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

25

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)