Issue #1 Does 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 5 Issue #2 Construct 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 … –neuroticism  locus of control (Wambach & Panackal, 1979) –locus of a control  neuroticism (Morelli et al., 1979) –In organizational behavior research … Nearly all studies including more than one core trait treat them as wholly independent

12 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 13 Two Questions Necessary 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 14 Question #1 Correlations Among Traits 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 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 Locus of Control Neuroticism Self- Efficacy Self- Esteem Core Self Evaluations 1.00.88.79 -.76.59.91.54.98.73.67.77 1.00.58.75 1.00

16 16 Notes: SE=self-esteem; GSF=generalized self-efficacy; LOC=locus of control; ES=emotional stability Question #2 Do Core Traits Matter? Meta Analysis Results-Job Performance Source: Judge & Bono (Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001) End points indicate limits of 80% CV

17 17 Notes: SE=self-esteem; GSF=generalized self-efficacy; LOC=locus of control; ES=emotional stability End points indicate limits of 80% CV Source: Judge & Bono (Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001) Question #2 Do Core Traits Matter? Meta Analysis Results-Job Satisfaction

18 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 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 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 21 CSES Core 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 22 Validity Relation of CSES to Criteria JS=Job Satisfaction; LS=Life Satisfaction; JP=Job Performance Correlation (uncorrected) Source: Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (Personnel Psychology, 2003)

23 23 Controversy #1 What Does CSE Add? JSLSJP CSES beyond 4 core traits 2/23/32/2 4 core traits beyond CSES 0/21/30/2 CSES beyond Extraversion 2/23/32/2 Extraversion beyond CSES 2/23/30/2 CSES beyond Conscientiousness 2/23/31/2 Conscientiousness beyond CSES 0/20/30/2 Source: Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (Personnel Psychology, 2003)

24 24 Controversy #2 CSE=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

25 25

26 26 Further Evidence New 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 27 Addressing Controversies 1-3 Incremental Validity: Job Attitudes Job satisfaction Org. Commitment P-O Fit 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 28 Addressing Controversies 1-3 Incremental Validity: Stress/Stressors Role Ambiguity Life Stress Somatic Complaints Neuroticism -.05.30** Extraversion -.23**.00 Openness.08.00 Agreeableness -.21*.07 Conscientiousness -.07 -.04 CSES -.21 * -.23 *.33 ** Notes: N=167. † p <.10. * p <.05. ** p <.01. Source: Judge and Erez (in preparation)

29 29 Addressing Controversies 1-3 Incremental 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 30 Addressing Controversies 1-3 Incremental Validity: Performance Overall Job Performance Contextual Performance Task Performance Neuroticism.16.31**.20 * Extraversion.05 -.02.05 Openness -.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 31 Addressing Controversies 1-3 Incremental 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 32 Addressing Controversies 1-3 Summary 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 33 Controversy #4 Can 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 34 Controversy #4 Can 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 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 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 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 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)


Download ppt "Positive Self-Regard Origins, Benefits, Possible Costs Timothy A. Judge University of Florida University of Michigan January 23, 2006."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google