by - Florida Institute of Technology

The Integrated Model of Self-Confidence: Defining and Operationalizing Self-Confidence in Organizational Settings

by

Kelsey Evelyn Perkins

A dissertation submitted to the

College of Psychology and Liberal Arts

Florida Institute of Technology

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctorate of Philosophy in

Industrial/Organizational Psychology

Melbourne, Florida July 2018

We the undersigned committee hereby approve the attached dissertation,

“The Integrated Model of Self-Confidence: Defining and Operationalizing Self-

Confidence in Organizational Settings,” by Kelsey Evelyn Perkins.

_________________________________________________ Dr. Lisa Steelman Interim Dean COPLA Professor & Program Chair I/O Psychology

_________________________________________________ Dr. Alice Che Assistant Professor I/O Psychology

_________________________________________________ Dr. Patrick Converse Associate Professor I/O Psychology

_________________________________________________ Dr. Heidi Edwards Associate Head, School of Arts and Communication Professor and Chair Communication Program

iii

Abstract Title: The Integrated Model of Self-Confidence: Defining and Operationalizing Self-

Confidence in Organizational Settings Author: Kelsey Evelyn Perkins, M.S., A.B.D.

Advisor: Lisa Steelman, Ph. D.

Research suggests that self-confidence is related to success, educational achievement, negotiation, and personal well-being, among other things. It is commonly asserted that employees need to have some degree of self-confidence in order to succeed in the workplace. However, the practical and scientific literatures are lacking in providing a consistent definition and operationalization of the construct. The purpose of this research is to not only summarize the current state of literature on self-confidence, but to use that information to provide a coherent and theoretically-derived definition of self-confidence, so that it can be measured and studied in organizational contexts. This study explores Internal Self-Confidence as a form of self-trust through the development of the Integrated Model of Self-Confidence, which states that Internal Self-Confidence, as an overarching latent construct, is mainly influenced by three factors: self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-compassion. Together, these constructs determine how trustworthy an individual considers themselves to be, and how much they trust themselves. While one’s attitude towards themselves is undoubtedly important, subtle signals and behaviors (i.e., External Self-Confidence) are thought to be indicative of an individual’s level of self-confidence—and therefore inform others’ perceptions of their competence. According to this research, the most discernible and recognizable confidence cues include affectivity/optimism; taking action, risks, and initiative; nonverbal communication; verbal communication; independence in thought and action, and trust in one’s own decisions and judgment.

The Integrated Model of Self-Confidence is used to develop and validate both the Internal and External Self-Confidence Scales (ISCS & ESCS) through a series of six studies. Study 1 was a qualitative assessment of how people define and recognize signs of self-confidence. This information was used to inform the development of the items used in Study 2—the exploration of initial items with the purpose of understanding which factors comprise the measure of self-confidence, and which are often mistaken for the construct. The results of this study were used to develop both the Internal Self-Confidence Scale (assessed in Study 3), as well as the External Self-Confidence Scale (assessed in Study 4), using Exploratory Factor Analysis. Finally, Study 5 serves as both a Confirmatory Factor Analysis and a construct validation of both measures, and Study 6 serves as a criterion, or outcome, validation of both measures for the career success of employees. Overall, both the Internal Self-Confidence Scale (ISCS) and External Self-Confidence Scale (ESCS), were found to be highly reliable (with α ranging .902-.942) and valid measures, which can feasibly be used in workplace or organizational settings.

iv

Table of Contents Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 Literature Review.................................................................................................................4

Business & Entrepreneurship ...................................................................................6 Cognitive Psychology ..............................................................................................8 Consumer Behavior ...............................................................................................12 Education ...............................................................................................................13 Leadership & Management ....................................................................................16 Nursing & Medicine ..............................................................................................19 Personality..............................................................................................................20 Social Psychology ..................................................................................................23 Sports .....................................................................................................................26 Trials & Law ..........................................................................................................29 Summary ................................................................................................................30

Theory Development .........................................................................................................41 Integrated Model of Organizational Trust .............................................................41 The Model of Self-Trust ........................................................................................43 Indicators of Self-Confidence ................................................................................46 The Self ..................................................................................................................49 The Integrated Model of Self-Confidence .............................................................52

Present Study .....................................................................................................................55 Study 1: Qualitative Assessment .......................................................................................57

Methods..................................................................................................................58 Results & Discussion .............................................................................................65

Study 2: Exploration of Initial Items .................................................................................68 Methods..................................................................................................................68 Exploratory Factor Analysis & Results .................................................................70 Confirmatory Factor Analysis & Results ...............................................................72 Structural Equation Modeling & Results ...............................................................74 Discussion ..............................................................................................................76

Study 3: Internal Self-Confidence Scale ............................................................................77 Methods..................................................................................................................77 Results ....................................................................................................................81 Discussion ..............................................................................................................85

v

Study 4: External Self-Confidence Scale ...........................................................................87 Methods..................................................................................................................87 Results ....................................................................................................................89 Discussion ..............................................................................................................93

Study 5: Construct Validation ............................................................................................95 Methods..................................................................................................................97 Results ..................................................................................................................103 Discussion ............................................................................................................126

Study 6: Criterion Validation ...........................................................................................129 Networking Opportunities ...................................................................................135 Mentoring Relationships ......................................................................................136 Development Programs ........................................................................................138 Developmental Assignments ...............................................................................139 Support for Development & Career Advancement ..............................................140 Methods................................................................................................................142 Results ..................................................................................................................150 Supplementary Gender Analysis ..........................................................................165 Discussion ............................................................................................................171

General Discussion ..........................................................................................................175 Scientific and Theoretical Implications ...............................................................182 Practical and Workplace Implications .................................................................183 Limitations ...........................................................................................................184 Future Directions .................................................................................................186 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................188

References ........................................................................................................................190 Appendices .......................................................................................................................218

Appendix A. Self-Confidence Definition Categories by Discipline ....................219 Appendix B. Trends in Scales Used to Measure Self-Confidence ......................220 Appendix C. Internal Self-Confidence Scale .......................................................223 Appendix D. External Self-Confidence Scale .....................................................224

vi

List of Tables

Table 1. Confidence Database Fields.................................................................................. 5

Table 2. Antecedents and Outcomes of Self-Confidence in Business & Entrepreneurship 8

Table 3. Antecedents and Outcomes of Self-Confidence in Cognitive Psychology ......... 11

Table 4. Antecedents and Outcomes of Self-Confidence in Consumer Behavior ............ 13

Table 5. Antecedents and Outcomes of Self-Confidence in Education ............................ 15

Table 6. Antecedents and Outcomes of Self-Confidence in Leadership & Management 18

Table 7. Antecedents and Outcomes of Self-Confidence in Nursing & Medicine ........... 20

Table 8. Antecedents and Outcomes of Self-Confidence in Personality .......................... 22

Table 9. Antecedents and Outcomes of Self-Confidence in Social Psychology .............. 25

Table 10. Antecedents and Outcomes of Self-Confidence in Sports ................................ 28

Table 11. Antecedents and Outcomes of Self-Confidence in Trials & Law .................... 29

Table 12. Trends in Conceptualizations of Self-Confidence ............................................ 31

Table 13. General Trends in the Antecedents and Outcomes of Self-Confidence ........... 37

Table 14. Sample Demographics for Qualitative Study ................................................... 60

Table 15. Category Response Themes .............................................................................. 62

Table 16. Coding Percentages for Q1 (What does self-confidence mean to you?) .......... 64

Table 17. Coding Percentages for Q2/Q3 (Signs someone has/lacks self-confidence) .... 64

Table 18. General Trends in Coding Frequencies ............................................................ 67

Table 19. Coding Categories for Self-Confidence Item Pool ........................................... 69

Table 20. Study 2 Exploratory Factor Analysis of the 6-Factor Solution ........................ 72

Table 21. Study 2 Confirmatory Factor Analyses ............................................................ 74

Table 22. Study 2 Structural Equation Modeling Analyses .............................................. 75

Table 23. Study 3 Internal Self-Confidence Scale EFAs .................................................. 82

Table 24. Study 3 Item Correlations for the Internal Self-Confidence Scale (ISCS) ....... 84

Table 25. Study 3 Gender Descriptives for Internal Self-Confidence Scale (ISCS) ........ 84

Table 26. Study 3 Full Correlation Matrix ........................................................................ 85

Table 27. Study 4 External Self-Confidence Scale (ESCS) EFA ..................................... 90

vii

Table 28. Study 4 Item Correlations for External Self-Confidence Scale (ESCS) ........... 92

Table 29. Study 4 Gender Descriptives for External Self-Confidence Scale (ESCS) ...... 93

Table 30. Study 5 Hypothesized Correlation Coefficients ............................................. 106

Table 31. Study 5 Subscale Correlations ........................................................................ 107

Table 32. Study 5 Item Correlations ............................................................................... 108

Table 33. Study 5 Gender Descriptives .......................................................................... 109

Table 34. Study 5 Full Correlation Matrix ...................................................................... 110

Table 35. Study 5 Internal Self-Confidence Scale EFA ................................................. 111

Table 36. Study 5 External Self-Confidence Scale EFA ................................................ 112

Table 37. Study 5 CFA—Internal Self-Confidence Scale .............................................. 115

Table 38. Study 5 CFAs—External Self-Confidence Scale ........................................... 117

Table 39. Study 5 Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Fit Statistics........................... 122

Table 40. Study 6 Demographics .................................................................................... 148

Table 41. Study 6 Correlation Coefficients – Gender Comparisons .............................. 154

Table 42. Study 6 Full Correlation Matrix ...................................................................... 155

Table 43. Study 6 Full Gender Mean Comparison ......................................................... 156

Table 44. Study 6 Analysis of Developmental Opportunities Single Items ................... 156

Table 45. Study 6 Measurement Model Fit Statistics ..................................................... 158

Table 46. Study 6 SEM Fit Statistics – Outcomes Only ................................................. 162

Table 47. Study 6 FIT Statistics - Antecedents ............................................................... 162

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Integrated Model of Organizational Trust Diagram (Mayer et al., 1995) ......... 42

Figure 2. The Model of Self-Trust .................................................................................... 46

Figure 3. The Integrated Model of Self-Confidence ......................................................... 53

Figure 4. Construct Validation Model ............................................................................. 97

Figure 5. Study 5 CFA—Internal Self-Confidence Scale Measurement Models ........... 115

Figure 6. Study 5 CFA—External Self-Confidence Scale Measurement Models .......... 118

Figure 7. Study 5 Best Fit SEM Model - External Self-Confidence as the Outcome ..... 123

Figure 8. Study 5 Best Fit SEM Model - Multiple Theoretical Outcomes ..................... 123

Figure 9. Study 5 Structural Models – External Self-Confidence as the Outcome ........ 124

Figure 10. Study 5 Structural Models - Multiple Theoretical Outcomes ....................... 125

Figure 11. Criterion Validation Model ........................................................................... 134

Figure 12. Study 6 ISCS Measurement Model ............................................................... 158

Figure 13. Study 6 ESCS Measurement Model .............................................................. 159

Figure 14. Study 6 Best Fit SEM Model – Outcomes Only ........................................... 163

Figure 15. Study 6 Best Fit SEM Model – Full Model ................................................... 163

Figure 16. Study 6 SEM Model Compilation – Outcomes Only .................................... 164

INTEGRATED MODEL OF SELF-CONFIDENCE

1

The Integrated Model of Self-Confidence:

Defining and Operationalizing Self-Confidence in Organizational Settings

Introduction

According to the author of Peter Pan, J. M. Barrie, “The moment you doubt

whether you can fly, you cease for ever to be able to do it.” In other words, you will

never be able to meet your goals and find success in life if you doubt yourself and your

abilities. Having confidence in yourself is a large part of what drives you to put effort

and persistence towards meeting your goals, and helps you recover in the face of failure

or mistakes. This is what leads people to take meaningful action and achieve success—

both in their life and in their career. Research cited by Kay and Shipman in their New

York Times Bestseller, The Confidence Code (2014), suggests that confidence is related

to success, educational achievement, negotiation, and personal well-being, among other

things—and there is no doubt that employees need to have some degree of self-

confidence in order to succeed in the workplace. Employees must value themselves and

their capabilities, and be able to show understanding and forgiveness towards their own

shortcomings and failures if they wish to project confidence and appear competent to

their coworkers, subordinates, and supervisors alike. Employees must also believe that

they are capable of succeeding in the face of challenges, and that the environment will

respond positively regardless of these challenges if they wish to have the high

expectations that allow for risk-taking and great, highly visible successes.


2

But, one question remains: What exactly is this critical construct of self-

confidence? Going back to the basics, the Oxford Dictionary defines self-confidence as

“a feeling of trust in one’s abilities, qualities, and judgment.” Therefore, it would seem

reasonable to operationalize self-confidence as a form of self-trust. However, no known

previous research has operationalized self-confidence in such a manner. This is

somewhat surprising, considering the breadth and diversity in how self-confidence has

been defined in previous literature. A ProQuest search for the phrase “self-confidence”

results in just under 550,000 hits (as of June 2018)—46,000 of which are from peer-

reviewed, scholarly journals. While this may seem like a large number, the resultant

articles focus on self-confidence in almost just as many disciplines: sports, education and

learning, nursing and health, consumer purchasing behavior, finance and business—just

to name a few. No discipline, however, has a cohesive and agreed-upon definition of

self-confidence, meaning that there are even more conceptualizations of the construct in

the scientific literature than there are disciplines which discuss it.

While the scientific literature fails to provide a coherent and unified

conceptualization of self-confidence, the practical literature often fails to define the

construct at all, merely treating it as a vague and ominous quality that is important for

employees to possess (Berman, 2005; De Mascia, 2015; Goldsmith, 2008; Ibarra, Ely, &

Kolb, 2013; Kerfoot, 2010; Knippen & Green, 1989; Mohr, 2014; Tichy & Charan;

1989). While there is some speculation on the antecedents and outcomes of self-

confidence in the practical literature (such as developmental opportunities and leadership


3

effectiveness), these propositions are not yet empirically backed (Baldoni, 2009;

Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004; Ireland, Hitt, & Williams, 1992; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991;

White, de Sanctis, & Crino, 1981). What both the scientific and practical literature is

missing is a clear, concrete definition, operationalization, and measure of self-confidence.

Because of this considerable gap in the literature, the scientific and practical communities

are particularly limited in understanding self-confidence as a construct, as well as its

implications in the work world.

The purpose of this research is to not only summarize and consolidate the current

state of literature on self-confidence, but to use that information to provide a coherent and

theoretically-derived definition of self-confidence, so that it can be operationalized,

measured, and studied in organizational contexts. This study will explore internally-

perceived self-confidence as a form of self-trust through the development of the

Integrated Model of Self-Confidence, as well as the most effective way to define and

operationalize self-confidence in organizational settings. What makes the model unique is

that it (a) operationalizes internally-perceived self-confidence as self-trust, not only as

self-efficacy or self-esteem, (b) operationalizes internally-perceived self-confidence as an

attitude, like trust, which can be changed with proper interventions, and (c) includes

affective, behavioral, and cognitive components in the discussion of self-confidence, and

(d) includes a multiple-perception perspective of the construct by differentiating between

internally- and externally-perceived self-confidence. The model will be used to develop


4

and validate measures of both internally- and externally-perceived self-confidence that

can reliably and feasibly be used in organizational settings.

Literature Review

In order to get a better understanding of the state of the literature on self-

confidence, a database of 200 relevant articles was compiled, including the citation, field,

methodology, measure of confidence used (if any), definition of confidence used or

alluded to, as well as any possible antecedents or outcomes mentioned in the article. The

compilation began by gathering all confidence and leadership articles accumulated

through previous research, and well as searching for articles with “self-confidence” in the

title in ProQuest. Of note, preference was given to articles with a distinct Western point-

of-view, considering that self-confidence is a Westernized construct (Heine, Lehman,

Markus, & Kitayama, 1999).

In ProQuest, a search for peer-reviewed, scholarly articles with “self-confidence”

in the title resulted in just over 500 results (in January-March of 2016). Any peer-

reviewed, scholarly article that was available either through the search engine or through

the university library, had a proper citation (i.e., was not authored anonymously), or was

published after 1980, was sought out and included in the database, resulting in a

comprehensive accumulation of confidence articles across various fields and disciplines.

In each of the articles, citations that referred to how the author(s) defined or

operationalized self-confidence were also sought out and included in the database if


5

available, regardless of the publication date. After some merging of smaller categories,

ten different fields of study were included in the database over the 200 articles:

Table 1. Confidence Database Fields # of Articles % of Database Cognitive Psychology 35 18% Leadership & Management 34 17% Social Psychology 33 17% Business & Entrepreneurship 25 13% Sports 24 12% Education 18 9% Nursing & Medicine 9 5% Personality 10 5% Consumer Behavior 8 4% Trials & Law 4 2%

Of the 200 articles in the database, 77 (39%) were surveys or questionnaires, 53

(27%) were experimental, 29 (15%) were practice pieces, 24 (12%) were theoretical or

propositional, 10 (5%) were interview analysis, and 7 (4%) were meta-analyses. Further,

60 (30%) articles referred to confidence as being a state, 37 (19%) referred to it as a trait,

27 (14%) articles considered it as both a trait and a state, and 76 (38%) were unclear as to

whether the construct was more a trait or a state. These vast disparities in the definition

of self-confidence undoubtedly leads to the present state of confusion in the literature.

What may help resolve this confusion is a study of the common trends—or what the

different disciplines, different methodologies, and different conceptions of self-

confidence agree on or have in common.


6

The following sections will explore each of the ten disciplines regarding common

trends in the definitions, conceptualizations, methodologies, operationalizations, and

antecedents and outcomes of self-confidence. Trends across disciplines will then be

discussed, as well as how those trends relate to the Integrated Model of Self-Confidence

that will later be described.

Business & Entrepreneurship

Literature on business and entrepreneurship accounted for 25 (or 13%) of the

articles in the database. Of the confidence articles classified under business and

entrepreneurship, over half were practice (mostly practical pieces from the Harvard

Business Review), 12% were experimental, 16% were based on interviews, 16% were

based on surveys or questionnaires, and one article was purely theoretical. While there

were a few pieces which alluded to self-confidence as being more of a state or more of a

trait, a clear majority of the articles (72%) were unclear as to how they described self-

confidence. Given the abundance of practical pieces that were unclear in their trait

versus state descriptions of self-confidence, it is no surprise that the construct was rarely

measured with an actual scale or inventory. The few exceptions were Cox and Bauer’s

(1964) use of a measure of feelings of inadequacy as self-confidence, Melamed’s (1996)

use of Cattell’s (1970) 16 Personality Factors Questionnaire, and Emerson’s (1998)

Personal Success Profile. Clearly, none of these articles provide a clear description of


7

self-confidence, nor use measures targeted specifically to measure self-confidence as a

construct in a theoretically meaningful way.

The definitions of self-confidence, or at least the way self-confidence was

described, varied greatly just within business and entrepreneurship articles. As is the

case with many fields and disciplines, self-confidence was often conflated with self-

esteem (Bierema, 1994; Goldsmith, 2009; Pratch, 2011), or self-efficacy/performance

expectations (Addis, 2008; Baldoni, 2009; Clarke, 2011; Emerson, 1998; Gadiesh &

Coffman, 2015; Kanter, 2014; Kirkwood, 2009; Koellinger, Minniti, & Schade, 2007;

Luthans, Luthans, & Luthans, 2004; Luthans & Youssef, 2004), or as both self-efficacy

and self-esteem (Cox & Bauer, 1964; Flynn, Heath, & Holt, 2001). Other articles

described self-confidence as judgment accuracy or decision confidence (Bukszar, 2003;

Ghosh & Ray, 1997), or lack of anxiety (Melamed, 1996). Yet, other articles did not

provide any definition (Borno, 2000; Fielden et al., 2003; Goldsmith, 2008; Ibarra, Ely,

& Kolb, 2013; Mohr, 2015; Tichy & Charan, 1989). Studies in this field of literature

examined diverse antecedents and outcomes of self-confidence. Trends in the antecedents

and outcomes of self-confidence within this discipline are listed in Table 2 below.


8

Table 2. Antecedents and Outcomes of Self-Confidence in Business & Entrepreneurship

Antecedents Outcomes Training, education, and development programs

Bierema, 1994; Clarke, 2011; Luthans et al., 2004 Persuasibility Cox & Bauer, 1964

Support from organization, supervisor, or others

Clarke, 2011; Fielden et al., 2003; Gadiesh & Coffman, 2015; Ibara, Ely, & Kolb, 2013; Kanter, 2014; Kirkwood, 2009

Career or workplace success

Addis, 2008; Ambition and gender at work, 2011; Bierema, 1994; Borno, 2000; Emerson, 1998; Gadiesh & Coffman, 2015; Goldsmith, 2009; Kanter, 2014; Pratch, 2011

Mastery experiences and experiential learning

Bierema, 1994; Luthans et al., 2004; Luthans & Youssef, 2004; Kirkwood, 2009; Koellinger, et al., 2007

Taking action and taking initiative

Bierema, 1994; Bukszar, 2003; Kirkwood, 2009; Koellinger, Minniti, & Schade, 2007

Focusing on personal strengths

Addis, 2008; Baldoni, 2009; Luthans et al., 2004

Career progression and promotions

Clarke, 2011; Flynn et al., 2011; Mohr, 2014

Achievements and accomplishments

Addis, 2008; Baldoni, 2009; Bierema, 1994

Individual performance

Luthans et al., 2004; Luthans & Youssef, 2004

Locus of control and taking credit

Addis, 2008; Baldoni, 2009; Flynn, Heath, & Holt, 2011; Kanter, 2014

Leadership ability, effectiveness, or success

Baldoni, 2009; Goldsmith, 2009; Melamed, 1996; Pratch, 2011

Organizational culture Gadiesh & Coffman, 2015; Kanter, 2014 Taking risks Bukszar, 2003; Pratch, 2011;

Ghosh & Ray, 1997 Self-compassion and learning from mistakes

Borno, 2000; Goldsmith, 2009; Kanter, 2014

Happiness and well-being Addis, 2008

Counseling and mentoring

Ambition and gender at work, 2011; Kirkwood, 2009

Ambition and motivation

Ambition and gender at work, 2011; Emerson, 1998; Kanter, 2014; Luthans & Youssef, 2004

Cognitive Psychology

Literature on cognitive psychology accounted for 35 (or 18%) of the articles in

the database. Of the confidence articles classified under cognitive psychology, over half

were experimental, 40% based on questionnaires or surveys, 6% theoretical, and one was


9

a meta-analysis. Further, 43% of the articles described confidence as state-like, 34%

trait-like, 6% both trait- and state-like, and 17% were unclear in their description of

confidence.

Many of the articles in the database categorized under cognitive psychology

measured and defined confidence the same way—as certainty in decisions or judgments,

including certainty in the correctness of test answers (Balakrishnan & Ratcliff, 1996;

Brewer, Sampaio, & Barlow, 2005; Buratti & Allwood, 2012; Chernev, 2009; Crawford

& Stankov, 1996; Gigerenzer et al., 1991; Jackson & Kleitman, 2014; Kleitman &

Moscrop, 2010; Koriat, 2012; Krueger & Dickson, 1994; Mayseless & Kruglanski, 1987;

Merkle & Van Zandt, 2006; Miller, Spengler, & Spengler, 2015; Nygren & Ransom-

Flint, 1997; Oskamp, 1967; Pallier, 2003; Patalano & LeClair, 2011; Stankov &

Crawford, 1997; Stankov & Lee, 2008; Stankov, Lee, Luo, & Hogan, 2012; Tormala,

Rucker, & Seger, 2008). Other articles defined and measured confidence as some form

of self-efficacy (Brabender & Boardman, 1977; Heppner & Petersen, 1982; Johnson &

McCoy, 2000; Johnson, Zava, & McCoy, 2000; Kleitman & Stankov, 2007; Larrick,

Burson, & Soll, 2007; Moore & Healy, 2008; Preckel & Freund, 2005), or in terms of

thoughts, attitudes, or opinions—or the certainty and veracity with which one holds a

certain thought, attitude, or opinion (Briñol, DeMarree, & Petty, 2010; Briñol, Petty, &

Barden, 2007; Fazio & Zanna, 1978).

Much of the research in this field measures “self-confidence” as a self-rating of

certainty in test answers or response accuracy (Balakrishnan & Ratcliff, 1996; Brewer,


10

Sampaio, & Barlow, 2005; Buratti & Allwood, 2012; Crawford & Stankov, 1996;

Gigerenzer et al., 1991; Kleitman & Moscrop, 2010; Merkle & Van Zandt, 2006; Pallier,

2003; Preckel & Freund, 2005; Stankov & Crawford, 1997; Stankov & Lee, 2008;

Stankov, Lee, Luo, & Hogan, 2012). A few articles also used a measure of self-

confidence (originally developed in French) which was not able to be located in any

language (Garant, Charest, Alain, & Thomassin, 1995; Johnson et al., 2000; Johnson &

McCoy, 2000). Besides the Garant et al. (2000) measure, there are no readily-available

or usable scales of self-confidence as an individual-level trait or attitude—only state-level

or situational, single-item-type operationalizations of the construct. Trends in the

antecedents and outcomes of self-confidence within this discipline are listed in Table 3

below.


11

Table 3. Antecedents and Outcomes of Self-Confidence in Cognitive Psychology

Antecedents Outcomes

Difficulty of task

Gigerenzer et al., 1991; Koriat, 2012; Larrick, Burson, & Soll, 2007; Merkle & Van Zandt, 2006; Miller et al., 2015; Moore & Healy, 2008; Stankov & Lee, 2008; Stankov et al., 2012

Performance and achievements

Johnson et al., 2000; Kleitman & Moscrop, 2010; Koriat, 2012; Larrick et al., 2007; Stankov & Crawford, 1997; Stankov & Lee, 2008; Stankov, Lee, Luo, & Hogan, 2012

Social comparisons

Fazio & Zanna, 1978; Larrick, Burson, & Soll, 2007; Johnson, Zava, & McCoy, 2000

Risk-taking and risk perceptions

Krueger & Dickson, 1994; Siegrist, Gutscher, & Earle, 2005

Social and situational cues

Brabender & Boardman, 1977; Gigerenzer et al., 1991; Larrick et al.; Merkle & Van Zandt, 2006; Patalano & LeClair, 2011; Pallier, 2003

Response or memory accuracy

Balakrishnan & Ratcliff, 1996; Brewer et al., 2005; Kleitman & Stankov, 2007; Miller et al., 2015; Stankov & Lee, 2008

Performance feedback

Buratti & Allwood, 2012; Brabender & Boardman, 1977; Gigerenzer et al., 1991; Krueger & Dickson, 1994; Merkle & Van Zandt, 2006; Miller et al., 2015; Price & Stone, 2004; Stankov & Crawford, 1997

Decision making and decisiveness

Jackson & Kleitman, 2014; Koriat, 2012; Krueger & Dickson, 1994; Larrick et al., 2007; Merkle & Van Zandt, 2006; Miller et al., 2015; Nygren & Ransom-Flint, 1997; Patalano & LeClair, 2011; Pallier, 2003

Characteristics of task or goals set

Chernev, 2009; Gigerenzer et al., 1991; Koriat, 2012; Siegrist, Gutscher, & Earle, 2005

Information seeking

Chernev, 2009; Patalano & LeClair, 2011

Personal experience or practice

Kleitman & Moscrop, 2010; Moore & Healy, 2008; Oskamp, 1967; Preckel & Freund, 2005; Price & Stone, 2004; Siegrist, Gutscher, & Earle, 2005; Stankov & Lee, 2008

Goal or choice commitment

Chernev, 2009; Patalano & LeClair, 2011

Confirmation or consensus with others

Koriat, 2012; Patalano & LeClair, 2011 Attitude-behavior consistency

Briñol, Petty, & Barden, 2007; Fazio & Zanna, 1978

Metacognitive awareness and metacognition

Kleitman & Stankov, 2007; Stankov & Lee, 2008

Info processing quantity/quality

Briñol et al., 2010; Tormala et al., 2008

Fear of failure Preckel & Freund, 2005 Persuasability Briñol, Petty, & Barden, 2007


12

Consumer Behavior Literature on consumer behavior accounted for eight (or 4%) of the articles in the

database. Of the confidence articles classified under consumer behavior, half were

experimental, 38% based on survey or questionnaire, and one was a theoretical piece.

Further, three-quarters of the articles described confidence as having both trait- and state-

like characteristics, while one quarter described confidence as being more trait-like in

nature. Many of the confidence articles in consumer behavior considered the construct as

synonymous, or at least similar, to self-esteem (Bell, 1967; Chuang et al., 2013; Taylor,

1974), or similar to both self-esteem and self-efficacy (Chelminski & Coulter, 2007;

Greenacre, Tung & Chapman, 2014; Locander & Hermann, 1979). Other articles focus

on more specific forms of confidence—such as confidence in consumer behaviors and

decisions (Bearden, Hardesty, & Rose, 2001), or as general social confidence or

information-processing confidence (Greenacre, Tung & Chapman, 2014; Wright, 1975).

Unlike some of the other foci of study, the articles listed under consumer behavior often

use validated measures, even if they tap into constructs other than self-confidence. For

example, several articles use the Day and Hamblin (1964) self-esteem scale (Bell, 1964;

Chuang et al., 2013), items from Tafarodi and Swann’s (1995) Self-Liking/Self-

Competence scale (Chelminski & Coulter, 2007), or the Generalized Social Confidence

Scale, which assesses one’s efficacy and comfort in social situations (Greenacre, Tung &

Chapman, 2014; Wright, 1975). Trends in the antecedents and outcomes of self-

confidence within this discipline are listed in Table 4 below.


13

Table 4. Antecedents and Outcomes of Self-Confidence in Consumer Behavior


Task- or goal-related experiences

Bearden, Hardesty, & Rose, 2001; Chelminski & Coulter, 2007; Greenacre, Tung & Chapman, 2014

Risk-taking and use of risk-reduction strategies

Bearden, Hardesty, & Rose, 2001; Chuang et al., 2013; Locander & Hermann, 1979; Taylor, 1974

Inherent knowledge, skills, and abilities

Bell, 1967; Wright, 1975 Persuasability and message acceptance

Bearden et al., 2001; Bell, 1967; Greenacre et al., 2014; Wright, 1975

Feedback and successful peer interactions

Tung & Chapman, 2014 Certainty and independence of thoughts/decisions

Bearden, Hardesty, & Rose, 2001; Bell, 1967; Chuang et al., 2013

Perceived control and dominance

Bearden, Hardesty, & Rose, 2001

Counter arguing and propensity to voice

Chelminski & Coulter, 2007; Wright, 1975

Education

Literature on education accounted for 18 (or 9%) of the articles in the database.

Of the confidence articles classified under education, a vast majority were based on

surveys or questionnaires (72%), 17% were based on interviews, one was experimental,

and one was more practice-oriented. Further, there was wide variability in how

confidence was described—44% considered confidence as state-like, 6% as trait-like,

11% as both state- and trait-like, and 39% were unclear in their description of confidence.

A majority of the confidence articles categorized under learning and education defined

the construct as being similar to some form of specific self-efficacy or general

expectations for success (Clark & Gakuru, 2014; Guerin, Arcand, & Durand-Bush, 2010;

Kalaian & Freeman, 1994; Sadler, 2013; Sander & Sanders, 2006; Tavani & Losh, 2003;

Yorke, 2016). A few others defined the construct as being similar to self-esteem


14

(Zuckerman, 1985), similar to both self-esteem and self-efficacy (Al-Hesbaish, 2012;

Karimi & Saadatmand, 2014; Maclellan, 2014; Malkin & Stake, 2004; Srivastava, 2013),

or as certainty in the correctness of test answers (Foote, 2000; Jones & Jones, 1989;

Lundeberg, Fox, & Puncochar, 1994; Lundeberg, Fox, Brown, & Elbedour, 2000;

Puncochar & Fox, 2004). There were no trends in terms of scales used to measures self-

confidence. Measures used include self-esteem scales (Malkin & Stake, 2004), measures

that tap some sort of specific self-efficacy or general expectations of success (Sander &

Sanders, 2006; Yorke, 2016), and measures that did not specify whether their measure

tapped self-efficacy or self-esteem (Al-Hesbaish, 2012; Srivastava, 2013). One article

even operationalized self-confidence as students’ self-rated intellectual and social self-

confidence in comparison to the average student. Trends in the antecedents and

outcomes of self-confidence within this discipline are listed in Table 5 below.


15

Table 5. Antecedents and Outcomes of Self-Confidence in Education


Social capital and interaction with others

Jones & Jones, 1989; Maclellan, 2014; Malkin & Stake, 2004; Sadler, 2013

Academic achievement & success

Al-Hesbaish, 2012; Clark & Gakuru, 2014; Guerin et al., 2010; Jones & Jones, 1989; Kalaian & Freeman, 1994; Karimi & Saadatmand, 2014; Maclellan, 2014; Malkin & Stake, 2004; Srivastava, 2013; Tavani & Losh, 2003

Learning strategies Maclellan, 2014 Problem-

solving Jones & Jones, 1989; Maclellan, 2014

Developmental and intervention programs

Clark & Gakuru, 2014; Kalaian & Freeman, 1994; Maclellan, 2014; Sadler, 2013

Achievement effort and motivation

Karimi & Saadatmand, 2014; Puncochar & Fox, 2004; Sander & Sanders, 2006; Tavani & Losh, 2003

Mastery experiences and practice

Sadler, 2013; Sander & Sanders, 2006

Risk-taking and taking action

Clark & Gakuru, 2014; Sadler, 2013


Karimi & Saadatmand, 2014; Puncochar & Fox, 2004; Sander & Sanders, 2006

Learning and academic development

Al-Hesbaish, 2012; Sadler, 2013; Sander & Sanders, 2006

Difficulty of work or task

Karimi & Saadatmand, 2014; Lundeberg, Fox, & Puncochar, 1994

Approach vs. avoidance behaviors

Jones & Jones, 1989

Previous achievements and successes

Al-Hesbaish, 2012; Karimi & Saadatmand, 2014; Srivastava, 2013

Goals and goal attainment

Malkin & Stake, 2004; Srivastava, 2013; Zuckerman, 1985

Self-talk and emotional regulation

Guerin, Arcand, & Durand-Bush, 2010

Satisfaction in academic endeavors

Guerin, Arcand, & Durand-Bush, 2010


16

Leadership & Management

Literature on leadership and management accounted for 34 (or 17%) of the

articles in the database. Of the confidence articles classified under leadership and

management, 32% were practice-oriented, 32% based on survey or questionnaire, 21%

theoretical or propositional, 9% experimental, one was based on interview, and one was a

meta-analysis. Similar to the distribution of descriptions in the business and

entrepreneurship section, most of the articles (53%) were unclear in how they described

self-confidence, 26% described the concept as trait-like, 18% as state-like, and one (3%)

considered confidence as both state- and trait-like.

Many of the articles that discuss confidence in the leadership and management

research refer to the construct as being similar to general self-efficacy or expectations of

success (Hannah et al., 2008; Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004; Kolb, 1999; McCarty, 1986;

Mowday, 1979; Shipman & Mumford, 2011), or similar to a more specific leadership or

occupational self-efficacy (Kipnis & Lane, 1962; O'Neil, Hopkins, & Bilimoria, 2015;

Schyns & Sczesny, 2010; Tsui, 1998). Others referred to self-confidence as similar to

self-esteem (Bowman, 1999; Evans, 2010; White, de Sanctis, & Crino, 1981), or as

similar to both self-efficacy and self-esteem (Pollock, 2004; Putnam & Heinen, 1976).

Other articles also considered locus of control as being one part of self-confidence, along

with the aforementioned constructs (Popper et al., 2004; Sturdy et al., 2006). Ireland et

al. (1992) expanded the definition of self-confidence even further, saying that “self-

confidence is viewed as a manager’s commitment to trust his or her own judgment, to be


17

free from debilitating fears, to take calculated risks, to confront openly rather than avoid

the unpleasant aspects of work, and to judge the effectiveness of those actions” (p. 37).

However, while the definitions of self-confidence in leadership and management

research varies considerably, a considerable proportion of the literature included practice-

oriented pieces which were also unclear in how they defined the construct (Aycan, 2004;

Baack, Carr-Ruffino, & Pelletier, 1993; Berman, 2005; De Mascia, 2015; Eagly & Karau,

2002; House & Aditya, 1997; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Kerfoot, 2010;

Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Knippen & Green, 1989; Koberg, Chusmir, & Carlin, 1992;

Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992; Zaccaro, Kemp, & Bader, 2004). Further, the few articles

which measured self-confidence in some way, never operationalized the construct in the

same manner. Operationalizations ranged from manipulating how confident leaders

“appear” (De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2004; Locke & Anderson, 2015) and social

comparisons (Tsui, 1998), to ratings of skills and performance (Kipnis & Lane, 1962),

the Adjective Check List (Koberg, Chusmir, & Carlin, 1992), and measures of locus of

control, anxiety, or self-efficacy (Popper et al., 2004; Schyns & Sczesny, 2010). Trends

in the antecedents and outcomes of self-confidence within this discipline are listed in

Table 6 below.


18

Table 6. Antecedents and Outcomes of Self-Confidence in Leadership & Management

Antecedents Outcomes Mastering challenges & overcoming barriers

Berman, 2005; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Koberg, Chusmir, & Carlin, 1992

Decision-making & problem-solving

Barrett, 2009; Bowman, 1999; Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004; Ireland et al., 1992; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Shipman & Mumford, 2011

Learning and gaining KSAs

Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Sturdy et al., 2006

Leader emergence

Baack et al., 1993; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Hannah et al., 2008; Judge et al., 2002; Kolb, 1999; Shipman & Mumford, 2011; Zaccaro et al. , 2004

Past experiences, successes, and practice

Bowman, 1999; Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004; Ireland et al., 1992; Kerfoot, 2010; Kipnis & Lane, 1962; O'Neil et al., 2015; Putnam & Heinen, 1976

Leadership effectiveness or managerial success

Aycan, 2004; De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2004; Hannah et al., 2008; Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004; House & Aditya, 1997; Ireland et al., 1992; Judge et al., 2002; Kerfoot, 2010; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Knippen & Green, 1989; Pollock, 2004; Popper et al., 2004; Putnam & Heinen, 1976; Schyns & Sczesny, 2010; Shipman & Mumford, 2011; White et al., 1981; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992

Mentoring or coaching

Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004; O'Neil, Hopkins, & Bilimoria, 2015; White et al. 1981; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992

Motivation and ambition

Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004; Knippen & Green, 1989

Self-talk Knippen & Green, 1989 Goal-setting Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004; Ireland, Hitt, & Williams, 1992; Shipman & Mumford, 2011

Training and education

Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004; Ireland, Hitt, & Williams, 1992; Sturdy et al., 2006

Risk-taking Ireland, Hitt, & Williams, 1992; House & Aditya, 1997; Shipman & Mumford, 2011

Performance or evaluative feedback

McCarty, 1986; Putnam & Heinen, 1976

Grit, perseverance, and persistence

House & Aditya, 1997; Ireland, Hitt, & Williams, 1992; Shipman & Mumford, 2011

Support from others

Putnam & Heinen, 1976; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992

Charismatic or transformational leadership

House & Aditya, 1997; Shipman & Mumford, 2011; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992; Zaccaro, Kemp, & Bader, 2004

Development programs or opportunities

Ireland, Hitt, & Williams, 1992; White, de Sanctis, & Crino, 1981

Promotions and advancement

Eagly & Karau, 2002; Evans, 2010; Locke & Anderson, 2015; McCarty, 1986; White et al., 1981; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992

Taking action

Knippen & Green, 1989; Pollock, 2004

Influence and power

Locke & Anderson, 2015; Mowday, 1979; Popper et al., 2004; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992


19

Nursing & Medicine Literature on nursing and medicine accounted for nine (or 5%) of the articles in

the database. Of the confidence articles classified under nursing and medicine, over half

were based on survey or questionnaire (56%), two were theoretical, and two were

practice-oriented. Further, 44% of the articles considered confidence more state-like, one

(11%) as both state- and trait-like, and 44% were unclear as to how confidence was

described. A majority of the articles in nursing and medicine defined self-confidence as

similar to or synonymous with general self-efficacy (Dumitrescu, Zetu, & Teslaru, 2012;

Hart, Spiva, & Mareno, 2014), or some sort of specific clinical or medical self-efficacy

(Hart, Spiva, Baio, Huff, Whitfield, Law, Wells, & Mendoza, 2014; Sergeev, Lipsky,

Ganor, Lending, Abebe-Campino, Morose, Katzenell, Ash, & Glassberg, 2012). A few

considered the construct as similar to self-esteem (Lachman, 2001; Turk & Winter, 2006)

or as similar to both self-efficacy and self-esteem (Perry, 2011). The most intriguing

definition of self-confidence found in this set of literature was the conceptualization put

forth by White in her research. White (2009), and subsequently White (2014), defined

self-confidence as being composed of three attributes: a belief in positive achievements

(similar to self-efficacy), persistence (similar to resilience), and self-awareness (similar to

self-regulating anxiety). While this seems like a broader and more comprehensive

conceptualization of self-confidence, its measurement is restricted to the nursing and

medicine discipline in White’s (2014) development of the Nursing Anxiety and Self-

Confidence with Clinical Decision Making (MASC-CDM) scale. This, as well as the


20

confidence scales used in Hart et al. (2014a), Hart et al. (2014b), and Sergeev et al.

(2012), operationalized self-confidence as being specific to such tasks as patient care in

acute deterioration, specific life-saving procedures, and clinical decision-making. Trends

in the antecedents and outcomes of self-confidence within this discipline are listed in

Table 7 below.

Table 7. Antecedents and Outcomes of Self-Confidence in Nursing & Medicine


Education and training Hart et al., 2014a; Hart et al., 2014b; Perry, 2011; Sergeev et al., 2012

Decision-making Hart et al., 2014b; White, 2014

Knowledge and learning Perry, 2011; White, 2009

Successful performance or achievements

Hart et al., 2014b; Lachman, 2001; Perry, 2011; Sergeev et al., 2012; White, 2014

Prior successful performance or achievements

Dumitrescu, Zetu, & Teslaru, 2012; White, 2009; White, 2014

Motivation or persistence

Dumitrescu, Zetu, & Teslaru, 2012

Related experience or practice

Perry, 2011; Sergeev et al., 2012; White, 2009; White, 2014

Effectively working and collaborating with others

Hart et al., 2014b; Perry, 2011; Turk & Winter, 2006; White, 2009

Characteristics of the situation or environment

Perry, 2011; White, 2009 Taking on challenges Perry, 2011; White, 2009

Remaining focused on your positives and self-talk

Lachman, 2001; White, 2009 Resiliency Perry, 2011

Reinforcement or encouragement from others

Perry, 2011; White, 2009 Independence and autonomy White, 2009

Personality

Literature on personality accounted for 10 (or 5%) of the articles in the database.

Of the confidence articles classified under personality, half were based on surveys or


21

questionnaires, one-third theoretical or propositional, one was experimental, and one was

a meta-analysis. Further, half of the articles considered self-confidence as more trait-like

(which is not surprising in personality research), one-third both trait- and state-like, one

as more state-like, and one was not clear as to their description of self-confidence. Of the

ten disciplines discussed in this paper, personality has the widest variety of

conceptualizations of self-confidence. A few of the articles used the traditional

conceptualizations—referring to self-confidence as being similar to general self-efficacy

(Andrews, 1987; Cheng & Furnham, 2002), a more specific self-efficacy—in this case

trust in the ability to cope with negative emotionality (Deeley & Love, 2012; Deeley &

Love, 2013), or as a certainty in the correctness of test answers (Wolfe & Grosch, 1990).

A few of the articles categorized under personality referred to core confidence—or a

higher-order construct of certainty or belief that one can do whatever comes their way,

manifested by hope, self-efficacy, optimism, and resilience (Stajkovic, 2006; Stajkovic et

al., 2015). Gough and Heilbrum (1965) and Pasveer (1998) “describe a self- confident

individual as one who has an action orientation, is dominant and assertive, is impatient

with others who stand in his or her way, and is forceful, determined, and opportunistic”

(Pasveer, 1998, p. 123). However, there is no more to those definitions than a string of

adjectives to operationalize the construct.

And finally, Oney and Oksuzoglu-Guven (2015) present the one of the broadest

scopes of self-confidence definitions and conceptualizations in the database. Their

research cites self-confidence being defined as judgments, convictions/certainty,


22

evaluations, beliefs, or as feelings, opinions, or expressions. They specifically state that

self-esteem and self-efficacy differ from self-confidence—self-esteem being broader and

unobservable, and self-efficacy being more specific and focused on abilities. However,

the authors present no specific definition nor operationalization of the construct. Besides

the more traditional confidence measures (i.e., self-rating performance expectations,

certainty of correctness, or specific skills or abilities), a few broader personality

inventories were used to measure confidence—Cheng and Furnham’s (2002) use of the

Shrauger Personal Evaluation Inventory, as well as Gough and Heilbrum’s (1965)

Adjective Check List. Trends in the antecedents and outcomes of self-confidence within

this discipline are listed in Table 8 below.

Table 8. Antecedents and Outcomes of Self-Confidence in Personality

Antecedents Outcomes Locus of control and outcome attributions

Andrews, 1987; Deeley & Love, 2012; Stajkovic, 2006

Motivation and perseverance

Stajkovic, 2006; Stajkovic et al., 2015


Stajkovic, 2006; Stajkovic et al., 2015

Career success and advancement Stajkovic, 2006

Successful experience and practice

Oney & Oksuzoglu-Guven, 2015; Stajkovic, 2006

Happiness and well-being

Cheng & Furnham, 2002; Stajkovic, 2006; Stajkovic et al., 2015

Affect and emotions

Deeley & Love, 2012; Deeley & Love, 2013; Oney & Oksuzoglu-Guven, 2015; Wolfe & Grosch, 1990

Successful performance

Oney & Oksuzoglu-Guven, 2015; Stajkovic, 2006; Stajkovic et al., 2015; Wolfe & Grosch, 1990

Contact with others & support from friends

Cheng & Furnham, 2002 Coping and self-regulation

Deeley & Love, 2012; Oney & Oksuzoglu-Guven, 2015; Stajkovic et al., 2015


23

Social Psychology

Literature on social psychology and sociology accounted for 33 (or 17%) of the

articles in the database. Of the confidence articles classified under social psychology and

sociology, over half (55%) were experimental or quasi-experimental, 27% were based on

surveys or questionnaires, 15% theoretical or propositional, and one was a meta-analysis.

Further, almost half of the articles in this field considered confidence as state-like, 15%

as trait-like, 6% as both trait-and state-like, and one-third of the articles were unclear as

to how they described self-confidence.

A vast majority of the articles in this discipline describe self-confidence as being

similar to self-efficacy or performance expectancies (Albarracín & Mitchell, 2004;

Anderson, et al., 2012; Baumeister, Hamilton, & Tice, 1985; Beyer, 1990; Beyer &

Bowden, 1997; Carr, Thomas, & Mednick, 1985; Chusmir & Koberg, 1991; Chusmir,

Koberg, & Stecher, 1992; Cohen & Swim, 1995; Else-Quest, Hyde, & Linn, 2010;

Feather, 1969; Instone, Major, & Bunker, 1983; Kamas & Preston, 2012; Kennedy,

Anderson, & Moore, 2013; Kimball & Gray, 1982; Lenney, 1977; Lenney & Gold, 1982;

Lenney, Gold, & Browning, 1983; Santos-Pinto, 2012; Shrauger & Schohn, 1995;

Sleeper & Nigro, 1987). Other articles defined confidence as being similar to self-esteem

(Day & Hamblin, 1964; Gabriel, Renaud, & Tippin, 2007; Locke, 2005; Mobius &

Rosenblat, 2006), as similar to both self-efficacy and self-esteem (Benabou & Tirole;

1999; Benabou & Tirole, 2002; Erwin & Kelly, 1985; Owens, 1993), as something else

entirely (Barbalet, 1998; Manning & Ray, 1993). And finally, some of the articles


24

defined confidence as independence in thoughts, beliefs, or actions (Petty, Brinol, &

Tormala, 2002; Slaughter, Cable, & Turban, 2014). The description of self-confidence

provided by Barbalet (1998) is particularly focused on its relationship with taking action

and a willingness to act, saying that it is “a feeling state of self-projection” (p. 86) and

that it “underlies all action as its affective basis” (p. 90).

While, like in many of the other disciplines, a good number of the articles

operationalized confidence using a measure of performance expectations or perceived

level of knowledge, skills, or abilities (Anderson, et al., 2012; Baumeister, Hamilton, &

Tice, 1985; Beyer, 1990; Beyer & Bowden, 1997; Carr, Thomas, & Mednick, 1985;

Feather, 1969; Instone, Major, & Bunker, 1983; Kamas & Preston, 2012; Kennedy,

Anderson, & Moore, 2013; Kimball & Gray, 1982; Lenney & Gold, 1982; Lenney, Gold,

& Browning, 1983; Mobius & Rosenblat, 2006; Sleeper & Nigro, 1987), others used a

self-esteem scale or list of self-esteem items (Day & Hamblin, 1964; Gabriel, Renaud, &

Tippin, 2007; Locke, 2005; Owens, 1993), or a measure of confidence in particular

thoughts or beliefs (Petty, Brinol, & Tormala, 2002; Slaughter, Cable, & Turban, 2014).

Other measured used include the Adjective Checklist (Chusmir & Koberg, 1991;

Chusmir, Koberg, & Stecher, 1992; Pasveer, 1998), Shrauger's Personal Evaluation

Inventory (Shrauger & Schohn, 1995), Erwin Identity Scale's confidence subscale (Erwin

& Kelly, 1985), McCroskey's (1982) Personal Report of Communication Apprehension

(PRCA) (Manning & Ray, 1993), and the Defensive Confidence Scale (Albarracín &


25

Mitchell, 2004). Trends in the antecedents and outcomes of self-confidence within this

discipline are listed in Table 9 below.

Table 9. Antecedents and Outcomes of Self-Confidence in Social Psychology


Sex role identity or sex congruity

Beyer & Bowden, 1997; Carr, Thomas, & Mednick, 1985; Chusmir & Koberg, 1991; Chusmir et al., 1992

Taking action, risk-taking, & avoidance/ approach tendencies

Barbalet, 1998; Benabou & Tirole, 2002; Beyer & Bowden, 1997; Kamas & Preston, 2012; Shrauger & Schohn, 1995

Physical appearance

Mobius & Rosenblat, 2006; Shrauger & Schohn, 1995

Persuasability or impressionability

Albarracín & Mitchell, 2004; Petty, Brinol, & Tormala, 2002; Slaughter et al., 2014


Benabou & Tirole, 1999; Benabou & Tirole, 2002; Beyer & Bowden, 1997; Instone et al., 1983; Kimball & Gray, 1982; Lenney, 1977; Lenney & Gold, 1982; Shrauger & Schohn, 1995; Sleeper & Nigro, 1987

Successful performance and achievements

Baumeister et al., 1985; Benabou & Tirole, 1999; Beyer, 1990; Beyer & Bowden, 1997; Chusmir & Koberg, 1991; Chusmir et al., 1992; Else-Quest et al., 2010; Feather, 1969; Kimball & Gray, 1982; Lenney, 1977; Lenney & Gold, 1982; Lenney et al., 1983; Shrauger & Schohn, 1995; Sleeper & Nigro, 1987

Prior successes and accomplishments

Albarracín & Mitchell, 2004; Baumeister et al., 1985; Beyer, 1990; Shrauger & Schohn, 1995

Skill or success interacting with others

Kennedy, Anderson, & Moore, 2013; Manning & Ray, 1993

Previous experience and practice

Benabou & Tirole, 1999; Carr, Thomas, & Mednick, 1985; Instone, Major, & Bunker, 1983

Well-being and mental health

Anderson, et al., 2012; Beyer & Bowden, 1997; Kennedy et al., 2013; Owens, 1993

Task difficulty

Beyer & Bowden, 1997; Carr, Thomas, & Mednick, 1985; Lenney, Gold, & Browning, 1983

Self-esteem

Anderson, et al., 2012; Beyer & Bowden, 1997; Day & Hamblin, 1964; Kennedy, Anderson, & Moore, 2013

Social or peer comparisons

Instone et al., 1983; Lenney, 1977; Lenney & Gold, 1982; Lenney et al., 1983; Kennedy et al., 2013; Sleeper & Nigro, 1987

Motivation, persistence, and perseverance

Anderson, et al., 2012; Baumeister et al., 1985; Benabou & Tirole, 1999; Benabou & Tirole, 2002; Beyer & Bowden, 1997; Else-Quest et al., 2010; Kennedy et al., 2013


26

Sports Literature on sports accounted for 24 (or 12%) of the articles in the database. Of

the confidence articles classified under sports, over half (54%) were based on surveys or

questionnaires, 17% were experimental, 8% were theoretical or propositional, 8% were

practice-oriented, 8% were based on interviews, and one was a meta-analysis. Further,

25% of the articles considered self-confidence to be more state-like, one (4%) considered

it more trait-like, 29% as both trait and state-like, and 42% of the articles were unclear in

their description.

A vast majority of articles in the sports psychology discipline define self-

confidence as being similar to either a general or sports-specific self-efficacy or

performance expectations (Beattie et al., 2011; Comeig et al., 2016; Coudevylle,

Gernigon, & Ginis, 2011; Cox, Martens, & Russell, 2003; Feltz & Oncu, 2014; Freeman

& Rees, 2010; Grove & Heard, 1997; Hays et al., 2007; Hidayat & Budiman, 2014;

Lirgg, 1991; Lirgg & Feltz, 1989; Machida, Ward, & Vealey, 2012; Mills, 1996; Rees &

Freeman, 2007; Ryska, 2002; Subramanyam, 2013; Vealey, 1986; Vealey et al., 1998;

Vealey & Chase, 2008). Other articles were either unclear in their definition, or alluded

to the construct being similar to a lack of anxiety or nervousness (Hanton &

Connaughton, 2002; Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2009; Jones, Swain, & Cale, 1991; Koivula,

Hassmen, & Fallby, 2002; Vosloo, Ostrow, & Watson, 2009).

The two most frequent measures of self-confidence in this discipline are Martens’

CSAI-2 or Cox’ CSAI-2R (Coudevylle et al., 2011; Cox, Martens, & Russell, 2003;


27

Freeman & Rees, 2010; Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2009; Jones, Swain, & Cale, 1991;

Koivula, Hassmen, & Fallby, 2002; Rees & Freeman, 2007; Vosloo, Ostrow, & Watson,

2009) and Vealey's Sport Confidence Inventory—State or Trait (Grove & Heard, 1997;

Hidayat & Budiman, 2014; Machida, Ward, & Vealey, 2012; Mills, 1996; Ryska, 2002;

Vealey, 1986). Other measures used include the Sources of Sport-Confidence

Questionnaire (SSCQ) (Vealey et al., 1998), and Beattie's Trait Robustness of Self-

Confidence Inventory (Beattie et al., 2011). Trends in the antecedents and outcomes of

self-confidence within this discipline are listed in Table 10 below.


28

Table 10. Antecedents and Outcomes of Self-Confidence in Sports


Practice, preparation, and prior experience

Freeman & Rees, 2010; Hays et al., 2007; Jones et al., 1991; Machida et al., 2012; Ryska, 2002; Subramanyam, 2013; Vealey et al., 1998; Vealey & Chase, 2008

Athletic performance or success in sports

Beattie et al., 2011; Feltz & Oncu, 2014; Grove & Heard, 1997; Hanton & Connaughton, 2002; Hays et al., 2007; Hidayat & Budiman, 2014; Koivula et al., 2002; Lirgg, 1991; Lirgg & Feltz, 1989; Machida et al., 2012; Rees & Freeman, 2007; Ryska, 2002; Subramanyam, 2013; Vealey, 1986; Vealey et al., 1998; Vealey & Chase, 2008

Past sports successes, accomplishments, and mastery

Beattie et al., 2011; Feltz & Oncu, 2014; Grove & Heard, 1997; Hays et al., 2007; Lirgg & Feltz, 1989; Machida et al., 2012; Subramanyam, 2013; Vealey et al., 1998; Vealey & Chase, 2008

Satisfaction with performance

Vealey, 1986; Vealey et al., 1998

Staying positive and self-talk

Feltz & Oncu, 2014; Hanton & Connaughton, 2002; Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2009; Hidayat & Budiman, 2014; Subramanyam, 2013; Vealey & Chase, 2008

Motivation, persistence, & perseverance

Feltz & Oncu, 2014; Lirgg, 1991; Lirgg & Feltz, 1989; Ryska, 2002; Vealey, 1986; Vealey et al., 1998; Vealey & Chase, 2008

Social support and encouragement from others

Freeman & Rees, 2010; Hays et al., 2007; Hidayat & Budiman, 2014; Lirgg & Feltz, 1989; Rees & Freeman, 2007; Subramanyam, 2013; Vealey et al., 1998; Vealey & Chase, 2008

Anxiety, nervousness, and tension

Feltz & Oncu, 2014; Vealey et al., 1998; Vealey & Chase, 2008

Coaching and coach’s leadership

Feltz & Oncu, 2014; Hays et al., 2007; Lirgg & Feltz, 1989; Machida et al., 2012; Vealey et al., 1998; Vealey & Chase, 2008; Vosloo, Ostrow, & Watson, 2009

Causal attributions

Feltz & Oncu, 2014; Vealey, 1986


Beattie et al., 2011; Feltz & Oncu, 2014; Lirgg & Feltz, 1989; Rees & Freeman, 2007; Vealey et al., 1998; Vealey & Chase, 2008

Goal intentions & commitment

Feltz & Oncu, 2014; Vealey & Chase, 2008


Lirgg & Feltz, 1989; Jones et al., 1991; Koivula et al., 2002; Machida et al., 2012; Vealey et al., 1998

Coping and buffering stress

Grove & Heard, 1997; Vealey & Chase, 2008


29

Trials & Law

Literature on trials and law accounted for four (or 2%) of the articles in the

database. Of these articles, two (50%) were meta-analyses, one was experimental, and

one was theoretical. Half of the articles considered confidence to be both state- and trait-

like, and half were unclear as to how they described self-confidence. Confidence was

often conceptualized as being the degree of certainty in expert testimony (Cramer,

Brodsky, & DeCoster, 2009), eyewitness testimony (Cramer, Neal, & Brodsky, 2009),

detecting deceptive testimony (DePaulo et al., 1997), or in judgments in general (Sporer,

Penrod, Read, & Cutler, 1995). There were no instances of self-confidence being

measured or operationalized in any scale. Trends in the antecedents and outcomes of

self-confidence within this discipline are listed in Table 11 below.

Table 11. Antecedents and Outcomes of Self-Confidence in Trials & Law


Witness preparation

Cramer, Brodsky, & DeCoster, 2009; Cramer, Neal, & Brodsky, 2009

Judge’s beliefs and judgments

DePaulo et al., 1997; Sporer, Penrod, Read, & Cutler, 1995

Past experience with case or with person being judged

Cramer, Neal, & Brodsky, 2009; DePaulo et al., 1997

Perceived witness credibility and likeability/trustworthiness

Cramer, Brodsky, & DeCoster, 2009

Feedback training Sporer, Penrod, Read, & Cutler, 1995 Persuasability Cramer, Brodsky, &

DeCoster, 2009


30

Summary Despite the vast conceptualizations of self-confidence in the literature, some

trends do emerge. The most common trends in how confidence is defined include it

being similar to or synonymous with (1) general or specific self-efficacy or expectations

of success, (2) certainty in decisions or judgments, (3) both self-esteem and self-efficacy,

(4) self-esteem, (5) emotional stability or lack of anxiety, and (6) confidence or

independence in thoughts, attitudes, or opinions. A handful of other definitions were

classified as “other” or “unclear”. Table 12 below cites the common trends in self-

confidence conceptualizations. The distribution of definitions across disciplines is

displayed in Appendix A. A table of trends on the scales used to measure self-confidence

can be found in Appendix B. Over one-third (77, or 38.5%) of the articles in the database

did not measure self-confidence or operationalize the construct in any fashion—this was

a particularly common trend in more practice-oriented literature. Fewer articles (61, or

30.5%) used some sort of identifiable scale or measure of “self-confidence”. These

measures are listed in Appendix B. Certainty in the correctness or accuracy of responses

or predictions of test or task performance was also a common operationalization of self-

confidence—with 26 articles (or 13%) measuring the construct in this way. Measuring

the confidence of specific skills, abilities, thoughts, or decisions was also a common

operationalization, being found in 21 (or 10.5%) of the articles in the database. Fewer

articles measured how subjects compared themselves to others (9 articles, or 4.5%), or

used self-confidence as some sort of priming manipulation (6 articles, or 3%).


31

Table 12. Trends in Conceptualizations of Self-Confidence

Conceptualization % Citations

(1) Self-efficacy (evaluation of abilities & expectations of successful performance)

43%

Addis, 2008; Albarracín & Mitchell, 2004; Anderson, et al., 2012; Andrews, 1987; Baldoni, 2009; Baumeister et al., 1985; Beattie et al., 2011; Beyer, 1990; Beyer & Bowden, 1997; Brabender & Boardman, 1977; Carr et al., 1985; Cheng & Furnham, 2002; Chusmir & Koberg, 1991; Chusmir et al., 1992; Clark & Gakuru, 2014; Clarke, 2011; Cohen & Swim, 1995; Comeig et al., 2016; Coudevylle et al., 2011; Cox et al., 2003; Deeley & Love, 2012; Deeley & Love, 2013; DePaulo et al., 1997; Dumitrescu et al., 2012; Else-Quest et al., 2010; Emerson, 1998; Feather, 1969; Feltz & Oncu, 2014; Freeman & Rees, 2010; Gadiesh & Coffman, 2015; Grove & Heard, 1997; Guerin et al., 2010; Hannah et al., 2008; Hart et al., 2014a; Hart et al., 2014b; Hays et al., 2007; Heppner & Petersen, 1982; Hidayat & Budiman, 2014; Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004; Instone et al., 1983; Johnson & McCoy, 2000; Johnson et al., 2000; Kalaian & Freeman, 1994; Kamas & Preston, 2012; Kanter, 2014; Kennedy et al., 2013; Kimball & Gray, 1982; Kipnis & Lane, 1962; Kirkwood, 2009; Kleitman & Stankov, 2007; Koellinger et al., 2007; Kolb, 1999; Larrick et al., 2007; Lenney, 1977; Lenney & Gold, 1982; Lenney et al., 1983; Lirgg, 1991; Lirgg & Feltz, 1989; Luthans & Youssef, 2004; Luthans et al., 2004; Machida et al., 2012; McCarty, 1986; Mills, 1996; Moore & Healy, 2008; Mowday, 1979; O'Neil et al., 2015; Preckel & Freund, 2005; Rees & Freeman, 2007; Ryska, 2002; Sadler, 2013; Sander & Sanders, 2006; Santos-Pinto, 2012; Schyns & Sczesny, 2010; Sergeev et al., 2012; Shipman & Mumford, 2011; Shrauger & Schohn, 1995; Sleeper & Nigro, 19897; Subramanyam, 2013; Tavani & Losh, 2003; Tsui, 1998; Vealey, 1986; Vealey & Chase, 2008; Vealey et al., 1998; Wright, 1975; Yorke, 2016

(2) Certainty in decisions or judgments (including certainty in correctness of test answers)

17%

Balakrishnan & Ratcliff, 1996; Bearden et al. , 2001; Brewer et al., 2005; Bukszar, 2003; Buratti & Allwood, 2012; Chernev, 2009; Cramer et al., 2009a; Cramer et al., 2009b; Crawford & Stankov, 1996; Foote, 2000; Ghosh & Ray, 1997; Gigerenzer et al., 1991; Ireland et al., 1992; Jackson & Kleitman, 2014; Jones & Jones, 1989; Kleitman &Moscrop, 2010; Koriat, 2012; Krueger & Dickson, 1994; Lundeberg et al., 2000; Lundeberg et al., 1994; Mayseless & Kruglanski, 1987; Merkle & Van Zandt, 2006; Miller et al., 2015; Nygren & Ransom-Flint, 1997; Oskamp, 1967; Pallier, 2003; Patalano & LeClair, 2011; Puncochar & Fox, 2004; Sporer et al., 1995; Stankov & Crawford, 1997; Stankov & Lee, 2008; Stankov et al., 2012; Tormala et al., 2008; Wolfe & Grosch, 1990

(3) Both self-efficacy and self-esteem 10%

Al-Hesbaish, 2012; Ambition and gender at work, 2011; Benabou & Tirole, 1999; Benabou & Tirole, 2002; Chelminski & Coulter, 2007; Cox & Bauer, 1964; Erwin & Kelly, 1985; Flynn et al., 2011; Garant et al., 1995; Greenacre et al., 2014; Karimi & Saadatmand, 2014; Locander & Hermann, 1979; Maclellan, 2014; Malkin & Stake, 2004; Owens, 1993; Perry, 2011; Pollock, 2004; Putnam & Heinen, 1976; Srivastava, 2013; Sturdy et al., 2006

(4) Self-esteem 8% Bell, 1967; Bierema, 1994; Bowman, 1999; Chuang et al., 2013; Day & Hamblin, 1964; Evans, 2010; Gabriel, Renaud, & Tippin, 2007; Goldsmith,


32

2009; Lachman, 2001; Locke, 2005; Mobius & Rosenblat, 2006; Pratch, 2011; Taylor, 1974; Turk & Winter, 2006; White et al., 1981; Zuckerman, 1985

(5) Emotional stability, lack of anxiety, or optimism

5% Borno, 2000; Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2009; Jones et al., 1991; Judge et al., 2002; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Koivula et al., 2002; Melamed, 1996; Siegrist et al., 2005; White, 2014

(6) Confidence in thoughts, attitudes, or opinions

3% Barrett, 2009; Briñol et al., 2010; Briñol et al., 2007; Fazio & Zanna, 1978; Petty et al., 2002; Slaughter et al., 2014

(7) Unclear 9%

Aycan, 2004; Baack et al., 1993; Berman, 2005; De Mascia, 2015; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Fielden et al., 2003; Goldsmith, 2008; Hanton & Connaughton, 2002; House & Aditya, 1997; Ibarra et al., 2013; Kerfoot, 2010; Knippen & Green, 1989; Koberg et al., 1992; Mohr, 2014; Tichy & Charan, 1989; Vosloo et al., 2009; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992; Zaccaro et al., 2004

(8) Other 6%

Barbalet, 1998; De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2004; Gough & Heilbrum, 1965; Locke & Anderson, 2015; Manning & Ray, 1993; Oney & Oksuzoglu-Guven, 2015; Pasveer, 1998; Popper et al., 2004; Price & Stone, 2004; Stajkovic, 2006; Stajkovic et al., 2015; White, 2009

Most of the articles in the confidence database (78%) discussed the construct in

roughly the same manner – as some form of self-efficacy or expectations for success,

certainty in judgments or decisions, self-esteem, or some combination of self-efficacy

and self-esteem. However, there were some pieces of literature that are worth further

discussion because of their comprehensive review or unique contribution to the study of

self-confidence as a construct. The top pieces of literature in the self-confidence field

include Maclellan (2014), Oney and Oksuzoglu-Guven (2015), and White (2009).

Maclellan (2014). In her review of the self-confidence literature, Maclellan

(2014) uses concept analysis to explore education and psychology research for a “take

home message” for professional teachers wishing to increase the self-confidence of their

pupils. She notes articles that define self-confidence as self-efficacy, self-esteem, as well

as metacognitive confidence (or certainty in self-judgments)—which is well in line with


33

this much more expansive literature review. Maclellan (2014) concludes by saying self-

confidence—or “a belief or view that each person has of self” (p. 62)—can be promoted

if teachers focus on developing both the knowledge and social engagements of their

students.

Oney & Oksuzoglu-Guven (2015). In their review of the self-confidence

literature, Oney and Oksuzoglu-Guven (2015) present the broadest scope of self-

confidence definitions and conceptualizations of any of the articles in the database. Their

research categorized self-confidence definitions as being either based on cognitions (i.e.,

confidence is certainty and conviction of judgments or opinions, an evaluation based on

cues and evidence, or a belief or expectation based on experience—similar to self-

efficacy), or based on affect (i.e., confidence is a feeling, opinion, or a lack of anxiety—

similar to self-esteem). They specifically explain how self-esteem and self-efficacy differ

from the broader construct of self-confidence, however present no specific definition nor

operationalization of the construct.

White (2009). In her review of self-confidence, White (2009) also uses a concept

analysis to explore 31 articles in the nursing, education, business, and psychology

literature. The purpose was to assess the construct in how it related to nursing students.

Differing from similar concepts such as self-concept, self-esteem, and self-certainty,

White (2009), defined self-confidence as a belief in positive achievements (similar to

self-efficacy or optimism), persistence in the face of obstacles (similar to resilience), and


34

self-awareness (similar to self-regulating anxiety). She concludes by reviewing common

antecedents and outcomes of self-confidence in the nursing education discipline.

One other trend that was noteworthy in the self-confidence literature is that men

are generally considered as more self-confident than women—whether confidence is

defined as self-esteem (Bierema, 1994; White et al., 1981), as self-efficacy (Andrews,

1987; Beyer, 1990; Beyer & Bowden, 1997; Cohen & Swim, 1995; DePaulo et al., 1997;

Feather, 1969; Gadiesh & Coffman, 2015; Instone et al., 1983; Johnson & McCoy, 2000;

Kalaian & Freeman, 1994; Kamas & Preston, 2012; Kirkwood, 2009;; McCarty, 1986;

O’Neil et al., 2015; Preckel & Freund, 2005; Santos-Pinto, 2012; Sleeper & Nigro, 1987;

Tavani & Losh, 2003; Tsui, 1998; Yorke, 2016), as both self-efficacy and self-esteem

(Ambition and gender at work, 2011; Flynn, Heath, & Holt, 2011; Putnam & Heinen,

1976), as certainty in decisions or judgments (Ireland et al., 1992; Lundeberg et al., 1994;

Pallier, 2003; Stankov & Lee, 2008), or as unclear or something else entirely (Aycan,

2004; Jones et al., 1991; Melamed, 1996; Vosloo et al., 2009).

Other research has found that women may not have lower self-confidence than

men, but do have greater variability in self-confidence levels (Carr, Thomas, Mednick,

1985; Chusmir & Koberg, 1991; Lenney, Gold, & Browning, 1983; Pratch, 2011). In

fact, using Gough and Heilbrum’s (1965) Adjective Check List, Chusmir and Koberg

(1991, 1992) found that male and female managers did not significantly differ in self-

confidence, when sex role identity was held constant. In other words, female managers

were more confident in feminine roles. This holds true with other research that states that


35

women are less confident in masculine-type or neutral roles or tasks—such as math or

leadership (Beyer, 1990; Beyer & Bowden, 1997; Carr, Thomas, & Mednick, 1985; Else-

Quest, Hyde & Lynn, 2010; Lirgg, 1991) or in situations that are highly ambiguous or

that emphasize social comparison or evaluation (Lenney, 1977; Lenney, Gold, &

Browning, 1983; Lirgg & Feltz, 1989). However, if women are only as confident as men

in feminine tasks or roles, and men are confident regardless of the task or role, it would

explain the greater variability in the self-confidence of women when compared to men.

There has also been some debate as to whether self-confidence is more state- or

trait-like. As previously stated, 30% of the articles referred to the construct as more a

situational state (context-specific), 19% as more an enduring dispositional trait (context-

free), and 14% as both a trait and a state. Conceptually, the articles which conceptualized

self-confidence as both trait- and state-like make a lot of sense. For example, Shrauger

and Schohn (1995) suggest that general (or trait-like) self-confidence is additive—or that

more domain- or task-specific self-confidence levels aggregate to determine one’s level

of general self-confidence. However, this presupposes that self-confidence is

synonymous with self-efficacy. Feltz and Oncu (2014) also describe both trait and state

views of self-confidence—with trait self-confidence considered as a more enduring set of

beliefs (i.e., performance optimism), and state self-confidence considered as perceived

ability to reach a certain level of performance in sports (i.e., self-efficacy).

Further, Beattie, Hardy, Savage, Woodman, and Callow (2011) found that trait

self-confidence beliefs (i.e., sports self-efficacy) protected one’s state self-confidence


36

from mistakes or failure—being related to some sort of mental toughness. And lastly,

based on Evolutionary Theory (Kanazawa, 2004), Oney and Oksuzoglu-Guven (2015)

propose that specific self-confidence is more relevant when dealing with recurrent and

familiar situations, while general self-confidence is more relevant when dealing with

novel, non-recurrent, and unfamiliar situations. Therefore, in developing an

operationalization of self-confidence that is the most relevant to the workplace, it would

stand to reason that it is important to develop a general measure of self-confidence to be

used in the increasingly unpredictable and volatile business world (Risky Business:

Managing Risk in a Volatile World, 2012).

There are also trends in terms of the antecedents and outcomes of self-confidence

across disciplines. Across fields, the ten most frequently cited antecedents of self-

confidence were training and learning interventions; support, encouragement, and

interaction with others; focusing on positives and self-compassion; previous success,

achievement, and accomplishment; previous mastery, preparation, and practice; coaching,

counseling, and mentoring; difficulty of work or task; social or peer comparisons;

performance feedback; and locus of control and causal attributions. The ten most

frequently cited outcomes of the construct were leadership effectiveness or managerial

success; career success, progression, and promotions; persuasibility or impressionability;

risk-taking and taking action/ initiative; successful performance or achievements;

decision-making and decisiveness; goals, goal setting, and goal commitment; motivation,


37

perseverance, and ambition; athletic performance or success in sports; and happiness,

satisfaction, and well-being. Citations for these trends can be found in Table 13 below.

Table 13. General Trends in the Antecedents and Outcomes of Self-Confidence


Training, education, and learning interventions

Clark & Gakuru, 2014; Clarke, 2011; Hart et al., 2014a; Hart et al., 2014b; Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2009; Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004; Ireland, Hitt, & Williams, 1992; Jones, Swain, & Cale, 1991; Kalaian & Freeman, 1994; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Luthans et al., 2004; Maclellan, 2014; Perry, 2011; Sadler, 2013; Sergeev et al., 2012; Shrauger & Schohn, 1995; Sturdy et al., 2006; Subramanyam, 2013; Vealey & Chase, 2008

Leadership effectiveness or managerial success

Aycan, 2004; De Cremer & van Knippenberg, 2004; Hannah et al., 2008; Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004; House & Aditya, 1997; Ireland, Hitt, & Williams, 1992; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Kerfoot, 2010; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Knippen & Green, 1989; Pollock, 2004; Popper et al., 2004; Putnam & Heinen, 1976; Schyns & Sczesny, 2010; Shipman & Mumford, 2011; White, de Sanctis, & Crino, 1981; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992

Support, encouragement, and interaction with others

Cheng & Furnham, 2002; Clarke, 2011; Freeman & Rees, 2010; Gadiesh & Coffman, 2015; Hays et al., 2007; Hidayat & Budiman, 2014; Ibara et al., 2013; Jones & Jones, 1989; Kanter, 2014; Kirkwood, 2009; Lirgg & Feltz, 1989; Maclellan, 2014; Malkin & Stake, 2004; Perry, 2011; Putnam & Heinen, 1976; Rees & Freeman, 2007; Sadler, 2013; Subramanyam, 2013; Vealey et al., 1998; Vealey & Chase, 2008; White, 2009; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992

Career success, progression, and promotions

Addis, 2008; Ambition and gender at work, 2011; Bierema, 1994; Borno, 2000; Clarke, 2011; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Emerson, 1998; Evans, 2010; Flynn et al., 2011; Gadiesh & Coffman, 2015; Goldsmith, 2009; Kanter, 2014; Locke & Anderson, 2015; McCarty, 1986; Mohr, 2014; Pratch, 2011; Stajkovic, 2006; White et al., 1981; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992; Zuckerman, 1985

Focusing on positives, self-talk, & self-compassion

Addis, 2008; Baldoni, 2009; Borno, 2000; Briñol et al., 2010; Feltz & Oncu, 2014; Guerin, Arcand, & Durand-Bush, 2010; Hanton & Connaughton, 2002; Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2009; Hidayat & Budiman, 2014; Kanter, 2014; Knippen & Green, 1989; Lachman, 2001; Luthans et al., 2004; Subramanyam, 2013; Vealey & Chase, 2008; White, 2009

Persuasibility or impression-ability

Albarracín & Mitchell, 2004; Bearden, Hardesty, & Rose, 2001; Bell, 1967; Briñol, Petty, & Barden, 2007; Cox & Bauer, 1964; Cramer Brodsky, & DeCoster, 2009; Greenacre, Tung & Chapman, 2014; Petty, Brinol, & Tormala, 2002; Slaughter, Cable, & Turban, 2014; Wright, 1975

Previous successes, achievements, and accomplishments

Addis, 2008; Al-Hesbaish, 2012; Albarracín & Mitchell, 2004; Baldoni, 2009; Baumeister, Hamilton, & Tice, 1985; Beattie et al., 2011; Beyer, 1990; Bierema, 1994; Dumitrescu, Zetu, &

Risk-taking and taking action/ initiative

Addis, 2008; Barbalet, 1998; Benabou & Tirole, 2002; Bearden et al., 2001; Beyer & Bowden, 1997; Bierema, 1994; Bukszar, 2003; Chuang et al., 2013; Clark & Gakuru, 2014; Feltz & Oncu, 2014; Ghosh


38

Teslaru, 2012; Feltz & Oncu, 2014; Grove & Heard, 1997; Hays et al., 2007; Karimi & Saadatmand, 2014; Lirgg & Feltz, 1989; Machida, Ward, & Vealey, 2012; Oney & Oksuzoglu-Guven, 2015; Shrauger & Schohn, 1995; Srivastava, 2013; Stajkovic, 2006; Subramanyam, 2013; Vealey et al., 1998; Vealey & Chase, 2008; White, 2009; White, 2014

& Ray, 1997; House & Aditya, 1997; Ireland et al., 1992; Kamas & Preston, 2012; Kirkwood, 2009; Koellinger et al., 2007; Krueger & Dickson, 1994; Locander & Hermann, 1979; Perry, 2011; Pratch, 2011; Sadler, 2013; Shrauger & Schohn, 1995; Siegrist,et al., 2005; Shipman & Mumford, 2011; Taylor, 1974; White, 2009

Previous mastery experiences, preparation, and practice

Bearden et al. , 2001; Benabou & Tirole, 1999; Bierema, 1994; Bowman, 1999; Carr, et al., 1985; Chelminski & Coulter, 2007; Freeman & Rees, 2010; Greenacre, et al., 2014; Hays et al., 2007; Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004; Instone, et al., 1983; Ireland et al., 1992; Jones, et al., 1991; Kerfoot, 2010; Kipnis & Lane, 1962; Kirkwood, 2009; Kleitman & Moscrop, 2010; Koellinger et al., 2007; Luthans et al., 2004; Luthans & Youssef, 2004; Machida, et al., 2012; Moore & Healy, 2008; Mowday, 1979; O'Neil et al. 2015; Oney & Oksuzoglu-Guven, 2015; Oskamp, 1967; Perry, 2011; Preckel & Freund, 2005; Price & Stone, 2004; Putnam & Heinen, 1976; Ryska, 2002; Sadler, 2013; Sander & Sanders, 2006; Sergeev et al., 2012; Siegrist, Gutscher, & Earle, 2005; Stajkovic, 2006; Stankov & Lee, 2008; Subramanyam, 2013; Vealey et al., 1998; Vealey & Chase, 2008; White, 2009; White, 2014

Successful performance or achievements

Al-Hesbaish, 2012; Baldoni, 2009; Baumeister et al., 1985; Benabou & Tirole, 1999; Beyer, 1990; Beyer & Bowden, 1997; Chusmir & Koberg, 1991; Chusmir et al., 1992; Clark & Gakuru, 2014; Else-Quest et al., 2010; Feather, 1969; Goldsmith, 2009; Guerin et al., 2010; Hart et al., 2014b; Johnson et al., 2000; Jones & Jones, 1989; Kalaian & Freeman, 1994; Karimi & Saadatmand, 2014; Kimball & Gray, 1982; Kleitman & Moscrop, 2010; Koriat, 2012; Lachman, 2001; Larrick et al., 2007; Lenney, 1977; Lenney & Gold, 1982; Lenney et al., 1983; Luthans et al., 2004; Luthans & Youssef, 2004; Maclellan, 2014; Malkin & Stake, 2004; Melamed, 1996; Oney & Oksuzoglu-Guven, 2015; Perry, 2011; Pratch, 2011; Sergeev et al., 2012; Shrauger & Schohn, 1995; Sleeper & Nigro, 1987; Srivastava, 2013; Stajkovic, 2006; Stajkovic et al., 2015; Stankov & Crawford, 1997; Stankov & Lee, 2008; Stankov et al., 2012; Tavani & Losh, 2003; White, 2014; Wolfe & Grosch, 1990

Coaching, counseling, and mentoring

Ambition and gender at work, 2011; Feltz & Oncu, 2014; Hays et al., 2007; Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004; Kirkwood, 2009; Lirgg & Feltz, 1989; Machida, Ward, & Vealey, 2012; O'Neil, Hopkins, & Bilimoria, 2015; Vealey et al., 1998; Vealey & Chase, 2008; Vosloo, Ostrow, & Watson, 2009; White, de Sanctis, & Crino, 1981; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992

Decision-making and decisiveness

Barrett, 2009; Bowman, 1999; Hart et al., 2014b; Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004; Ireland et al., 1992; Jackson & Kleitman, 2014; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Koriat, 2012; Krueger & Dickson, 1994; Larrick, Burson, & Soll, 2007; Merkle & Van Zandt, 2006; Miller, Spengler, & Spengler, 2015; Nygren & Ransom-Flint, 1997; Patalano & LeClair, 2011; Pallier, 2003; Shipman & Mumford, 2011; Vealey & Chase, 2008; White, 2014

Difficulty of work or task

Beyer & Bowden, 1997; Carr, Thomas, & Mednick, 1985; Gigerenzer et al., 1991; Karimi & Saadatmand, 2014; Koriat,

Goals, goal setting, and

Chernev, 2009; Feltz & Oncu, 2014; Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004; Ireland, Hitt, & Williams, 1992; Malkin & Stake, 2004;


39

2012; Larrick, Burson, & Soll, 2007; Lenney, Gold, & Browning, 1983; Lundeberg, Fox, & Puncochar, 1994; Merkle & Van Zandt, 2006; Miller, Spengler, & Spengler, 2015; Moore & Healy, 2008; Stankov & Lee, 2008; Stankov, Lee, Luo, & Hogan, 2012

goal commitment

Patalano & LeClair, 2011; Shipman & Mumford, 2011; Srivastava, 2013; Stajkovic, 2006; Vealey & Chase, 2008; Zuckerman, 1985


Fazio & Zanna, 1978; Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004; Instone et al., 1983; Johnson et al., 2000; Jones, Swain, & Cale, 1991; Kennedy, et al., 2013; Koivula, et al., 2002; Larrick, Burson, & Soll, 2007; Lenney, 1977; Lenney & Gold, 1982; Lenney, Gold, & Browning, 1983; Lirgg & Feltz, 1989; Machida, Ward, & Vealey, 2012; Sander & Sanders, 2006; Sleeper & Nigro, 1987; Stajkovic et al., 2015; Turk & Winter, 2006; Vealey et al., 1998

Athletic performance or success in sports

Beattie et al., 2011; Feltz & Oncu, 2014; Grove & Heard, 1997; Hanton & Connaughton, 2002; Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2009; Hays et al., 2007; Hidayat & Budiman, 2014; Koivula, Hassmen, & Fallby, 2002; Lirgg, 1991; Lirgg & Feltz, 1989; Machida, Ward, & Vealey, 2012; Rees & Freeman, 2007; Ryska, 2002; Subramanyam, 2013; Vealey, 1986; Vealey et al., 1998; Vealey & Chase, 2008


Beattie et al., 2011; Benabou & Tirole, 1999; Benabou & Tirole, 2002; Beyer & Bowden, 1997; Buratti & Allwood, 2012; Brabender & Boardman, 1977; Feltz & Oncu, 2014; Gigerenzer et al., 1991; Instone et al., 1983; Karimi & Saadatmand, 2014; Kimball & Gray, 1982; Krueger & Dickson, 1994; Lenney, 1977; Lenney & Gold, 1982; Lirgg & Feltz, 1989; McCarty, 1986; Merkle & Van Zandt, 2006; Miller et al., 2015; Price & Stone, 2004; Puncochar & Fox, 2004; Putnam & Heinen, 1976; Rees & Freeman, 2007; Sander & Sanders, 2006; Shrauger & Schohn, 1995; Sleeper & Nigro, 1987; Stajkovic, 2006; Stajkovic et al., 2015; Stankov & Crawford, 1997; Tung & Chapman, 2014; Vealey et al., 1998; Vealey & Chase, 2008

Motivation, perseverance, and ambition

Ambition and gender at work, 2011; Anderson, et al., 2012; Baumeister et al., 1985; Benabou & Tirole, 1999; Benabou & Tirole, 2002; Beyer & Bowden, 1997; Dumitrescu et al., 2012; Else-Quest et al., 2010; Emerson, 1998; Feltz & Oncu, 2014; Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004; House & Aditya, 1997; Ireland et al.1992; Kanter, 2014; Karimi & Saadatmand, 2014; Kennedy et al., 2013; Knippen & Green, 1989; Lirgg, 1991; Lirgg & Feltz, 1989; Luthans & Youssef, 2004; Puncochar & Fox, 2004; Ryska, 2002; Sander & Sanders, 2006; Shipman & Mumford, 2011; Stajkovic, 2006; Stajkovic et al., 2015; Tavani & Losh, 2003; Vealey, 1986; Vealey et al., 1998; Vealey & Chase, 2008

LOC and causal attributions

Addis, 2008; Albarracín & Mitchell, 2004; Andrews, 1987; Baldoni, 2009; Deeley & Love, 2012; Flynn, Heath, & Holt, 2011; Kanter, 2014; Maclellan, 2014; Perry, 2011; Stajkovic, 2006

Satisfaction and well-being

Addis, 2008; Anderson, et al., 2012; Beyer & Bowden, 1997; Cheng & Furnham, 2002; Kennedy, Anderson, & Moore, 2013; Maclellan, 2014; Owens, 1993; Stajkovic, 2006; Stajkovic et al., 2015; Turk & Winter, 2006


40

While some of the trends in the antecedents and outcomes of self-confidence

seem self-evident—such as the assertion that high levels of self-confidence result in

greater satisfaction, motivation, or success—these findings do need to be taken with a

grain of salt. The vast definitions and conceptualizations of self-confidence across fields

make it difficult to consolidate findings with precision and clarity. For example, several

articles which define self-confidence as similar to some sort of self-efficacy state that it is

positively related to career success, progression, and promotions (Addis, 2008; Clarke,

2011; Emerson, 1998; Gadiesh & Coffman, 2015; Kanter, 2014; McCarty, 1986). If a

researcher defines self-confidence as anything else besides self-efficacy, and they use any

of those citations as evidence that self-confidence increases career success or promotions

without stating the caveat that the citation operationalizes self-confidence as a different

construct, they may be irresponsibly citing that evidence and conceptually muddying the

waters in the self-confidence literature. What both the scientific and practical literature is

missing is a clear, concrete definition and operationalization of self-confidence. Because

of this considerable gap in the literature, the scientific and practical communities are

particularly limited in understanding self-confidence as a construct.


41

Theory Development

The purpose of this research is to not only summarize and consolidate the current

state of literature on self-confidence, but also to use that information to provide a

coherent and theoretically-derived definition of self-confidence, so that it can be

operationalized and studied in various contexts. As previously stated, the Oxford

Dictionary defines self-confidence as “a feeling of trust in one’s abilities, qualities, and

judgment.” Therefore, it would seem reasonable to conceptualize internally-perceived

self-confidence as a form of self-trust. Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) provide a

model of trust which describes the process by which an individual chooses to trust

another and is particularly relevant to organizational settings. Applied to trusting

oneself, Mayer et al.’s (1995) Integrated Model of Organizational Trust can be used to

explain the process by which individuals choose to trust themselves and take risks in

themselves—i.e., to explain the process of internally-perceived self-confidence.

Integrated Model of Organizational Trust

Mayer et al. (1995) define trust as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to

the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a

particular action important to the trustor” (p. 712). It is a willingness to take a risk that

depends on both the trustor (i.e., trustor’s propensity to trust) and the trustee (i.e., their

perceived trustworthiness). The trustor must not only perceive the trustee as having the

ability (the right skills/competencies), benevolence (the will to do good), and integrity (a


42

set of moral principles) necessary to elicit that willingness to be vulnerable (i.e., be

perceived as trustworthy), but also have the propensity, or disposition, necessary to make

that leap of faith and take that risk in the other party.

If a given party both perceives the other to be trustworthy and has the propensity

to trust in general, they will be more likely to trust the other party, or be more willing to

be vulnerable or take a risk with them. However, this willingness does not always

translate into action—it depends on the perceived risk of the situation. If an individual is

willing to trust another party, and the perceived risk is somewhat low, they will be more

likely to act and take that risk in their relationship. If they perceive the risk as high, they

may be unwilling to take that risk. However, if they do decide to take that risk, the

outcome of that decision will inform how trustworthy the other party is perceived to be in

the future—providing a feedback loop, as seen in Mayer et al.’s (1995) Integrated Model

of Organizational Trust, as depicted in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Integrated Model of Organizational Trust Diagram (Mayer et al., 1995)


43

The Model of Self-Trust

But how does this operate when the person whom you are trusting is yourself?

What does it mean to believe that you have the ability, integrity, and benevolence

necessary to consider yourself trustworthy? What does it mean to trust yourself—or to

have internally-perceived self-confidence? When the individual with whom you are

taking risks is yourself, the Meyer at al. (1995) model may be used to explore the concept

of self-trust, in other words, internally-perceived self-confidence, which will be called

Internal Self-Confidence from this point forward. In this case, self-trust (i.e., Internal

Self-Confidence) can be defined as the willingness of an individual to be vulnerable

towards themselves – to take an action that benefits themselves despite the risk in doing

so. Internal Self-Confidence, like trust, is an evaluative attitude with affective,

behavioral, and cognitive components that targets the self. It is a willingness to take a

risk that depends both your propensity to trust, as well as how trustworthy you perceive

yourself to be (in terms of ability, benevolence, and integrity). But, what do these

constructs look like when the trustor and the trustee are one and the same?

When the trustor and the trustee are the same individual, trustor’s propensity to

trust can be conceptualized as an individual’s dispositional tendency to expect positive

outcomes from themselves—something that sounds similar to trait optimism. Further, an

individual’s perceived trustworthiness can be conceptualized as perceiving oneself to

have the ability (having the right skills/competencies), benevolence (wanting to be

good/kind to yourself), and integrity (believing in yourself and your moral principles)


44

necessary to elicit that willingness to be vulnerable—concepts that sound very similar to

self-efficacy (the behavioral component), self-esteem (the affective component), and self-

compassion (the cognitive component). When you believe in your competence, skills,

and abilities (general self-efficacy), you believe in your principles and values (self-

esteem), and you are caring and supportive towards yourself (self-compassion), you are

more likely to believe yourself to be trustworthy, and are therefore more likely to trust

yourself and accept vulnerability from yourself (i.e., have high Internal Self-Confidence).

If an individual both perceives themselves to be trustworthy and has the

propensity to trust in general (i.e., exhibits high levels of optimism), they will be more

likely to trust themselves, or be more willing to be vulnerable or take a risk with

themselves. However, this willingness does not always translate into action—it depends

on the perceived risk of the situation. If an individual is willing to trust, and the

perceived risk is somewhat low, they will be more likely to act and take that risk. If they

perceive the risk as high, they may be unwilling to take that risk. However, if they do

decide to take that risk, the outcome of that decision will inform how trustworthy they

consider themselves to be in the future—providing a feedback loop, which is moderated

by that individual’s levels of self-compassion. If one is able to have a self-compassionate

attitude towards themselves and their mistakes, it acts as a buffer to the feedback loop in

the case of negative or undesirable outcomes—they will be more capable of bouncing

back or forgiving their own failures or mistakes.


45

The proposition that self-confidence encourages individuals to take risks in

themselves supports one of the major premises in Kay and Shipman’s (2014) book—The

Confidence Code—that confident people take action and gain experiences, which is the

mechanism that drives the further building of self-confidence. This feedback loop is one

of the most essential components of the Self-Trust Model, as well as the later discussed

Integrated Model of Self-Confidence. When an individual takes a risk in themselves, this

will result in either a favorable outcome (i.e., success), or an unfavorable outcome (i.e.,

failure). Whatever the case, that individual’s response to that particular outcome will

influence how trustworthy they consider themselves to be in future situations—the

feedback loop of which is moderated by self-compassion.

In summary, according to the Model of Self-Trust, Internal Self-Confidence, as a

broad, overarching construct, is influenced by three indicator factors: general self-

efficacy, self-esteem, and self-compassion. The effect of each of these indicators is also

influenced by one’s level of optimism—or the belief or expectation of positive outcomes.

Each of these factors is necessary for understanding and achieving Internal Self-

Confidence, which is a prerequisite for realizing the behavioral manifestation of self-

confidence, which includes taking action and taking risks with yourself.

Taking risks in yourself (whether you succeed or fail) is what is required to build

Internal Self-Confidence. When you expect that taking risks in yourself leads to success,

and that you can generate positive outcomes based on that success, you are more likely to

trust yourself, or have high Internal Self-Confidence. And having high levels of Internal


46

Self-Confidence motivates you to make the choice to take risks in yourself, and to exert

effort and persistence in those risks. This is what builds Internal Self-Confidence in the

long run, as displayed in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2. The Model of Self-Trust

Indicators of Self-Confidence

As stated in the summary of the Model of Self-Trust, Internal Self-Confidence, as

a broad, overarching construct, is mainly influenced by three indicator factors: self-

efficacy, self-esteem, and self-compassion. Together, these constructs determine how

trustworthy an individual considers themselves to be, and therefore how much they trust

themselves (i.e., Internal Self-Confidence), and subsequently impact risk taking, action,

and initiative in the pursuit of goals (the behavioral manifestation of self-confidence).

These constructs are essential components of Internal Self-Confidence when

conceptualized as an attitude with affective, behavioral, and cognitive components.


47

Self-Efficacy (Behavioral Component). Self-efficacy is often defined in terms

of Bandura’s (1977) Self-Efficacy Theory. The theory states that behavior (i.e.,

motivation and performance) is primarily influenced by both outcome and personal

expectations. Outcome expectations refer to beliefs regarding whether or not succeeding

at a given behavior will result in a given outcome, while personal expectations refer to

beliefs regarding whether or not effort and persistence will lead to success. These

personal expectations can be strengthened using four different sources of information:

enactive (i.e., mastery experiences and performance accomplishments), vicarious (i.e.,

social comparisons and social modeling), exhortative (i.e., encouragement and support

from others), and emotive (i.e., physical arousal or anxiety) information. Efficacy and

outcomes expectations (i.e., self-efficacy) determine how much effort an individual will

exert, and how long they will sustain these efforts in the face of obstacles or adversity,

which is why the construct can be conceptualized as the behavioral component of Internal

Self-Confidence.

Self-Esteem (Affective Component). Self-esteem is defined as an affective

evaluation or judgment of oneself—it captures the feelings one has regarding how much

they “like” themselves, or how significant, worthy, and good they consider themselves to

be. While there seems to be consensus on the definition of self-esteem in the literature,

there is one conceptualization of the construct which deserve attention. Deci and Ryan

(1995) use their Self-Determination Theory to differentiate between contingent and true

self-esteem. Contingent self-esteem refers to contingent, instable, relative feelings of


48

self-worth which depend on comparisons with others or some externally-set standard.

True self-esteem, on the other hand, refers to more absolute, stable, and secure feelings of

self-worth, which are not contextual or based on comparisons. True self-esteem captures

the more dispositional feelings that one has towards oneself, and that works as the

affective component of Internal Self-Confidence.

Self-Compassion (Cognitive Component). Self-compassion is defined as a

healthy self-attitude of kindness, understanding, and awareness, which protects against

self-judgments and rumination (Neff, 2003; Neff & Vonk, 2009). Neff (2003) describes

the three main components of self-compassion: self-kindness (being kind towards oneself

in the face of failure or mistakes instead of harshly self-critical), common humanity

(perceiving oneself as a part of a larger human experience instead of isolated from it), and

mindfulness (keeping painful feelings and thoughts in a balanced awareness instead of

over-identifying with them). Self-compassion refers to seeing oneself clearly as equal

and interconnected with others, rather than focusing on faults or inadequacies in

comparison to others. Self-compassion also refers to seeing oneself accurately and

realistically, and being kind, understanding, and loving towards what you see—because

after all, being human means being flawed and imperfect. This knowledge and clarity

about one’s strengths and limitations, and mental strength to avoid harsh self-judgment

and elaborative cognitive processing is why self-compassion is the cognitive component

of Internal Self-Confidence.


49

The Self

There is certainly an abundance of constructs which are headed with the “self”—

self-confidence, self-esteem, self-efficacy, self-compassion, self-knowledge, self-

concept, self-actualization, self-evaluations, self-awareness, self-control, self-deception,

self-handicapping, self-monitoring, self-regulation, and the list goes on. But what exactly

is the “self”—and how is it defined? Snyder and Williams (1982) in their discussion of

self-theory state that the “self” can be defined as “the entire individuality of the person:

that composite of things and attributes that we use to describe a single being”—one’s

own theory of what it means to be themselves and who they are (p. 258). But let’s take a

step back.

In discussion of the “self”, the literature often begins by referring back to William

James’ (1892) differentiation of (1) “the self as known, or the me,”—which is divided

into three classes—the material me (or one’s body, clothes, family, home, wealth,

possessions, etc.), the social me (or social recognition from others, fame, honor, etc.), and

the spiritual me (or one’s sensations, emotions, and desires); and (2) “the self as knower,

or the I”—or the inner train of consciousness which defines our deepest thoughts, parallel

to one’s spirit, soul, or ego—similar to Epstein’s (1973) self-concept (p. 176). James

(1892) argues that it is the former, or the self as a known (the empirical self), which

arouses different feelings and emotions, based on the value that one places on the

different classes of the “self”. Failures or successes in these different classes (such as

one’s wealth vs. social recognition from others), can determine how one feels about


50

themselves—or their self-esteem. Individuals will feel bad about themselves if they do

not succeed in the classes of their “self” in which they place the most value. Conversely,

they will feel good about themselves if they do live up to their own pretentions in these

most valued classes.

Higgins’ (1987) Self-Discrepancy Theory asserts a comparable notion—that

discrepancies between the different domains of the self can elicit different emotional

reactions. The theory proposes three basic domains of the self: (1) the actual self, or the

attributes that you believe you possess (i.e., your own self-concept), (2) the ideal self, or

the attributes that you wish or aspire to possess (i.e., your hopes or wishes), and (3) the

ought self, or the attributes you believe you should or ought to possess (i.e., your duties

or obligations). Similar to James (1982), Higgins (1987) claims that discrepancies

between the actual self and the ideal or ought self—or the perception that one is not

living up the aspirations or obligations of themselves or of others—can also elicit

decrements in self-esteem. He further asserts that individuals are motivated to reach a

state to where their self-concept (or actual self) matches their ideal or ought selves

(whichever is more personally relevant to that individual), and that it is this goal of

discrepancy reduction which motivates one’s performance. In other words, one’s

performance is motivated by the significance of obtaining different personally relevant

ideal or ought attributes.

Higgins (1996) furthers Self-Discrepancy Theory by using a theory of self-digest,

or self-regulation. He states that “the self digest contains information about three kinds


51

of actual selves that differ in self-regulatory function”: (1) an instrumental self—which

functions to provide information on the consequences of particular actions or becoming a

particular kind of person, (2) an expectant self—which functions to provide information

on what can be experienced or expected in relation to some activity or object, and (3) a

monitored self—which functions to provide feedback information concerning how well a

person is doing in reaching some desired, or undesired, end-state (p. 1062). Because

there are three kinds of actual selves according to this self-digest theory, Higgins (1996)

argues that it makes sense to differentiate between three different types of self-esteem:

(1) instrumental self-esteem—or an appraisal of attributes leading to negative or positive

consequences, (2) expectant self-esteem—or an appraisal of expectancies for the self in

relation to certain activities, and (3) monitored self-esteem—or an appraisal of the

discrepancy between current and desired end states.

Furthering Higgins (1987, 1996) theories to address Internal Self-Confidence as

defined in this research, not only can discrepancies between different domains of the self

have a negative effect on self-esteem, but also have implications concerning self-efficacy

and self-compassion. The theories state that discrepancies between the actual self

(including instrumental, expectant, and monitored selves) and the ideal or ought self

(based on one’s own standards, or the standards of important others) can elicit

decrements in self-esteem. If one does not feel that they are meeting the wishes or

expectations of themselves or others, it can have an effect on the value that they place on

themselves. However, one can also harbor beliefs concerning their ability to reduce


52

these self-discrepancies, or to meet their goals in obtaining the attributes representing

their ideal or ought selves (i.e., discrepancy reduction self-efficacy). If an individual

believes in their ability to reduce these discrepancies, they will be more motivated to put

forth the effort and persistence in doing so. Further, if an individual recognizes

discrepancies between their actual and ideal or ought selves, high levels of self-

compassion can buffer the effect of these discrepancies on their self-esteem and self-

efficacy. If one is able to forgive discrepancies, and be okay with not perfectly living up

to the ideals or expectations of themselves, others, or even of society in general, these

discrepancies will be unlikely to take a large toll on their levels of self-esteem, or on their

belief in their ability to reduce these discrepancies (i.e., self-efficacy).

The Integrated Model of Self-Confidence

While one’s attitudes towards oneself in terms of abilities, qualities, and

compassion are undoubtedly important in such outcomes as career success, progression,

and promotions, internal perceptions of self-confidence are only part of the story. Subtle

signals and behaviors are often thought to be indicative of an individual’s level of self-

confidence—and therefore their competence (Anderson, et al., 2012; Locke & Anderson,

2015). The literature discusses many confidence cues, some of which include: enduring

and direct eye contact, strong and steady tone of voice, clear and articulate speech, lack

of anxiety or nervousness, good posture and poise, assertiveness in speech and


53

mannerisms, and expression of opinions, ideas, or viewpoints (Anderson, et al., 2012;

Borno, 2000; Cramer et al., 2009b; Kennedy, Anderson & Moore, 2013; Locke &

Anderson, 2015).

These “confidence cues” are often used by others to inform how competent or

able they believe another individual to be—especially in situations in which the

competence of said individual is unknown (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Locke &

Anderson, 2015). Figure 3 below delineates this process—one’s level of internally-

perceived self-confidence (i.e., Internal Self-Confidence) is often reflected in verbal,

nonverbal, and behavioral confidence cues (further referred to as External Self-

Confidence). These confidence cues inform other’s perceptions of that individual’s

competence, which affords that individual increased access to influence and power, and

therefore heightened career success. In turn, this career success is likely to further

increase the self-confidence (both internal and external) of said individual.

Figure 3. The Integrated Model of Self-Confidence


54

In support of this, Locke and Anderson (2015) found that people often defer to

others who appear more self-confident—they participate less in discussions and defer to

their opinions and decisions, helping the more confident other ascend in social

hierarchies. Once individuals are deemed as more competent based on these cues, they

are afforded more influence and power in their social or organizational groups—even

when such assumptions of competence are not deserved. For example, Anderson, Brion,

Moore, and Kennedy (2012) found that in a dyadic task, individuals who exhibited more

confidence cues (regardless of their level of competence) were perceived as more

competent and afforded more influence by their partners. Kennedy, Anderson, and

Moore (2013) furthered these results—finding that those exhibiting more confidence cues

and more relative overconfidence at the task at hand were still awarded more status and

influence in the group, even when it was revealed that the individual did not have the

highest task performance in comparison to others in their group. Clearly, External Self-

Confidence plays a substantial role in the outcomes of Internal Self-Confidence and

whether or not such an attitude can influence one’s career success.


55

Present Study

The purpose of this study is to provide a clear, coherent, and theoretically-derived

definition and validated measure of both Internal and External Self-Confidence based on

the Integrated Model of Self-Confidence. This will allow the construct to be correctly

operationalized and studied in organizational contexts. What makes the Integrated Model

of Self-Confidence unique is that it (a) operationalizes Internal Self-Confidence as self-

trust, not just as self-efficacy or self-esteem, (b) operationalizes Internal Self-Confidence

as an attitude, like trust, that can be changed with proper interventions, (c) includes

affective, behavioral, and cognitive components in the discussion of self-confidence, and

(d) includes a multiple-perception perspective of the construct by differentiating between

internally- and externally-perceived self-confidence. Therefore, the Integrated Model of

Self-Confidence will finally provide a clear, concrete, and unique definition and

operationalization of self-confidence so that the construct can be both studied empirically

and used in practical organizational settings.

The definition and operationalization of self-confidence as provided by the

Integrated Model of Self-Confidence has critical scientific, practical, and theoretical

implications. To begin with, the development of the Integrated Model of Self-

Confidence will assist in unifying research behind one clear and cogent conceptualization

of self-confidence (both internally- and externally-perceived). The scattered and

inordinate definitions of self-confidence that exist in the research today will be a thing of

the past, and theoretical research will be capable of uniting and integrating theory behind


56

one overall conceptualization of self-confidence. Therefore, the literature should be able

to use correctly-operationalized measures of self-confidence (i.e., the Internal and

External Self-Confidence Scales) to help drive scientific knowledge forward.

This study will provide a theoretically-derived definition and validated measure of

both Internal and External Self-Confidence based on the Integrated Model of Self-

Confidence. Six studies will contribute to the development and validation of the Internal

and External Self-Confidence Scales, as well as the validation of the Integrated Model of

Self-Confidence:

- Study 1: Qualitative Assessment—What does self-confidence mean to people?

- Study 2: Exploration of Initial Items—What are the factors of self-confidence?

- Study 3: Internal Self-Confidence Scale—Development & Exploratory Factor Analysis

- Study 4: External Self-Confidence Scale—Development & Exploratory Factor Analysis

- Study 5: Construct Validation—Confirmatory Factor Analysis & Construct Validation

- Study 6: Criterion Validation—Predictive & Criterion Validation for Career Success


57

Study 1: Qualitative Assessment What does self-confidence mean to people?

Before the writing of any items, or the development of any measures, one

question needed to be answered: What does self-confidence really mean to people? As

qualitative research is often recommended during initial construct development (Spector,

1992), the first study was a qualitative assessment meant to better understand how people

colloquially define self-confidence, and how people identify whether another person is,

or appears to be, self-confident. Qualitatively assessing the construct in this manner

should increase the content validity of the scale. As “thematic analysis should be seen as

a foundational method for qualitative analysis” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 78), a thematic,

or qualitative content, analysis (using both inductive and deductive approaches) was used

to code and analyze the responses.

Hsieh and Shannon (2005) refer to qualitative content analysis as “a research

method for subjective interpretation of the content of text data through the systematic

classification process of coding and identifying themes or patterns” (p. 1278). In these

types of analyses, data is coded and recoded into content-related categories based on

similar meaning. These categories are then used to establish themes which link

categories together based on underlying meanings or latent content (Cho & Lee, 2014).

Coding the data and assessing frequencies of themes or categories across cases in this

manner can allow for the quantitative analysis of initially qualitative data.

One of the benefits of qualitative content analysis is the potential for researchers

to use both inductive and deductive methods in developing themes and coding categories


58

(Cho & Lee, 2014; Elo & Kyngäs, 2008; Potter & Levine-Donnerstein, 1999). The

inductive approach is often used when there are no prior theories or knowledge from

which to base themes and coding categories, therefore they are drawn directly from the

data. The deductive approach, on the other hand, is used in conjunction with theory or

prior research—themes and coding categories are preconceived and drawn from that

knowledge. The analysis of this data involved both inductive and deductive approaches.

Methods

All participants completed an online open-ended survey, asking how they define

self-confidence (question one), and how they know if someone does or does not have

self-confidence (questions two and three). Actual items can be found below. Participants

were also asked to identify their gender, age, racial/ethnic identity, country of citizenship,

and native language.

1. Self-confidence can mean different things to different people. What does self-confidence mean to you?

2. How do you know if someone has self-confidence? 3. What are some signs that someone lacks self-confidence?

Sample. There were 234 responses in total, with 118 (50%) participants from the

Women’s Business Center located at a southeastern university (now weVENTURE), 65

(28%) undergraduate participants from the same southeastern university received extra

credit for participation, and 51 (22%) participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, or

mTurk (limited to the United States). Of note, the sample from the Women’s Business


59

Center was mostly women (94%), White (91%), and over the age of 50 years (75%). The

student sample was entirely under the age of 30 years, and were the least likely to not be

U.S. citizens (only 63% were), nor speak English as their native language (only 68% did).

The mTurk sample was more even in age and sex demographics, and being limited to

workers from the United States, 100% of the respondents were U.S. citizens, and 94%

spoke English as their first language. These differences between samples should be

considered in any interpretation of the analyses.

Overall, the sample consisted of 69% women and 29% men. Racial

demographics were as follows: 74% White, 9% Black or African American, 8% Asian,

5% Hispanic or Latino, 1% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 0.4%

American Indian or Alaskan Native. There was a wide variety of ages. Eighty-one

participants (35%) indicated that they were between 18-29 years old, 56 (24%) between

30-49 years, and 97 (42%) between 50-79 years old. A clear majority of the participants

indicated that their country of citizenship was the United States (89%), and that English

was their native language (89%). This fact is important considering that self-confidence

may be a particularly culture-specific (or emic) concept (Heine, Lehman, Markus, &

Kitayama, 1999; Tafarodi & Swann, 1996). A breakdown of the demographics by sample

can be found in Table 14 below.


60

Table 14. Sample Demographics for Qualitative Study

Analysis. Once the qualitative responses were collected from all three samples, a

group of four subject matter experts (SMEs), graduate-level Industrial/Organizational

Psychology students, analyzed each of the qualitative responses. The analysis of this data

involved both inductive and deductive approaches in qualitative content analysis. While,

as indicated by the review of the literature, there is a wide degree of literature on self-

confidence, there is no cohesive agreement on a definition nor theoretical underpinnings

of the construct. Therefore, initial coding categories were developed based on both

deductive and inductive procedures.

Using the deductive approach, categories hypothesized to be part of the

theoretical underpinnings of self-confidence, such as self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-

compassion, were coded. Constructs that made a frequent appearance in the self-

confidence literature were also included as coding categories, such as optimism, locus of

control, and affectivity. Using the inductive approach, categories were developed based

on open coding and discussion among the team of SMEs. Categories such as

avoiding/approaching goals, speaking up, persistence, demeanor, verbal/nonverbal

communication, appearance, apologizing, shyness, independence, expertise, trust in


61

decisions/judgments, supportiveness, and egocentricity were developed based on frequent

mention in the qualitative responses.

From these responses, the SMEs agreed on twelve overall categories (some with

up to five sub-categories). These categories consisted of: (1) Self-efficacy; (2) Self-

esteem; (3) Self-compassion/ resiliency; (4) Optimism; (5) Locus of control; (6)

Affectivity; (7a) Avoid/approach goals; (7b) Speaking up; (7c) Persistence; (8)

Demeanor; (8a) Nonverbal communication/ body language; (8b) Verbal communication;

(8c) Appearance; (8d) Apologizing; (8e) Shyness/ timidity; (9) Independence; (10a)

Expertise/ knowing strengths; (10b) Trust in decisions and judgments; (11)

Supportiveness, warmth, empathy; and (12) Ego-centricity. Common themes found in

the responses for each category are described in Table 15 below.

After the research team agreed on the coding categories, SMEs individually coded

each response. Coder’s individual responses were compared and discrepancies were

discussed until an agreement was reached. Each response received between 1-8 codes

(including “Uncategorized”). For example, one response read that self-confidence means

“believing in one’s self and one’s capabilities.” Believing in yourself is representative of

having high self-esteem, while believing in your capabilities is more representative of

self-efficacy. Therefore, that response was coded with 1 and 2—self-efficacy and self-

esteem. The frequencies for each coding category can be found in Table 16 (Q1) and

Table 17 (Q2/Q3) below—the totals as well as the demographic and sample differences.


62

Table 15. Category Response Themes

(1) Self-efficacy

Believing in one’s ability to accomplish tasks or goals; Not doubting one’s effectiveness or ability to succeed; Believing one can do anything they set their mind to; Having a “can-do attitude”; Feeling competent and capable; Feeling like you have the potential succeed

(2) Self-esteem

Believing in yourself; Taking pride in yourself; Being comfortable with who you are and in your own skin; Not feeling unvalued or unworthy; Having a positive self-image or self-regard—self-assured; Believing in one’s qualities and value; Accepting and loving oneself

(3) Self-compassion/ resiliency

Not needing to be 100% perfect; Accepting of mistakes and failures—willing to learn from them; Ability to bounce back and cope after setbacks; Not focusing on inadequacies or imperfections—not putting oneself down; Avoiding negative self-talk and ruminative loops

(4) Optimism Having a positive, optimistic outlook; Not expecting the worst out of everyone & everything; Having faith everything will turn out okay; Believing all will go as well as can be expected

(5) Locus of control

Taking responsibility for one’s own actions; Not blaming others for one’s own mistakes or failures; Attributing success to hard-work and dedication instead of luck; Taking credit for success and blame for failure; Believing you are in control of the situation

(6) Affectivity Having a positive attitude, generally happy—not depressed; Lacking anxiety/nervousness; Not being overcome by fear; having a calm & stable disposition—comfort in most situations

(7a) Avoid/ approach goals

Being able to take chances or risks without hesitation; Not fearing new challenges; Acting despite fear, doubts, or possibility of failure; Approaching instead of avoiding; Taking action or initiative; Not limiting oneself to one’s comfort zone

(7b) Speaking up

Speaking up during meetings; Not afraid to contribute to a conversation; Raising one’s hand or speaking in public; Willing to voice opinions and defend them; Sharing ideas and beliefs; Not being afraid to speak one’s mind; Standing up for yourself and what you believe in

(7c) Persistence Never giving up or backing down; Sticking with decisions; Persisting in meeting goals; Refusing to take no for an answer; Having the perseverance necessary to accomplish a goal

(8) Demeanor Their “presence” or demeanor—how someone presents themselves; Having charismatic or confident “vibe”; How one represents themselves

(8a) Nonverbal communication

Body language; Head held high, good posture, poised, smiling; The way one carries or holds oneself—“air” or “aura” of confidence;


63

Firm and friendly handshake; Eye contact; No nervous gestures or fidgeting; They sit up, pay attention, and are alert

(8b) Verbal communication

Strong, firm tone of voice; Speaks clearly and decisively—with conviction; Does not mumble or stutter; Ability to speak with authority and command; Not soft-spoken or overly quiet; Speaks with articulation and ease; No up-speaking; Absolute (not wish-washy) use of words

(8c) Appearance

Dressing nice—appropriate for the situation; Taking pride in personal appearance; Grooming well; Good looks; Comfort with appearance; Being happy with what one sees in the mirror

(8d) Apologizing

Not always apologizing for everything, not being overly-apologetic

(8e) Shyness Not being shy or timid

(9) Independence

Not needing constant reassurance or external validation; Not easily influenced or persuaded to change decisions or opinions; Doesn’t let others walk all over them; Doesn’t let the fear of being judged by others hold them back; Independent in thought and action

(10a) Expertise/ knowing strengths

Recognizing one’s own strengths, talents, and abilities; Being educated or knowledgeable on a topic or subject; Believing in one’s credibility or expertise; Having an accurate assessment of one’s strengths and weaknesses; Recognizing what you know and what you don’t know

(10b) Trust in decisions

Being certain, decisive, or sure-footed; Ability to make appropriate decisions quickly; Not second-guessing oneself or one’s decisions; Not being overly hesitant or cautious when making decisions; Feeling comfortable making decisions for themselves and others

(11) Supportiveness, warmth, empathy

Treating others with respect and kindness; Being inclusive, supportive, and encouraging towards others and their ideas; Not criticizing or complaining about others; Not being hyper-critical of other people’s thoughts or ideas; Does not constantly try to find others’ faults

(12) Ego-centricity

Not needing to be the center of attention; Comfortable giving the spotlight to others instead of themselves; Not constantly showing off or bragging; Not taking credit for others’ accomplishments—letting others shine; Not being self-absorbed or ego-centric


64

Table 16. Coding Percentages for Q1 (What does self-confidence mean to you?)

Table 17. Coding Percentages for Q2/Q3 (Signs someone has/lacks self-confidence)


65

Results & Discussion

When respondents were asked what self-confidence means to them, self-esteem

(44%) and self-efficacy (35%) were by far the most frequent definition themes to arise,

highly supporting the assertion that both are essential to the construct definition of self-

confidence. Individuals’ tendencies to avoid or approach risks, goals, or challenges

(18%), independence of opinions, decisions, and actions (16%), self-compassion and

resiliency (13%), one’s trust in their decisions and judgments (13%), and one’s

knowledge of their own strengths, expertise, and competence (9%) were also common in

defining the colloquial use of self-confidence, and should be considered in its

nomological network.

When respondents were asked how they would know if someone does or does not

have self-confidence, some different patterns emerged. Approximately 74% of

respondents mentioned the individual’s demeanor—51% mentioning nonverbal

communication or body language, 43% mentioning verbal communication, and 17%

mentioning shyness or timidity. Individuals’ tendencies to avoid or approach risks, goals,

or challenges (31%) and independence of opinions, decisions, and actions (25%) emerged

again as an important indicator of self-confidence, as well as affectivity (24%), and self-

esteem (19%). One’s trust in their decisions and judgments (15%), self-compassion and

resiliency (12%), supportiveness, warmth, and empathy (9%), and ego-centricity (9%)

also emerged as common themes.


66

While the overall findings paint a good picture of how self-confidence is defined

colloquially, there are some interesting patterns to consider when breaking down the

coding frequencies by gender, sample, and age, as can be seen in the tables below. What

is found by the demographic breakdown can be thought to explain how different

demographic subgroups view and conceptualize the construct of self-confidence. For

example, women, as well as the Women’s Business Center sample, were more likely to

mention self-compassion, optimism, locus of control, approaching risks, goals, and

challenges, speaking up, nonverbal communication and body language, apologizing, trust

in decisions and judgments, and supportiveness, warmth, and empathy, than men, or the

other two samples. There were also some trends of interest when analyzing age. For

example, younger participants were more likely to mention self-esteem, appearance, and

shyness, while older participants were more likely to mention self-compassion, optimism,

locus of control, speaking up, trust in decisions and judgments, being supportive, warm,

and empathic, and ego-centricity. The full list of trends can be seen in Table 18 below.

Equipped with a qualitative understanding of how people define self-confidence,

a quantitative approach was needed to better understand which categories were really a

part of self-confidence as a construct, and which qualified more as the antecedents or

outcomes of self-confidence—often mistaken for the construct itself. Study 2 was

conducted with such a purpose.


67

Table 18. General Trends in Coding Frequencies

(01) Self-efficacy Men and U.S. citizens mentioned self-efficacy at a higher frequency than women

(02) Self-esteem The WBC sample mentioned self-esteem less frequently than the other two samples. There is also an overall trend of the frequency decreasing with age—self-esteem is mentioned more often by younger respondents.

(03) Self-comp Self-compassion was mentioned slightly more by women, as well as the WBC sample. Younger participants mentioned self-compassion less than their older counterparts.

(04) Optimism Optimism was not mentioned by any men—all mention of the category was by women. Optimism was also mentioned more often by the WBC sample, and mention appears to increase with age.

(05) LOC Locus of control was more often mentioned by women and the WBC sample. LOC also appears to be mentioned more frequently with age.

(06) Affectivity Affectivity is found slightly more frequently amongst men and non-US citizens.

(07a) Risk-taking Risk-taking is found slightly more prevalently among women and WBC sample. It is mentioned less frequently among 18-29 year olds compared to older counterparts.

(07b) Speak up Speaking up is mentioned more frequently among women, the WBC sample, and respondents over the age of 50.

(07c) Persistence Persistence is mentioned most frequently in the WBC sample,

(08) Demeanor General demeanor is mentioned most frequently among US citizens, and those over 50 years.

(08a) Nonverbal Nonverbal communication was mentioned slightly more by women, the WBC sample, US citizens, and participants over the age of 50.

(08b) Verbal com Verbal communication was mentioned slightly more by US citizens.

(08c) Appearance Appearance was mentioned the least by the WBC sample, and the most by the 18-29 age group

(08d) Apologize Apologizing was mentioned slightly more by women, the WBC sample, and US citizens.

(08e) Shy/ timid Shyness/timidity was mentioned least by women and the WBC sample. Mentioned of shyness also decreased with age—with thoe over 50 mentioning it least.

(09)Independence Independence was mentioned the least by respondents over the age of 50. (10a) Expertise No important trends or patterns

(10b) Decisions Trust in decisions and judgment was mentioned more by women and the WBC sample; it was mentioned the least in the 18-29 age group

(11) Supportive Being supportive, warm, and empathetic was mentioned more by women, the WBC sample, and by participants over the age of 50.

(12) Ego-centric Ego-centricity was mentioned the least by the student sample, and its mention appeared to increase with age, with 18-29 year olds mentioning the construct least.


68

Study 2: Exploration of Initial Items What are the factors and outcomes of self-confidence?

The purpose of Study 2 was to develop self-confidence items based on the

qualitative responses collected in Study 1—therefore using both inductive and deductive

item generation processes. Such a pool of items would help identify which of the

qualitative response categories are really part of self-confidence as a construct, and which

qualify more as the antecedents or outcomes of self-confidence—mistaken for the

construct itself. Once the factors of self-confidence (both internal and external) are better

understood, measures of the constructs can be developed.

Methods

Each qualitative response from Study 1 was used to generate items that could

potentially be used in the item pool tapping each of the self-confidence categories. Each

code that the response received generated at least one potential item, with items having

no more than one code. For example, one response read as follows: “Self-confidence to

me means, I believe in myself and my ability, I don't need others’ approval.” This was

coded by the team of SMEs in Study 1 as consisting of self-efficacy, self-esteem, and

independence, and therefore the response generated three potential items: “I believe in

my abilities to succeed” (self-efficacy); “I believe in myself as a person” (self-esteem);

and “I do not need approval from others” (independence).


69

This process resulted in a total of 470 items generated from 234 responses. Items

were then organized based on their code, and were selected or deleted from the item pool

based on repetitiveness, quality of item wording, and an assessment of content validity

(as recommended by Hinkin, 1998). For example, 29 of the items were some variation of

“I believe in myself.” Therefore, 28 of those items were deleted, and one remained.

Only coding categories with response rates of over 10% in Question 1 were included in

the scale. Items for codes such as affectivity, locus of control, optimism, and demeanor

were not included due to their low frequency as response categories. The selection and

deletion process resulted in a total of 130 items—36 reversed-coded. All reverse-coded

items were corrected prior to analyses. The coding categories for each of the 130 items

can be found in Table 19 below.

Table 19. Coding Categories for Self-Confidence Item Pool

Coding Category Category Response Rate for Q1 of Study 1 Item #

(1) Self-efficacy 35% 1-20 (2) Self-esteem 44% 21-40 (3) Self-compassion/ resiliency 13% 41-60 (7) Avoid/ approach 18% 61-88 (9) Independence 16% 89-108 (10) Trust in judgments/decisions 13% 109-130

Sample & Procedures. This pool of 130 items was distributed to a total of 678

participants—asking them to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with


70

each item on a 5-point scale. The sample included 145 students from Utah Valley

University (21%), 194 students from the Florida Institute of Technology (29%), and 339

workers from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (50%). Most of the participants were female

(60%), White (75%), citizens of the United States (89%), and native English-speakers

(89%). The two student samples were also asked to indicate the number of semesters

completed, as well as their current grade point average (GPA). Items were randomized,

and any participants who either failed attention checks or completed the item pool in less

than five minutes were not included in the dataset.

Analysis. Several factor analyses and structural equation models were ran using

statistical programs. Further discussion can be found in the next sections.

Exploratory Factor Analysis & Results

The pool of 130 items was refined to 30 items (with five items in each category)

through several rounds of Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFAs) using SPSS—all using

Principal axis factoring for extraction, with a Promax rotation. This process began with

the full pool of 40 items for self-efficacy and self-esteem. Several EFAs were ran with

the goal of retaining the 10 self-efficacy and 10 self-esteem items which loaded the

cleanest onto two factors (in terms of having communalities and factor loadings larger

than .35). The same process was used for the 20 self-compassion items—refining it to 10

items based on communalities and factor loadings over several rounds of EFAs, then

adding it to the overall item pool. The same process was then repeated for the 20


71

avoid/approach items, then the 21 trust in decisions/judgments items, and then finally the

19 independence items. The pool was further refined based on communalities and factor

loadings at each step along the way—eventually resulting in an item pool consisting of

five items for each of the six categories, for a total of 30 items.

Based on Eigenvalues, the statistical program naturally extracted four factors

(with self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-compassion items all intermingling within the

same two factors); however, when commanded to extract six factors, the items loaded

neatly into each of their expected categories, or constructs (as seen in Table 20 below).


72

Table 20. Study 2 Exploratory Factor Analysis of the 6-Factor Solution

Note. This table suppresses factor loadings of less than .35.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis & Results

The EFA procedures conducted in the last section refined the large number of

items used in this study to the five items which were most representative of each

category—self-efficacy, self-esteem, self-compassion, avoid/approach, independence,

and trust in decisions/judgments. The EFA also confirmed the distinctness of each of the

six categories. But which combination of the categories is the most representative of

self-confidence? In other words, which of these categories act as the indicators of the


73

broader construct of self-confidence? To answer these questions, several CFAs were also

ran to both confirm the factor structure of the items in each of their prospective

categories, as well as to compare alternative structures.

This process began with testing the 6-factor structure (as delineated in the EFA

table above) against the 3-factor structure represented in the Integrated Model of Self-

Confidence (i.e., self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-compassion). Several alternative 4-

and 5-factor models were also assessed. Previous EFA analyses had revealed that no

matter the number of factors the program had been commanded to extract, the

independence items always loaded onto their own factor. Therefore, the alternative

models tested in Table 21 did not include independence—they are combinations of the

other two categories not represented in the Integrated Model of Self-Confidence—i.e.,

avoid/approach, and trust in decisions. As seen in the CFA table below, the model with

the lowest Chi-squared (X2 = 199, p = .000), largest Comparative Fit (CFI = .986) and

Tucker-Lewis (TLI = .983) Indices, and lowest Root Mean Square Error of

Approximation (RMSEA = .044) and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR

= .025), was the three-factor model using only self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-

compassion—in support of the Integrated Model of Self-Confidence. This indicates that

the three-factor solution to Internal Self-Confidence may indeed have the best fit,

compared to when the other categories are included in the model. Perhaps it is

reasonable to assume that they represent something else—perhaps outcomes (i.e., ESC),

rather than indicators (i.e., ISC) of the construct.


74

Table 21. Study 2 Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Model Structure X2 Sig. CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR 3 factors: self-efficacy, self-esteem, self-compassion 199 .000 .986 .983 .044 .025

4 factors: self-efficacy, self-esteem, self-compassion, trust in decisions 413 .000 .975 .971 .047 .030

4 factors: self-efficacy, self-esteem, self-compassion, avoid/approach 423 .000 .974 .970 .048 .034

5 factors: self-efficacy, self-esteem, self-compassion, avoid/approach, trust in decision

713 .000 .963 .958 .050 .035

6 factors: self-efficacy, self-esteem, self-compassion, avoid/approach, trust in decisions, independence

956 .000 .960 .955 .046 .043

Structural Equation Modeling & Results

The CFAs ran in the previous section revealed that out of alternative

combinations of factors confirmed in the EFA, the 3-factor structure of self-efficacy, self-

esteem, and self-compassion appeared to have the best fit. So what about the other

categories—i.e., avoid/approach, independence, and trust in decisions/judgments?

Maybe instead of being part of Internal Self-Confidence, they are more representative of

outcomes of the construct, or how much self-confidence others perceive (External Self-

Confidence). To test whether these factors serve better as factors or outcomes of self-

confidence, several SEMs were tested—as seen in Table 22 below.

Based on the SEM’s fit matrix, it does appear that avoid/approach, trust in

decisions/judgments, and independence fit better as outcomes than as factors of the

broader latent construct of self-confidence. The first three models tested, in which only


75

self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-compassion serve as factors, and avoid/approach, trust

in decisions/judgments, and independence serve as outcomes, have better fit than the

models in which the later categories are tested as factors—in terms of Chi-square values

(X2 = 392-423, p = .000), Comparative Fit (CFIs = .974-.976), Tucker-Lewis (TLIs =

.970-.973) Indices, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEAs = .045-.048),

and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMRs = .030-.039). Therefore, it seems

reasonable to assume that self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-compassion represent an

overarching, latent construct of Internal Self-Confidence, and that avoid/approach

behaviors, trust in decisions/judgments, and independence in thought and action represent

outcomes of that self-confidence (or are more factors of External Self-Confidence).

Table 22. Study 2 Structural Equation Modeling Analyses

Structure X2 Sig. CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR Y=Independence X=Efficacy+Esteem+Comp 392 .000 .976 .973 .045 .039

Y=Trust in decisions X=Efficacy+Esteem+Comp 413 .000 .975 .971 .047 .030

Y=Avoid/approach X=Efficacy+Esteem+Comp 423 .000 .974 .970 .048 .034

Y=Independence X=Efficacy+Esteem+Comp+Decisions 636 .000 .969 .965 .045 .040

Y=Avoid/approach X=Efficacy+Esteem+Comp+Decisions 713 .000 .963 .958 .050 .035

Y=Independence X=Efficacy+Esteem+Comp+Avd/App 641 .000 .968 .964 .046 .043

Y=Trust in judgments X=Efficacy+Esteem+Comp+Avd/App 713 .000 .963 .958 .050 .035

Y=Independence X=Efficacy+Esteem+Comp+Avd/App+Decisions 956 .000 .960 .955 .046 .043


76

Discussion

In summary, this study developed items based on the qualitative responses

collected in Study 1 and the coding categories developed by the team of SMEs.

Exploratory Factor Analyses refined these items to be most representative of their

prospective categories, and confirmed the distinctness of each of the six categories.

Confirmatory Factor Analyses further established the factor structure of each of the items

and compared alternative models, finding that the combination of self-efficacy, self-

esteem, and self-compassion best served as factors of the broader construct of Internal

Self-Confidence—supporting the Integrated Model of Self-Confidence. And finally,

Structural Equation Modeling further confirmed that self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-

compassion serve best as factors of Internal Self-Confidence, and also indicated that the

items representative of avoid/approach behaviors, trust in decisions/judgments, and

independence in thoughts and behaviors serve best as outcomes of self-confidence (i.e.,

as factors of External Self-Confidence).


77

Study 3: Internal Self-Confidence Scale Development & Exploratory Factor Analysis

The purpose of Study 3 was to refine and partially validate the Internal Self-

Confidence Scale using the three-factor solution of self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-

compassion, as determined by the factor analyses in the previous study. For Study 3,

some of the items comprising the three factors of self-confidence were rewritten, revised,

and refined based on further factor analyses. The revised instrument was administered

along with other measures of similar constructs. It is hypothesized that the final items

representing “self-esteem” as an indicator of self-confidence will positively correlate with

a known measure of self-esteem, the final items representing “self-efficacy” will correlate

with a known measure of self-efficacy, and the final items representing “self-

compassion” will correlate with known measures of self-compassion and resiliency. It is

also hypothesized that all of the final items as a whole (i.e., the Internal Self-Confidence

Scale, ISCS) will also highly correlate with the previously validated measures of self-

efficacy, self-esteem, self-compassion, and resiliency.

Methods

A pool of 53 Internal Self-Confidence items were validated against known

measures of the constructs within the three-factor solution (i.e., self-efficacy, self-esteem,

and self-compassion), asking participants to indicate the extent to which they agree or

disagree with each item on a 7-point scale in an online survey.


78

Measures. The known measures which the Internal Self-Confidence Scale were

validated include Sherer et al.’s (1982) General Self-Efficacy Scale; Rosenberg’s (1965)

Self-Esteem Scale; Raes, Pommier, Neff, and Van Gucht’s (2011) short-version of the

Self-Compassion Scale (Neff, 2003); as well as Paul and Garg’s (2014) short-form of the

Resiliency Scale (Wagnild & Young, 1993).

Internal self-confidence. As a first step in developing and refining the Internal

Self-Confidence Scale, the original 20 items for each of the self-efficacy and self-esteem

categories from Study 2 were retained, however five items were deleted from both the

self-efficacy and self-esteem categories based on theory and quality of wording—

resulting in 15 items per construct. For the self-compassion category, some of the items

from the previous study were retained, and some were developed to better align with

Neff’s (2003) three-factor solution of self-compassion. This resulted in eight items

representing self-kindness, eight items representing common humanity, and seven items

representing mindfulness—for a total of 23 self-compassion items. Therefore, the full

initial scale for this study had a total of 53 items.

Self-efficacy. Sherer, Maddux, Mercandante, Prentice-Dunn, Jacobs, and Rogers’

(1982) General Self-Efficacy Scale was used to measure self-efficacy. The scale consists

of 17 items, asking participants to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with

each statement. The original measure used a 14-point Likert scale, however, a 7-point

scale was used in this survey to make it easier to read for the participants. The scale was

considered reliable with a Cronbach’s alpha of .86 (Sherer et al., 1982). Sample items


79

include: “When I make plans, I am certain I can make them work” and “I feel unsecure

about my ability to do things.”

Self-esteem. Rosenberg’s (1965) Self-Esteem Scale was used to measure self-

esteem. The scale consists of 10 items, asking participants to indicate the extent to which

they agree or disagree with each statement on a 4-point scale. However, a 7-point scale

was used in this survey for consistency’s sake. Rosenberg’s (1965) self-esteem scale is

the most widely used measure of self-esteem, with satisfactory internal consistency

reliabilities ranging α = 0.72 - 0.91 (Chen, Gully, & Eden, 2004; Hutz, Midgett, Pacico,

Bastianello & Zanon, 2014; Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003; Martín-Albo, Núñez,

Navarro & Grijalvo, 2007). Sample items include “I feel that I have a number of good

qualities” and “I take a positive attitude towards myself”.

Self-compassion. Raes, Pommier, Neff, and Van Gucht’s (2011) short-version of

the Self-Compassion Scale (Neff, 2003) was used to measure self-compassion. The scale

consists of 12 items, asking participants to indicate the extent to which they engage in

certain thoughts or feelings on a 5-point scale. However, this survey will use a 7-point

agreement scale. This measure of self-compassion consists of six subscales: Self-

Kindness vs. Self-Judgement; Common Humanity vs. Isolation; and Mindfulness vs.

Over-Identification. The short version of the scale displayed adequate internal

consistency reliabilities ranging α = 0.80 - 0.92 (Raes et al., 2011; Smeets, Neff, Alberts

& Peters, 2014). Sample items include “When I fail at something important to me, I


80

become consumed by feelings of inadequacy” and “I try to see my failings as part of the

human condition” (Raes et al., 2011).

Resiliency. Wagnild’s (2009) short-form of the Resiliency Scale (Wagnild &

Young, 1993) was used to measure resiliency. The scale consists of 14 items, asking

participants to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with each statement on

a 7-point agreement scale. The scale is a well-known measure of resiliency, with

adequate internal consistency reliabilities ranging α = 0.76 - 0.91 (Wagnild, 2009).

Sample items include “I feel that I can handle many things at a time” and “My belief in

myself gets me through hard times” (Paul & Garg, 2014).

Sample. Both mTurk workers (participating for money) as well as students

(participating for extra-credit) were used to collect this data. After the quality checks, the

sample consisted of 629 participants—42% undergraduate students and 59% mTurk

workers. The entire sample was mostly female (51.5%), White (76.5%), citizens of the

United States (95%), and native English speakers (93%). The average age was 32.43

years, with a standard deviation of 14.63 years.

Analysis. In cleaning the data, participants who completed the survey in under

three minutes, as well as those failing more than one of six attention checks, were

removed from the data, all negatively-worded items were reversed-coded, and all

variables were labeled appropriately in SPSS for ease of reading. SPSS was used to (1)

conduct exploratory factor analyses to shorten and refine each subscale to a manageable


81

set of items, (2) assess internal consistency reliabilities, and (3) measure scale inter-

correlations.

Results

Exploratory Factor Analysis. Several rounds of EFAs (principal axis factoring

using an oblique Promax rotation) were conducted in studying this data—some rounds

deleting items to a more manageable set using communalities and factor loadings, some

using solely communalities after the program was commanded to extract one factor, and

some based on the structure of the factor loadings in the pattern matrix. Each final

version of each round resulted in scales of 9-15 items which all loaded onto the same

factor. The most common items to emerge after each round of EFAs were assessed

together—resulting in a scale consisting of five items for each subscale—self-esteem,

self-efficacy, and self-compassion, for a total of 15 common items. A group of four

SMEs convened to discuss the quality of wording, repetitiveness, and content validity of

each item, resulting in one item being deleted from each of the subscales.

The final scale consisted of four items per subscale, for a total of 12 items, as seen

in Table 23 below. The scale had appropriate factorability, with a KMO measure of 0.95,

and a highly significant Bartlett’s test (X2 = 5053.44**, df = 66). The one factor

extracted accounted for a total cumulative variance of 55.16%, and was highly reliable

with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.924, and an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient of 0.502**.

Table 24 displays the factor loadings of the same items, commanded to extract three


82

factors. The three-factor solution accounted for a total cumulative variance of 62.44%.

While each component of Internal Self-Confidence seems visibly discernible, they do not

load cleanly into three distinct factors, giving more credibility to the one-factor solution

for the Internal Self-Confidence Scale.

Table 23. Study 3 Internal Self-Confidence Scale EFAs

Note. This table suppressed factor loadings under 0.30, except in cases in which none of the loadings for the item exceeded 0.30. In this case, the largest loading was included.

Descriptives & Correlation Analyses. As predicted, the Internal Self-

Confidence scale correlated significantly with known and validated measures of self-

efficacy (r = .731**), self-esteem (r = .814**), self-compassion (r = .719**), and

resiliency (r = .840**). Further, each of the subscales also exhibited large, significant

correlations in the expected direction: the self-efficacy subscale correlated significantly

with Sherer et al.’s (1982) General Self-Efficacy Scale (r = .743**), the self-esteem

subscale correlated significantly with Rosenberg’s (1965) Self-Esteem Scale (r = .814**),


83

and the self-compassion subscale correlated significantly with both Raes et al.’s (2011)

Self-Compassion Scale (r = .707**), as well as Wagnild’s (2009) Resiliency Scale (r =

.753**). See Table 26 for the full correlation matrix.

Neither the scale as a whole, nor its subdimensions, had significant relationships

with gender nor age (only one self-compassion item had a significant gender difference,

as seen in Table 24). While the difference was insignificant, women (Mean = 5.4642, SD

= .91) scored higher in Internal Self-Confidence than men (Mean = 5.4995, SD = .96).

The same pattern was exhibited in each of the three factors, as seen in the gender

descriptives presented in Table 25. This pattern held true for both student and mTurk

samples. The only scale to have a significant (but still small) gender effect was Sherer et

al.’s (1983) Generalized Self-Efficacy scale (r = .108), in which women (Mean = 5.26,

SD = .99) also scored higher than men (Mean = 5.04, SD = .98).


84

Table 24. Study 3 Item Correlations for the Internal Self-Confidence Scale (ISCS)

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Table 25. Study 3 Gender Descriptives for Internal Self-Confidence Scale (ISCS)


85

Table 26. Study 3 Full Correlation Matrix

Note. Positive correlations with gender indicate that women scored higher than men. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Discussion

It was hypothesized that the final items representing “self-esteem” as an indicator

of self-confidence would positively correlate with Rosenberg’s (1965) Self-Esteem Scale,

the final items representing “self-efficacy” would correlate with Sherer et al.’s (1982)

General Self-Efficacy Scale, and the final items representing “self-compassion” would

correlate with Raes et al.’s (2011) Self-Compassion Scale, as well as Wagnild’s (2009)

Resiliency Scale. These hypotheses were supported with significant, positive correlations

with large effect sizes, indicating that each of the sub-scales of the Internal Self-

Confidence Scale are construct valid, and embody the constructs that they are meant to

represent. It was also hypothesized that all of the final items as a whole (i.e., the measure

of Internal Self-Confidence) would also highly correlate with the previously validated


86

measures of self-efficacy, self-esteem, self-compassion, and resiliency. These

hypotheses were also supported with significant, positive correlations with large effect

sizes, supporting the notion that the scale as a whole is construct valid.

It was also expected that the Internal Self-Confidence Scale would load onto one

factor and have good fit with a one-factor solution. As expected, the items of the final

Internal Self-Confidence Scale naturally loaded onto one factor in the EFA. The three-

factor solution did not have each component of self-confidence load cleanly onto itself.

Theoretically, the one-factor solution makes more sense (as Internal Self-Confidence is

considered an overarching latent factor) and is more parsimonious than the three-factor

solution. Because of these facts, the one-factor solution to the Internal Self-Confidence

Scale is preferred.

Further, based on previous research, it was expected that men would score higher

in Internal Self-Confidence, as well as in each of the sub-scales, and associated scales

meant to assess construct validity. However, this was not the case with this sample.

While women only scored significantly higher than men in Sherer et al.’s (1982) General

Self-Efficacy Scale, women scored marginally higher in Internal Self-Confidence, as well

as in each measure of self-esteem, self-efficacy, and self-compassion. It may be that

women are not as lacking in internal perceptions of self-confidence as much of the

practical and scientific literature indicates.


87

Study 4: External Self-Confidence Scale Development & Exploratory Factor Analysis

The purpose of Study 4 was to develop and refine a measure of External Self-

Confidence—or items that can be used to measure how self-confident or lacking in self-

confidence one appears to be to an onlooker. Understanding the confidence cues as

described in the Integrated Model of Self-Confidence, as well as how they relate to and

interact with internal perceptions of self-confidence, will help validate the model and

move the construct forward in research and practice.

Methods

In a manner similar to that of Study 2, the qualitative responses from Study 1

were used to develop items to tap external indicators of self-confidence for each of the

categories listed in Study 1. This resulted in a pool of 284 items, which were refined and

deleted based on theory, repetitiveness, and quality of wording, resulting in a pool of 70

items over seven categories. Ten items remained in each category—half of which were

reverse-coded. The seven categories were: affectivity/optimism, taking action, nonverbal

communication, verbal communication, independence, decisiveness, and egocentrism/

altruism, as agreed upon by the aforementioned group of SMEs.

Measures. The pool of 70 External Self-Confidence items was distributed

through an online survey. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which each item

was characteristic of a self-confident person (1 = Highly uncharacteristic of a self-


88

confident person; 2 = Somewhat uncharacteristic of a self-confident person; 3 = Neutral;

4 = Somewhat characteristic of a self-confident person; 5 = Highly characteristic of a

self-confident person). This procedure, recommended by Hinkin (1998), assists in the

assessment of the content validity of each of the items in this External Self-Confidence

Scale.

Sample. Both mTurk workers (participating for money) as well as students

(participating for extra-credit) were used to collect this data. After the quality checks, the

sample consisted of 598 participants—46% students and 54% mTurk workers. The entire

sample was mostly female (54%), White (78%), U.S. citizens (94%), and native English

speakers (93%). The average age was 38.75 years, with a standard deviation of 12.17

years.

Analysis. In cleaning the data, participants who completed the survey in under

three minutes, as well as those failing more than one of six attention checks, were

removed from the data, all negatively-worded items were reversed-coded, and all

variables were labeled appropriately in SPSS for ease of reading. SPSS was used to both

conduct exploratory factor analyses to shorten and refine each subscale to a manageable

set of items, and to assess the scale’s internal consistency reliability.


89

Results

Exploratory Factor Analysis. The first step in item deletions was to assess the

means of each item. Because this study asked participants to rate each item on how

characteristic vs. uncharacteristic of a highly self-confident person the indicator is. Items

which did not have an average rating of at least 4.0 (i.e., at least somewhat characteristic

of a highly self-confident person) were deleted, as well as five items based on quality of

wording. This resulted in the deletion of 25 items—including the entire subscale of

Egocentrism/Altruism. Several rounds of EFAs (principal axis factoring using an oblique

Promax rotation) were conducted in studying this data—some rounds deleting items to a

more manageable set using communalities and factor loadings, some using solely

communalities after the program was commanded to extract one factor, and some based

on the structure of the factor loadings in the pattern matrix.

Each final version of each round resulted in scales of 10-12 items which all

naturally loaded onto two factors. The most common items to emerge after each round of

EFAs (12 items across all subscales, except for independence) were assessed together,

along with the 6 initial items in the independence subscale which had means over 4.0,

and were deemed by the group of SMEs as having high-quality wording. Items with

extracted communalities under 0.40 were deleted, resulting in an initial 12-item scale.

The same group of SMEs reconvened to discuss the quality of wording, repetitiveness,

and content validity of each item. After some discussion, the group decided that items 44

and 48 (independence subscale) were highly similar, and should either be reduced, or one


90

item should be substituted with a different item to hold the consistency of the subscale

structure. Of all the other independence items, item 41 had the best fit in terms of

replacing item 48 (based on communalities). This replacement resulted in the 12-item

scale presented in Table 27 below. This scale has appropriate factorability with a KMO

of 0.940 and a significant Bartlett’s test (X2 = 3118.27**, df = 66). The two-factor

solution had a total cumulative variance of 48.943%, while the one-factor solution had a

total cumulative variance of 44.595%. The scale had respectable reliability, with a

Cronbach’s alpha of 0.903, and an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient of 0.438**. The

naturally-extracted 2-factor solution appeared to mostly separate out the items based on

the direction of the item (with one exception). Because of this, and due to theory and

parsimony, the one-factor solution is preferred. A six-factor solution was also briefly

looked at and displayed no discernible patterns in factor loadings.

Table 27. Study 4 External Self-Confidence Scale (ESCS) EFA

Note. This table suppresses factor loadings under 0.35.


91

Descriptive & Correlation Analyses. Participants in this study were asked to

rate the extent to which each item was characteristic of a self-confident person. They

were not asked to self-report, nor to indicate how representative each item is of

themselves. Descriptives depict representativeness of self-confidence for each item and

subscale. The External Self-Confidence Scale as a whole had a small, but significant

relationship with gender, in which women (Mean = 4.33, SD = .64) perceived the items

to be more representative of self-confidence than did men (Mean = 4.15, SD = .66). This

means that women in this sample found a majority of the items to be more representative

of a self-confident person than did men. While the difference was not significant with

every item in the scale, women did score somewhat higher than men on each item, and as

well as in almost every subscale of the measure. While women still scored marginally

higher in nonverbal communication, the difference was non-significant. One interesting

pattern to note, however, is that the correlation between gender and independence was the

highest, indicating that women may place a special significance on independence in

thought in action in representing how a self-confident person looks to them. The same

pattern held true for both student and mTurk samples, although the gender differences

were non-significant in the mTurk sample. See Table 28 for item and factor correlations,

and Table 29 for item gender descriptives.


92

Table 28. Study 4 Item Correlations for External Self-Confidence Scale (ESCS)

Note. Participants in this study were asked to rate the extent to which each item is characteristic of a self-confident person. Descriptives depict representativeness of self-confidence for each item and subscale in this table. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)


93

Table 29. Study 4 Gender Descriptives for External Self-Confidence Scale (ESCS)

Note. Participants in this study were asked to rate the extent to which each item is characteristic of a self-confident person. Descriptives depict representativeness of self-confidence for each item and sub-scale in this table.

Discussion

It was expected that the External Self-Confidence Scale would load onto one

factor and have good fit with a one-factor solution. However, the program naturally

extracted two factors. Because it appeared to be based largely on the directionality of the

items, this was considered a statistical artifact, and therefore the one-factor solution was

accepted. Theoretically, the one-factor solution makes more sense (as self-confidence is


94

considered an overarching latent factor) and is more parsimonious. Because of these

facts, the one-factor solution to the External Self-Confidence Scale is preferred.

The External Self-Confidence Scale as a whole had a small relationship with

gender, in which women scored significantly higher than men. However, because of the

nature of how the items were presented to participants, this only means that women in

this sample found a majority of the items to be more representative of how a self-

confident person looks than did men. One interesting pattern to note, however, is that

gender and independence appeared to have the strongest relationship, indicating that

women may place a special significance on independence in thought in action in

representing how a self-confident person appears to them.


95

Study 5: Construct Validation Confirmatory Factor Analysis & Construct Validation

This purpose of this study was to validate the Internal Self-Confidence Scale

items that resulted from Study 3 and the External Self-Confidence Scale items that

resulted from Study 4. This study was also meant to determine how strong of a

relationship exists between internal perceptions of self-confidence and the external

perceptions of physical and behavioral confidence cues.

As a recap, participants in Study 1 were asked to identify what self-confidence

means to them. A group of SMEs developed categories and themes in order to code the

responses. Of the themes identified, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-compassion were

included in the Integrated Model of Self-Confidence—or as indicators of Internal Self-

Confidence, as defined as self-trust in accordance with Mayer et al.’s (1995) trust model.

Many of the other themes, while not a part of Internal Self-Confidence itself, are highly

similar to and often confused with the construct—as demonstrated in the qualitative

study. Some of these themes include: taking risks and avoid/approach behaviors,

independence in thought and action, trust in decisions/judgments, cognitive capacity,

demeanor/ shyness, affectivity, locus of control, and optimism. Using measures which

tap into each of the similar themes will help develop a nomological network and

determine the construct validity of both the Internal and External Self-Confidence Scales.

One measure will be particularly useful in establishing this nomological

network—core self-evaluations. Judge and Bono (2001) define core self-evaluations as


96

“positive self-concept”, or more specifically, “a broad dispositional trait that is indicated

by four more specific traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and

emotional stability (low neuroticism)” (p. 80). Each of these lower-order indicators were

coded as themes in Study 1, and therefore the higher-order construct as a whole will also

be considered as a correlate of self-confidence (both internal and external).

Figure 4 below, derived from the Integrated Model of Self-Confidence,

demonstrates the relationships between self-confidence and the correlates and outcomes

of the construct which will be assessed in Study 5. It is hypothesized that Internal Self-

Confidence will show moderate relationships with the measures representing correlates—

neuroticism/affectivity (negatively), locus of control (negatively), and optimism

(positively). It is also hypothesized that moderate relationships will be exhibited with the

outcomes listed under taking risks in yourself (general risk propensity and achievement

motives), as well as confidence cues/outcomes (External Self-Confidence, decision-

making, independence, shyness/sociability, and problem-solving confidence). External

Self-Confidence is also expected to correlate moderately with the other measures

representing confidence cues/outcomes in the model. All of these relationships are

expected to be positive, except for all of the measure’s correlations with shyness and fear

of failure, which are expected to be negative.


97

Figure 4. Construct Validation Model

Methods

In order to assess the construct validity of both the Internal and External Self-

Confidence Scales, a longitudinal study was conducted. Participants (n = 479) responded

to the Internal Self-Confidence Scale, along with measures of correlates of self-

confidence, at Time 1. At Time 2 (an average of 16 days subsequently), participants (n =

204) responded to the External Self-Confidence Scale, along with measures of outcomes

of self-confidence—as depicted in the theoretical construct validation model.

Measures. The survey at Time 1 consisted of the Internal Self-Confidence Scale

that came from Study 3 (see Appendix C), as well as measures of the following

correlates: affectivity/neuroticism, locus of control, optimism, and core self-evaluations.

The survey at Time 2 consisted of the External Self-Confidence Scale that came from

Study 4 (framed as a self-report measure this time—see wording in Appendix D), as well

as measures of the following outcomes/moderators: general risk propensity,


98

avoid/approach behavioral style (in terms of achievement motives), independence in

thought and action, problem-solving confidence, and shyness/sociability (i.e., demeanor).

Core Self-Evaluations. Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen’s (2003) Core Self-

Evaluations Scale was used to measure affectivity/neuroticism, as well as locus of

control, as depicted in the model in Figure 4. Participants were asked to respond to the

entire 12-item Core Self-Evaluations Scale on a 7-point agreement scale (as opposed to

the original 5-point scale) in order to maximize variability. Core self-evaluations are

considered a latent construct composed of neuroticism, locus of control, self-efficacy, and

self-esteem (Judge & Bono, 2001). Both the entire scale and subscales will be assessed

in their relation to self-confidence (internal and external). In other words, their subscales

of self-esteem and self-efficacy were compared to the same subscales in the ISCS. The

Core Self-Evaluations Scale has internal consistency reliabilities ranging α = 0.81 - 0.87

(Judge et al., 2003). Sample items include “Sometimes I feel depressed” (neuroticism

subscale), and “I determine what will happen in my life” (locus of control subscale)

(Judge et al., 2003).

Optimism. Scheier and Carver’s (1985) Life Orientation Test was used to measure

optimism. Participants were asked to respond on a 7-point agreement scale (as opposed

to the original 5-point scale) the extent to which they agree or disagree with eight

statements concerning their personal levels of optimism. The scale was considered

reliable with an internal consistency reliability of α =.76 (Sheier & Carver, 1985).


99

Sample items include “I always look on the bright side of things” and “Things never

work out the way I want them to” (Scheier & Carver, 1985).

General Risk Propensity. Hung and Tangpong’s (2010) General Risk Propensity

Scale was used to measure individual’s general propensity towards risk. General risk

propensity is thought to influence the perceived risk of any given situation. Participants

were asked to respond on a 7-point scale the extent to which 10 items are accurate or

inaccurate descriptions of themselves. The scale has fair reliability, with a Cronbach’s

alpha of α = 0.71 (Hung & Tangpong, 2010). Sample items include “I believe that higher

risks are worth taking for higher rewards” and “I like to take chances, although I may

fail” (Hung & Tangpong, 2010).

Achievement Motives. Lang and Fries’ (2006) Revised Achievement Motives

Scale was used to measure achievement motives. The scale measures achievement

motives with two dimensions: Hope of Success and Fear of Failure. Participants were

asked the extent to which they agree or disagree with 10 statements on a 7-point scale (as

opposed to the original 4-point scale) in order to maximize variability. Reliability

coefficients were fair – ranging from α = 0.71 - 0.88 (Lang & Fries, 2006). Sample items

include “I am attracted by tasks in which I can test my abilities” (hope of success

subscale) and “I feel uneasy to do something if I am not sure of succeeding” (fear of

failure subscale) (Lang & Fries, 2006).

Decision-Making. Scott and Brown’s (1995) Decision-Making Style measure

was used to tap into trust in decisions/judgments. The scale consists of 24 items on a 7-


100

point agreement scale (as opposed to the original 5-point scale) which assess the

“propensity to react in a certain way in a specific decision context” (Scott & Brown,

1995, p. 820). The authors present five different types of decision styles which can be

identified in this scale: (1) Rational—making decisions based on a logical evaluation, (2)

Intuitive—making decisions based on feelings and hunches, (3) Dependent—making

decisions based on direction and advice from others, and (4) Spontaneous—making

decisions based on a sense of immediacy in wanting to get the decision over with; and (5)

Avoidant—avoiding rather than making decisions. Internal consistency was acceptable

within each of the subscales—ranging from α = 0.77 - 0.85 (Scott & Brown, 1995).

Sample items include “When I make a decision, I trust my inner feelings and reactions”

(intuitive subscale) and “I put off making many decisions because thinking about them

makes me uneasy” (avoidant subscale) (Scott & Brown, 1995).

Independence. Lorr and More’s (1980) Independence Scale (a subscale of their

larger Assertiveness Scale) was used to measure individual independence in thought and

action. The scale consists of eight items which “reflect a willingness to resist social

pressure or authority in order to express beliefs and opinions” (Lorr & More, 1980, p.

133). The article refers to 12 Independence items, however, the article only provides the

eight which were most correlated with assertiveness. Participants were asked to indicate

the extent to which they agree or disagree which each of the eight items on a 7-point

scale (as opposed to the original 5-point scale). The 12-item Independence scale was

stated to have fair internal consistency reliability, with α = 0.77. Sample items include


101

“When there is disagreement I accept the decision of the majority” and “My opinions are

not easily changed by those around me” (Lorr & More, 1980).

Shyness/Sociability. Cheek and Buss’ (1981) Shyness and Sociability Scale was

used to measure an individual’s level of shyness and sociability—which is thought to be

related their overall “demeanor”. Participants were asked on a 7-point scale (as opposed

to the original 5-point scale) the extent to which 14 items are characteristic or

uncharacteristic of themselves—nine items in the shyness subscale, and five items in the

sociability subscale. The scales had fair reliability—with α = 0.79 for the Shyness

subscale, and α = 0.70 for the Sociability subscale (Cheek & Buss, 1981). Sample items

include “I don’t find it hard to talk to strangers” (shyness subscale) and “I welcome the

opportunity to mix socially with people” (sociability subscale) (Cheek & Buss, 1981).

Problem-Solving Confidence. Heppner and Petersen’s (1982) Problem Solving

Inventory was used to measure Problem-Solving Confidence. The Problem-Solving

Inventory is an instrument for assessing the “dimensions underlying the applied problem-

solving process” (Heppner & Petersen, 1982, p. 66). It consists of 11 items in the

Problem-Solving Confidence subscale—all on a 6-point scale. However, participants in

this study responded to a 7-point scale. Internal consistency reliabilities were adequate—

being α = 0.90 for the entire inventory, and α = 0.85 for the Problem-Solving Confidence

subscale (Heppner & Petersen, 1982). Sample items include “I make decisions and am

happy with them later” and “Given enough time and effort, I believe I can solve most

problems that confront me” (Heppner & Petersen, 1982).


102

Sample. The measures were distributed through an online survey, using both

mTurk workers (n = 198; participating for money) as well as undergraduate students (n =

281; participating for extra-credit). Of the 479 participants, 275 only took the Time 1

survey, while 204 took both Time 1 and Time 2 surveys. Only the 43% (n = 204) who

took both parts of the survey were included in analyses (28% undergraduate students and

72% mTurk workers). This sample was 53% male, 77% Caucasian, with an average age

of 32.2 (SD = .68). Participants consisted of 98% U.S. Citizens, and 95% Native English

speakers. The time lapse between the two item sets was 1-35 days later, with an average

of 16 days in between (Mean = 15.65, SD = 6.61). Students who took the Time 2 survey

less than 24 hours after taking the Time 1 survey were removed from the dataset.

Analysis. Quality checks were considered in the cleaning of the data and

elimination of participant responses from the dataset. Participants taking either survey in

less than two minutes were removed from the dataset, as well as those failing more than 1

of the 6 attention checks. All negatively-worded items were reversed-coded, and all

variables were labeled appropriately in SPSS for ease of reading. SPSS was used to

assess descriptives and correlation analysis, as well as to reaffirm the factor structure of

both scales using exploratory factor analysis. SPSS AMOS was used to conduct

confirmatory factor analyses to assess the measurement models and factor structure of the

Internal and External Self-Confidence Scales. Further, SEM (also using SPSS AMOS)

was used to test whether External Self-Confidence is indeed an outcome of Internal Self-


103

Confidence, as well as both of their relationships with the other outcomes depicted in the

predicted theoretical construct validation model.

Results

Descriptive & Correlation Analyses. Correlation analysis was used to test the

nomological network identified by the hypotheses. See Table 30 for the hypothesized

correlation coefficients, and Table 34 for the full correlation matrix. As predicted, the

Internal Self-Confidence Scale was highly and significantly related to External Self-

Confidence (r = .651**), core self-evaluations (r = .853**), reversed neuroticism (r =

.688**), locus of control (r = .666**), optimism (r = .716**), and problem-solving

confidence (r = .647**). It also exhibited positive moderate correlations with general

risk propensity (r = .367**), hope for success (r = .398**), independence (r = .222**),

and sociability (r = .332**), as well as large negative correlations with fear of failure (r =

-.546**) and shyness (r = -.621**).

The External Self-Confidence Scale showed very similar patterns—it was also

highly and significantly related to core self-evaluations (r = .746**), reversed

neuroticism (r = .703**), locus of control (r = .570**), optimism (r = .569**), and

problem-solving confidence (r = .672**). It also exhibited positive moderate correlations

with general risk propensity (r = .398**), hope for success (r = .444**), independence (r

= .395**), and sociability (r = .280**), as well as large negative correlations with fear of

failure (r = -.742**) and shyness (r = -.804**).


104

The Internal Self-Confidence Scale was more highly correlated with core-self

evaluations (p = .002**), optimism (p = .011**), and intuitive decision-making (p =

.022*), than the External Self-Confidence Scale. Conversely, the External Self-

Confidence Scale was more highly correlated with fear of failure (p = .001**), dependent

(p = .007**), avoidant (p = .002**), and spontaneous (p = .017*) decision-making, and (p

= .000**) shyness, than the Internal Self-Confidence Scale.

In this study, men scored marginally higher than women in both the Internal and

External Self-Confidence Scales, as well as in the subscales, and a majority of the items,

with a few exceptions—(see Table 31 for correlations with full scales and subscales,

Table 32 for item correlations, and Table 33 for gender descriptives for both items, full

scale, and subscales). Interestingly, women scored somewhat higher in taking action than

men (although the difference was not significant; p = 0.93). However, this pattern did not

hold true in the student sample, in which men scored higher on all subscales. Also, in the

External Self-Confidence subscale Decisiveness, men did score significantly higher than

women (p = .01**). However, this pattern did not hold true in the mTurk sample, in

which the difference was non-significant. This is interesting, considering the non-

significant relationship between gender and Problem-Solving Confidence (r = -.054), and

the significant and positive relationship between Problem-Solving Confidence and the

External Self-Confidence Scale’s Decisiveness (r = .590**). Also of note, the

relationship between Internal and External Self-Confidence was stronger for women (r =


105

.665**; N = 97) than for men (r = .635**, N = 107), although the difference between

correlation coefficients was non-significant (z = 0.37, p = .711).

In terms of the validated measures included in this study, there were a few notable

gender differences: in reversed neuroticism (r = -.167*), and in fear of failure (r = .218).

This indicates that the men in this sample scored higher in reverse neuroticism (i.e., were

more emotionally stable, self-reported), and were lower in fear of failure than the women,

which could be expected based on the research literature.


106

Table 30. Study 5 Hypothesized Correlation Coefficients



107

Table 31. Study 5 Subscale Correlations

Note. Positive correlations with gender indicate that women scored higher than men.



108

Table 32. Study 5 Item Correlations

Gender ISCS ESCS Gender - -.064 -.107 Internal Self-Confidence Scale -.064 - .651** External Self-Confidence Scale -.107 .651** -

I am capable of achieving my goals. -.042 .809** .467** I believe in my ability to succeed. -.047 .844** .517** I have what it takes to get things done. -.040 .795** .560** I often have doubts in my ability to meet my goals. (R) -.082 .650** .680** I am a person of value and worth. .041 .818** .420** I am happy with who I am as a person. .076 .873** .521** I am sure of myself and my beliefs. -.088 .757** .464** I feel good about myself and who I am. -.044 .874** .506** When I make a mistake, I can easily forgive myself. -.122 .740** .456** While I may not be perfect, I am good enough. .007 .842** .500** I can learn from failures and try again. -.077 .741** .474** I have the ability to cope with feelings of self-doubt. -.189** .819** .554**

Often appears nervous or anxious. (R) -.140* .546** .857** Appears comfortable in most situations. -.085 .604** .696** Appears eager to take on more responsibility or challenge. .021 .465** .524** Appears afraid to act or try new things. (R) -.010 .469** .716** Has difficulty making lasting eye contact with people. (R) -.013 .531** .717** Often makes nervous gestures or has fidgety body language. (R) -.086 .410** .773** Often mumbles when speaking to others. (R) .043 .377** .654** Often speaks up to voice views or opinions. -.134 .349** .498** Frequently needs approval from others. (R) -.043 .421** .730** Often looks for reassurance or confirmation from other people. (R) -.103 .418** .740** Often appears worried about making the wrong decision. (R) -.166* .503** .831** Often has a difficult time making up their mind. (R) -.176* .475** .754**



109

Table 33. Study 5 Gender Descriptives


110



Exploratory Analysis (EFA). Several exploratory factor analyses were

conducted in order to assess the factor structure of the Internal and External Self-

Confidence Scales. This was a preliminary analysis used to reaffirm previous results, and

to provide the information necessary for the parceling approach recommended by Little,

Cunningham, Shahar, and Widaman (2002), which is examined later in the confirmatory

factor analysis section.


111

Internal Self-Confidence Scale. Using principal axis factoring with an oblique

Promax rotation, the Internal Self-Confidence Scale had appropriate factorability, with a

KMO measure of 0.934, and a highly significant Bartlett’s test (X2 = 2012.543**, df =

66). The program extracted one factor, with a total cumulative variance of 61.2%, and

was highly reliable with a Cronbach’s alpha of .942, and an Intraclass Correlation

Coefficient of .573**. See Table 35 for extracted communalities and factor loadings.

Table 35. Study 5 Internal Self-Confidence Scale EFA

Note. This table suppresses factor loadings less than 0.35.

External Self-Confidence Scale. Using principal axis factoring with an oblique

Promax rotation, the External Self-Confidence Scale had appropriate factorability, with a

KMO measure of 0.905, and a highly significant Bartlett’s test (X2 = 1397.2***, df = 66).


112

The program naturally extracted two factors, with a total cumulative variance of 47.3%,

and was highly reliable with a Cronbach’s alpha of .911, and an Intraclass Correlation

Coefficient of .460**. Because the two factors again reflected reverse and non-reversed

scored items, a one factor solution was run. Table 36 presents the one factor solution.

Table 36. Study 5 External Self-Confidence Scale EFA

Note. Program commanded to extract one factor. The 2-factor solution is based on Eigenvalues. This table suppresses factor loadings less than 0.35.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Several confirmatory factor analyses

using maximum likelihood standardized estimation were run using SPSS Amos in order

to assess the factor structure and measurement models of both the Internal and External

Self-Confidence Scales. As recommended in Linderbaum and Levy (2010), three models

were tested for each scale: (1) A one-factor model, with all items loading onto one

overarching latent construct, (2) A first-order model, with items loading onto their


113

respective dimensions, with dimensions covarying, and (3) A second-order hierarchical

model, with items loading onto their respective dimensions, and each dimension loading

onto their second-order latent construct.

Internal Self-Confidence Scale CFA. Measurement models for the ISCS CFA

were parceled into two parcels per dimension in order to improve the fit of each model.

According to Little, Cunningham, Sharah, and Widaman (2002), “Compared with item-

level data, models based on parceled data (a) are more parsimonious (i.e., have fewer

estimated parameters both locally in defining a construct and globally in representing an

entire model), (b) have fewer chances for residuals to be correlated or dual loadings to

emerge (both because fewer indicators are used and because unique variances are

smaller), and (c) lead to reductions in various sources of sampling error” (p. 155).

Because of this, parcels for the ISCS were derived by using the item-to-construct balance

approach outlined by Little et al. (2002) (i.e., pairing the item with the largest EFA

extracted communality within a factor with the item with the smallest EFA extracted

communality within that factor). Potential modification to the models based on

modification indices (MI’s) were also examined, and considered unnecessary for this

particular scale.

The fit statistics for the Internal Self-Confidence Scale, as seen in Table 37 below,

show that parceling the items (as opposed to examining them as they were non-

parceled—i.e., the “whole model” version) provided much stronger fit for all three

models under examination. However, in both cases, Models 2 and 3 (the first- and


114

second-order models) provided much stronger fit than Model 1 (the one-factor model),

while being identical to one another. According to Linderbaum and Levy (2010), when

this is the case, “the second-order factor is preferable, as it permits covariation among

first-order factors by accounting for corrected errors that are common in first-order

models” (p. 1396). Hierarchical second-order models are also more parsimonious, and

therefore Model 3 with the parceled items is preferred for further analyses. This model

has excellent fit, with non-significant Chi-squared statistic (X2 = 7.179, p = .305),

Goodness of Fit (GFI = .989), Comparative Fit (CFI = .999), and Tucker-Lewis (TLI =

.997) Indices all larger than 0.95, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

(RMSEA = .031) and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR = .016) values

both under .08. See Figure 5 for the graphical representation of each of the three

models—for both the parceled- and whole-item analyses.


115

Table 37. Study 5 CFA—Internal Self-Confidence Scale

Fit Statistics for PARCELED MODELS Fit Statistics for

WHOLE MODELS Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 x Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

ML Test Statistic Degrees of Freedom P-value (Chi-Square)

31.159 9

.000

7.179 6

.305

7.179 6

.305

272.597 54

.000

188.941 51

.000

188.941 51

.000

Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)

.950

.980

.966

.989

.999

.997

.989

.999

.997

.798

.890

.866

.856

.931

.911

.856

.931

.911

RMSEA RMR

.110

.037 .031 .016

.031

.016 .141 .089

.115

.089 .115 .089

Note. Model 1 is a one-factor model, with all items loading onto one overarching latent construct. Model 2 is a first-order model, with items loading onto their respective dimensions. Model 3 is a second-order hierarchical model with the dimensions loading onto latest construct

Figure 5. Study 5 CFA—Internal Self-Confidence Scale Measurement Models Note. The model with the best fit is the Parceled version of Model 3.


116

External Self-Confidence Scale CFA. A total of four measurement models were

assessed for the ESCS CFA—two one-factor models—one using a model which parcels

the items into dimensions (Model 1 – Parcel), and one that does not (Model 1 – Whole), a

first-order model (Model 2), and a second-order hierarchical model (Model 3). Parcels

for the ESCS Model 1 were derived based on initial dimensionality (i.e., parcels were

based on the two items which already existed within each dimension). Modification

indices were assessed in each model to determine whether the fit could be improved,

which is a common practice in selecting model parameters (Whittaker, 2012). For each

of the four models presented in these analyses, modification indices were examined for

the covariances between uniqueness within their respective factors. Any recommended

MI’s within factors were included as new parameters in the models as depicted in Figure

6 below.

The fit statistics for the External Self-Confidence Scale, as seen in Table 38

below, show that among both the original and modified models, the parceled version of

Model 1—the one-factor model—had by far the best fit. In the case of the modified

models, the parceled version of the single-factor model had a non-significant Chi-square

statistic (X2 = 11.137, p = .194); Goodness of Fit (GFI = .983), Comparative Fit (CFI =

.995), and Tucker-Lewis (TLI = .992) Indices all larger than 0.95; and Root Mean Square

Error of Approximation (RMSEA = .044) and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual

(SRMR = .045) values both under .08. This model had one parameter modification to

help improve fit—a modification which covaried the unique variances of independence


117

and decisiveness. While this was a highly recommended modification based on the Mis,

it also makes theoretical sense. The independence dimension also taps into how

independently one makes their decisions—or how comfortable one is without their own

decision-making. Therefore, it would make sense for the dimensions to be so related.

This version of the measurement model had significantly better fit than either the first-

order or second-order model of the ESCS, or the model assessing the items without

parceling them into observed dimensions. See Figure 6 for the graphical representation

of each of the three models—for both the original and modified analyses.

Table 38. Study 5 CFAs—External Self-Confidence Scale

Fit Statistics for Original Models Fit Statistics for

Model Modifications Model 1-

Whole Model 1-

Parcel Model 2 Model 3 x Model 1- Whole

Model 1- Parcel Model 2 Model 3

Test Stat df p-value

272.519 54

.000

35.837 9

.000

113.760 39

.000

142.285 48

.000

144.201 52

.000

11.137 8

.194

73.239 37

.000

97.490 46

.000

GFI CFI TLI

.809

.840

.804

.944

.961

.936

.904

.945

.907

.882

.931

.905

.880

.932

.914

.983

.995

.992

.944

.973

.953

.924

.962

.946

RMSEA RMR

.141

.209 .121 .098

.097

.150 .098 .171 .093

.172 .044 .045

.069

.120 .074 .139

Note. Model 1 is a one-factor model, with all items loading onto one overarching latent construct. Model 2 is a first-order model, with items loading onto their respective dimensions. Model 3 is a second-order hierarchical model with the dimensions loading onto latest construct.


118

Figure 6. Study 5 CFA—External Self-Confidence Scale Measurement Models Note. The model with the best fit is the modified version of Model 1 - Parceled.


119

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Structural equation modeling was used

to test whether External Self-Confidence is indeed an outcome of Internal Self-

Confidence, as well as their relationships with the other outcomes depicted in the model.

As seen in Table 39 below, many models were tested for fit. The top part of the table

below (and the left side of Figure 9 and Figure 10 below) depict the Internal Self-

Confidence factors (i.e., self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-compassion) as latent

variables—or made up of the parcels described in the last section. The bottom side of the

table (and right side of the figures below) depict the Internal Self-Confidence factors as

observed—or further parceling of all four items into an average for each dimension.

Further, the SEM analyses were also assessed based on whether they only assessed

External Self-Confidence as the outcome (on the left side of the table, and entirety of

Figure 9), or whether they assessed the full array of possible outcomes, as depicted in the

theoretical construct validation model (on the right side of the table, and entirety of

Figure 10).

Three different types of models were assessed in only looking at External Self-

Confidence: (1) A model assessing the dimensions, or parceled factors/indicators, of

External Self-Confidence as direct outcomes of Internal Self-Confidence, (2) A model

assessing the effect of Internal Self-Confidence on External-Self-Confidence as a latent

variable, and (3) A model assessing the effect of Internal Self-Confidence on External

Self-Confidence as an observed variable. As can be seen in Table 39 below, the two

models with the best fit were the one that depicted External Self-Confidence as just the


120

indicator variables, and the one that depicted it as a latent variable, made up of those

same indicators. While the model depicting External Self-Confidence as just the

indicator variables has better fit according to some statistics (but not all), the model

depicting External Self-Confidence as a latent variable was more theoretical,

interpretable, and exhibited a smaller Root Mean Square Residual, and was therefore the

preferred model going forward. The model depicting the ESCS as a latent variable had a

relatively low Chi-square statistic (X2 = 78.440, p = .000); Goodness of Fit (GFI = .930),

Comparative Fit (CFI = .960), and Tucker-Lewis (TLI = .942) Indices all larger than

0.90; and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA = .103) and Standardized

Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR = .083). Of note, one parameter modification was

made to this model, covarying the uniqueness between independence and decisiveness as

observed variables—the theory of which has been previous explained. This model is

depicted in Figure 7 below. The figure depicts factor loadings for each factor being

larger than 0.60, and Internal Self-Confidence having an overall effect of 0.70 on

External Self-Confidence. Overall, the model has adequate fit, and great interpretability.

Four types of models were examined when assessing all of the outcomes depicted

in the theoretical construct validation model—all of which depicted the outcomes as

observed, rather than latent, variables: (1) A model assessing the effect of Internal Self-

Confidence on all of the outcomes, (2) The same model, including recommended

parameter modifications with MI’s larger than 20, (3) The same model, including all

recommended parameter modifications based on MIs, and (4) A model including only the


121

outcomes which had factor loadings larger than 0.40, including recommended

modifications. As can be seen in Table 39 below, the model with the best fit statistics is

the one including all recommended parameter modifications, and again is the model in

which the Internal Self-Confidence factors are depicted as observed, as opposed to latent.

Because all of the outcomes are on the same nomological network, it makes sense that

their error variances are so highly related. This figure is depicted in Figure 8 below.

Overall, this model had excellent fit, and was the only SEM model in this study to exhibit

a non-significant Chi-square test statistic (X2 = 35.507, p = .079); Goodness of Fit (GFI =

.970), Comparative Fit (CFI = .993), and Tucker-Lewis (TLI = .985) Indices all larger

than 0.95; and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA = .046) and

Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR = .039) both under 0.80, as desired. In

this model, Internal Self-Confidence is shown to have a strong, positive 0.81 effect on

External Self-Confidence. Therefore, not only does including the other factors as

outcomes in the model improve the fit of the model as a whole, but also increases the

effect that the ISCS has on the ESCS.


122

Table 39. Study 5 Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Fit Statistics


123

Figure 7. Study 5 Best Fit SEM Model - External Self-Confidence as the Outcome

Figure 8. Study 5 Best Fit SEM Model - Multiple Theoretical Outcomes


124

Figure 9. Study 5 Structural Models – External Self-Confidence as the Outcome Note. The model with the best fit is the model is which the factors of both the ISCS and ESCS serve as observed variables, with ISC and ESC serving as latent variables.


125

Figure 10. Study 5 Structural Models - Multiple Theoretical Outcomes Note. The model with the best fit is the one in which internal self-confidence factors are displayed as observed variables, and the model uses all parameter modifications.


126

Discussion

It was hypothesized that Internal Self-Confidence would show moderate

relationships with the measures representing correlates—neuroticism/affectivity

(negatively), locus of control (negatively), and optimism (positively). It was also

hypothesized that moderate relationships would be exhibited with the outcomes related to

taking risks in yourself (general risk propensity and achievement motives), as well as

confidence cues/outcomes (external self-confidence, decision-making, independence,

shyness/sociability, and problem-solving confidence). These hypotheses were supported.

External Self-Confidence was also expected to correlate moderately with the other

measures representing confidence cues/outcomes in the model. All of these relationships

were expected to be positive, except for all of the measure’s correlations with shyness,

which were expected to be negative. These hypotheses were also supported.

In this study, men scored marginally higher than women in both the Internal and

External Self-Confidence Scales, as well as in the subscales, and a majority of the

items—with a few exceptions. However, the only significant difference was found in

decisiveness, where men reported significantly more decisiveness than women. This was

despite the non-significant relationship between gender and Problem-Solving

Confidence. Further, women reported higher neuroticism, as well as fear of failure,

findings supported by Lang and Fries (2006) and Costa, Terracciano, and McCrae (2001).

In terms of the factorability assessed in this study, the exploratory factor analyses

reaffirmed the factor structure supported in Studies 3 and 4—that both the ISCS and


127

ESCS work well with their one-factor solutions, giving further support to assessing the

measures as unidimensional, as opposed to multidimensional. That being said, the

confirmatory factor analyses examined three models for each scale: (1) A one-factor

model, with all items loading onto one overarching latent construct, (2) A first-order

model, with items loading onto their respective dimensions, with dimensions covarying,

and (3) A second-order hierarchical model, with items loading onto their respective

dimensions, and each dimension loading onto their second-order latent construct. The

Internal Self-Confidence Scale exhibited the best fit with the parceled version of Model

3, supporting the notion that Internal Self-Confidence is a second-order hierarchical

construct, with three factors, as depicted in the Integrated Model of Self-Confidence,

which justifies looking at the scale as a unidimensional, as opposed to multidimensional,

measure. The External Self-Confidence Scale, on the other hand, exhibited the best fit

with the modified, parceled version of Model 1—the one-factor model. Because there

were already only two items per dimension, however, this is tantamount to External Self-

Confidence being represented as a first-order latent factor, with each of the six

dimensions being considered parceled observed variables. This also supports the use of

the External Self-Confidence Scale as a unidimensional whole, and not picking or

choosing dimensions out of it.

The structural equation modeling supported External Self-Confidence as an

outcome of Internal Self-Confidence. However, the fit was improved with the addition of

other outcomes such as General Risk Propensity, Achievement Motives, Independence,


128

Shyness and Sociability, and Problem-Solving Confidence, supporting the construct

validity of both scales.

Overall, this study supported the construct validity and unidimensional factor

structures of both the Internal and External Self-Confidence Scales. It is highly

recommended that these scales be used as a whole in order to represent the latent

structure, and not pick and choose dimensions from either scale to assess on their own.

This study also provides theoretical support to the Integrated Model of Self-Confidence

through the confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling using both

self-confidence scales.


129

Study 6: Criterion Validation Predictive & Criterion Validation for Career Success

One area that will particularly benefit from theoretical and operational advances

in self-confidence research is business and organizational dynamics (Hollenbeck & Hall,

2004). For example, literature in the business and leadership disciplines have linked self-

confidence to such outcomes as risk-taking and initiative (Bierema, 1994; Bukszar, 2003;

Ghosh & Ray, 1997; House & Aditya, 1997; Pratch, 2011; Shipman & Mumford, 2011),

career success and progression (Aycan, 2004; Bierema, 1994; Clarke, 2011; Emerson,

1998; Evans, 2010; Gadiesh & Coffman, 2015; Goldsmith, 2009; Pratch, 2011; White et

al., 1981), and job performance and effectiveness (Baldoni, 2009; Goldsmith, 2009;

Hannah et al., 2008; Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004; House & Aditya, 1997; Ireland et al.,

1992; Judge et al., 2002; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Knippen & Green, 1989; Schyns &

Sczesny, 2010; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1992).

It is a common assertion in such literature that more self-confident employees

take more risks, and that it is this increased risk-taking that encourages taking the action

necessary to be an effective worker, which undoubtedly benefits one’s career success.

For example, Hollenbeck and Hall (2004) describe a “Self-Confidence Development

Cycle,” in which an individual takes a measured risk towards meeting an important goal,

and upon success, becomes more confident in their abilities toward meeting similar goals.

They subsequently set higher and higher goals, become more and more confident, and so

on, establishing a positive upward spiral in career attitudes. However, this positive self-


130

reinforcing cycle rests upon the assumption that employees will not drastically spiral

downwards in the face of mistakes or failures. They must also be able to push forward in

cases where they may anticipate risk, and be able to cope and pick themselves up again

after failure or mistakes in order for this positive upward spiral in career attitudes to

work. Without a commonly accepted measure of self-confidence, the self-confidence

development cycle theory, and its corollary downward spiral have not yet been

empirically tested.

While self-confidence is important in the workplace, the literature suggests a

“Confidence Gap” in which women report less self-confidence than men. This research

has consistently shown that women, in comparison with men, tend to underestimate their

abilities and performance by predicting they will do worse on tests and other endeavors

(Ehrlinger & Dunning, 2003; Lundeberg et al., 1994; Pallier, 2003; Preckel & Freund,

2005), and do not consider themselves as ready for promotions as men (Kay & Shipman,

2014). In reality, men and women have very similar abilities and task performance levels

(Ehrlinger & Dunning, 2003; Lundeberg et al., 1994; Pallier, 2003; Preckel & Freund,

2005). When women underestimate their abilities, do not consider themselves as ready

for promotions, and predict less effective performance, they are impeding their own

career advancement. For example, a 2011 study conducted by Europe’s Institute of

Leadership and Management found that women leaders report lower career confidence

and higher self-doubt about their career performance, and this appeared to direct

women’s more cautious approach toward applying for promotions and less ambitious


131

expectations for their career paths (Ambition and gender at work, 2011; Flynn, Heath, &

Holt, 2011). These results were replicated by a recent study by Bain & Co., finding for

that women leaders, their aspirations and confidence in reaching the top plummet after a

few years in leadership—especially compared to the confidence and aspirations of men

(Gadiesh & Coffman, 2015). Further, in his interview of French women in leadership,

Evans (2010) revealed that self-confidence was one of the major barriers cited as

preventing women from ascending in leadership hierarchies. The more cautious

approach towards career advancement and less ambitious expectations towards career

paths disadvantages women applying for more challenging positions and climbing

organizational hierarchies.

Another mechanism through which self-confidence increases workplace

effectiveness and career success is through convincing others that you are capable and

competent to do the job in which they have hired you to do. Not only must you push

forward and take the risks and action necessary to meet higher and higher goals, but you

must also be able to project to others that you are capable of meeting those goals.

Therefore, physical and behavioral confidence cues should play a similarly large role in

career success as risk-taking and taking action, as described in the Integrated Model of

Self-Confidence. However, this can have negative implications for women in the

workplace, as behaviors, gestures, or other cues that suggest self-confidence in men are

often seen as undesirable or abrasive when exhibited by women—especially in more

masculine leadership roles (Ibara, Ely, & Kolb, 2013).


132

This is an assertion that is backed by Eagly and Karau’s (2002) Role Congruity

Theory, which proposes that women in leadership and more masculine positions face a

“double-bind” between the communal traits expected of them as women, and the agentic

traits expected of them as leaders. Women who are perceived as “too communal” are

perceived as socially acceptable women, but ineffective leaders. On the other hand,

women who are perceived as “too agentic” are perceived as effective leaders, but not

socially acceptable women, meaning that they are often deemed as “unlikable” or

“inauthentic”. While leaders are expected to be self-confident in navigating patriarchal

organizational cultures (Bierema, 1994), and to exhibit the confidence cues that invoke

perceptions of their own competence and influence, women may be penalized in

perceptions of leadership effectiveness if they exhibit too many of these cues (Ibara et al.,

2013). This “double-bind” in appearing too confident to be feminine versus not feeling

confident enough to effectively lead is particularly disadvantageous to women in more

masculine or leadership roles.

The “Confidence Gap” faced by women could very well explain the gap faced by

women in terms of higher-level leadership positions (Chusmir & Koberg, 1991; Chusmir

& Koberg, 1992), promotions (Brown & Ridge, 2002; Eddleston et al., 2004), career

opportunities (Catalyst, 2015a; Catalyst, 2015b; Fairchild, 2014), and salary (Pay Equity

& Discrimination, 2013; Santos-Pinto, 2012). If this is the case, an organizationally-

focused measure of self-confidence (both Internal Self-Confidence and External Self-

Confidence) is needed to level the playing field. For example, science will be able to


133

assess the merit of organizations providing access to various developmental opportunities

on self-confidence, as well as the attitudinal and behavioral outcomes of self-confidence.

It is a common assertion that organizational support in development can increase the self-

confidence of women in the workplace (Ambition and gender at work, 2011; Clarke,

2011), but the literature still needs to know which investments organizations should make

to optimally increase the self-confidence of their employees. Until such a measure is

developed, science will be ill-prepared to study the barriers that women face in the

“labyrinth” towards senior-level and executive positions, and therefore ill-prepared to

address and remedy the underrepresentation of women in upper managerial and executive

leadership positions.

The study of the barriers to self-confidence will aid organizations in

understanding and remedying the individual-, organizational-, and social-level barriers

faced by today’s working women. Organizations aiding in reducing individual barriers to

advancement (such as lack of internally- or externally-perceived self-confidence) through

removing organizational barriers (such as access to developmental opportunities and

equal rates of promotions) will be paving the way to reducing societal barriers that

women face in advancing in all organizations—especially those in leadership positions.

The purpose of Study 6 is to validate the final version of both the Internal and

External Self-Confidence Scales among a working population, as well as to validate the

Integrated Model of Self-Confidence, as seen in Figure 11 below. Understanding the


134

antecedents and outcomes of self-confidence in workplace contexts will be another step

toward establishing the predictive validity of both measures in organizational settings.

Figure 11 presents a career-specific version of the Integrated Model of Self-

Confidence. In this hypothesized model, internal perceptions of self-confidence

encourage taking risks in yourself (depending on the perceived risk of the situation).

These internal perceptions also manifest in other physical or behavior “confidence cues”

which demonstrate one’s competence to others. It is hypothesized that both taking risks

in yourself and in your career, as well as appearing confident and competent to others in

your organization (especially supervisors), will increase one’s objective (i.e., promotions,

salary, and tenure) and subjective (i.e., satisfaction with job, career, and life) career

success.

Figure 11. Criterion Validation Model


135

The hypothesized criterion validation model in Figure 11 also presents five

possible career-related antecedents to Internal Self-Confidence—antecedents which can

be spurred by organizations wishing to boost the self-confidence of their key workers—

both male and female. These possible antecedents, which are hypothesized to have

beneficial effects on individual levels of self-confidence, include: networking

opportunities, mentoring relationships, development programs, developmental

assignments, and support for development and career advancement.

Networking Opportunities

Networking with others—both within and outside of one’s organization—is an

essential component of the social capital required to succeed in one’s career (Eagly &

Carli, 2007). “Networking refers to building and maintaining personal contacts in order

to obtain resources that, in turn, enhance one’s career success and work performance”

(Wolff, Schneider-Rahm, & Forret, 2011, p. 244). Examples include going out with

others to lunches or for drinks, going to conferences or professional events, keeping in

contact with former colleagues, or participating in community projects or work-related

athletic activities. Wolff et al. (2011) describes networking relationships as having four

main characteristics—they are (1) work-related, (2) informal (as opposed to formal), (3)

cooperative (as opposed to competitive), and (4) rely on a reciprocal exchange of favors.

They further distinguish between two facets: (1) A structural facet, which differentiates

between internal (contacts within one’s own organization) vs. external (contacts outside


136

one’s organization—including clients and suppliers) networking; and (2) A functional

facet, which differentiates between process components of building, maintaining, and

using contacts. The literature has cited many outcomes to the different facets of

networking behaviors, including work performance and career success (Lyness &

Thompson, 2000; Wolff & Moser, 2009; Wolff et al., 2011), access to job opportunities,

promotions, and rate of advancement (Clarke, 2011; Eagly & Carli, 2007; Forret &

Dougherty, 2001; Forret & Dougherty, 2004; Hopkins, O’Neil, Passarelli, & Bilimoria,

2008; Lyness & Thompson, 2000), income and salary growth (Forret & Dougherty, 2001;

Forret & Dougherty, 2004; Wolff & Moser, 2009), and perceived career success and

career satisfaction (Clarke, 2011; Forret & Dougherty, 2004; Wolff & Moser, 2009). It is

expected that having access to networking opportunities will also increase the Internal

Self-Confidence of employees through providing opportunities to succeed in social

settings (a type of social self-efficacy), making them feel more valued and important in

their social networks (enhancing self-esteem), and by allowing them to hear how their

peers have overcome mistakes or failures, and realize that they can too (enhancing self-

compassion).

Mentoring Relationships

Mentoring relationships between a protégé and a mentor of a higher

organizational status are another type of social capital, which are also essential to career

guidance and success. Kram’s (1985) taxonomy of mentorship functions has been


137

persistently cited in the literature (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz & Lima, 2004; Ann, 2005;

Betts & Pepe, 2005; Chao et al., 1992; Dreher & Cox, 1996; Ehrich, 2008; Higgins,

2000; Joiner, Bartram & Garreffa, 2004; Raabe & Beehr, 2003; Ragins & Cotton, 1999;

Rich, 2013). Kram (1985) states that mentoring plays a critical role in career

development by providing both career and psychosocial support. Career functions

include sponsoring promotions and other moves, increasing visibility and exposure to

higher-levels, coaching, protecting from adversity, and providing opportunities and

support for challenging assignments. Psychosocial functions, on the other hand, include

providing role modeling, friendship, acceptance, confirmation, and counseling to

protégés. Survey research has shown that participation in mentoring relationships has

been shown to have many positive outcomes for the protégé—both affective and more

tangible. These include increased self-confidence and competence, increased job

satisfaction, commitment, perceptions of organizational support, and employee retention,

as well as increased rates of promotions and of salaries (Allen et al., 2004; Ann, 2005;

Betts & Pepe, 2005; Chao et al., 1992; Dreher & Cox, 1996; Eagly & Carli, 2007; Foster

et al., 2011; Higgins, 2000; Joiner et al., 2004; Kim, 2007; Kraimer et al., 2011; Raabe &

Beehr, 2003; Ragins & Cotton, 1999; Rich, 2013; Valerio, 2009). It is expected that

having access to mentorships will also increase the Internal Self-Confidence of

employees through increasing the opportunities for success in challenging new

assignments, responsibilities, or roles (enhancing self-efficacy), making them feel worthy


138

and valued by their mentors (enhancing self-esteem), and providing support and

acceptance through failures or mistakes (enhancing self-compassion).

Development Programs

Development programs are an essential component to developing the skills,

abilities, and confidence of employees in the workplace. McAlearney and Butler (2008)

define these programs as educational interventions which address and improve

capabilities and effectiveness. In leadership positions, for example, “development

programs provide an important avenue through which both new and established leaders

can receive education and training to meet their ongoing developmental needs”

(McAlearney & Butler, 2008, p. 320). Some exemplars of developmental programs

include leadership (or global leadership) development, skills-based training, intensive or

360-degree feedback, women’s-only development or support, and high-potential

programs. Development programs such as these can also serve as a signal that

organizations support and value the contributions of their employees, and are willing to

invest in their development and career aspirations. This can, in turn, increase the self-

confidence of employees in the workplace, as well as their work commitment and

motivation (Clarke, 2011). Development programs can also assist in developing

relationships and social networks (Clarke, 2011; Ely, Ibarra, & Kolb, 2011), increasing

rates of career advancement and career opportunities (Clarke, 2011; Kraimer et al., 2011),

and reducing turnover (Dries & De Gieter, 2014; McAlearney & Butler, 2008). It is


139

expected that having access to development programs will also increase the Internal Self-

Confidence of employees through providing opportunities for gains in knowledge and

competence through training and education (enhancing self-efficacy), signaling to them

that they are valued by their organizations and worthy of their investment (enhancing

self-esteem), and by giving them the opportunity to overcome failures or mistakes in a

safe, developmental environment (enhancing self-compassion).

Developmental Assignments

Many researchers state that developmental job assignments are one of the most, if

not the most, effective methods to facilitate learning and success, and are essential for

accessing promotions (Brutus et al., 2000; Connerley et al., 2008; Lyness & Thompson,

2000; McCauley et al., 1995; Ohlott et al., 1994; Valerio, 2009). These developmental,

or “stretch”, assignments should be challenging, risky, non-routine, highly visible, and

grant some degree of authority over others. Examples include line, rotational, or

international assignments, as well as serving on a board or taskforce. When one is

assigned to a line position in a manufacturing plant, or to rotate positions within the

organization, they are “stretching” themselves and their abilities, and developing by

learning and doing something new. When employees have the opportunity to take action

and succeed on vital developmental assignments such as these, they are given the chance

to expand their abilities and contribute in a valuable way to their organization. And

according to the qualitative literature, this can lead to increased confidence, job


140

satisfaction, career advancement, and employee retention (Brutus et al., 2000; Cianni &

Romberger, 1995; Hopkins et al., 2008; Kilian et al., 2005; McCauley et al., 1995;

Valerio, 2009). In fact, McCauley et al.’s (1995) qualitative study of approximately

1,100 managers found that new developmental positions were strongly related with the

learning of self-confidence, which can have profound implications, especially for women.

It is expected that having access to developmental assignments will also increase the

Internal Self-Confidence of employees through providing opportunities to succeed at

new, highly challenging tasks or roles (enhancing self-efficacy), signaling to them that

they are valued by their organizations and worthy of taking on more risky or visible

assignments (enhancing self-esteem), and giving them the opportunity to bounce back in

the face failures or mistakes in a safe, developmental setting (enhancing self-

compassion).

Support for Development & Career Advancement

Networking opportunities, mentoring relationships, development programs, and

developmental assignments are all tools that organizations can provide to increase not

only the self-confidence of their workers, but also to signal that they are willing to

support and invest in their employees. Perceptions that one’s organization provides both

support for their development, as well as opportunities for career advancement, are

essential to signaling that an organization is committed to one’s career success and well-

being. Kraimer, Seibert, Wayne, Liden, and Bravo (2011) define organizational support


141

for development (OSD) as “the employees’ perceptions that the organization provides

programs and opportunities that support employee development” and perceived career

opportunity (PCO) as “employees’ belief that jobs or positions that match their career

goals and interests exist within the organization” (p. 486). In their research, Kraimer et

al. (2011) found that PCO moderates the relationship between OSD and turnover, in that

when an organization provides support for development (OSD), it only reduces turnover

intentions when it is followed with opportunities to advance their careers (PCO).

Without such opportunities, employees are likely to take what they learned and apply it

somewhere which does grant opportunities for career advancement—taking their

mobility capital elsewhere. The authors further found that OSD and PCO were

significantly related to job performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and

perceived organizational support (Kraimer et al., 2011). It is expected that providing

support for development and career opportunities will also increase the Internal Self-

Confidence of employees through providing opportunities for gains in knowledge and

competence through training and education (enhancing self-efficacy), signaling to them

that they are valued by their organizations and worthy of their investment (enhancing

self-esteem), and by giving them the opportunity to overcome failures or mistakes in a

safe, developmental setting (enhancing self-compassion).


142

Methods

As part of a larger study, a group of subject matter experts (SMEs) in women in

leadership developed a survey comprised of both SME-crafted items and validated

measures. The purpose of this survey was to explore the individual-, organizational-, and

social-level barriers that women face in advancing in organizational hierarchies. The

subset of items and measures that will be used for this study are aligned with Figure 11

above, and explore the antecedents and outcomes of one individual-level barrier to the

advancement of women in the workplace—the “Confidence Gap”—or both Internal and

External Self-Confidence.

Measures. In addition to the Internal and External Self-Confidence Scales used

in Study 5 (see Appendices C and D), the following concepts were assessed for this last

study:

Networking Opportunities. Networking opportunities was assessed using 16

items drawn from both the Multidimensional Networking Scale (Wolff, Schneider-Rahm,

& Forret, 2011), as well as the Networking Behavior Scale (Forret & Dougherty, 2001).

A group of subject matter experts (SMEs) on the Women’s Leadership Research Team

discussed each item in its relation to networking as a potential barrier to women

advancing in organizational hierarchies. In Wolff et al.’s (2011) Multidimensional

Networking Scale, of the 44 items in the original measure, three items were retained (and

slightly reworded) from the Internal Networking subscale, and three items were retained

from the External Networking subscale. Participants rate the extent to which they display


143

given behavior patterns on a 4-point scale. Sample items include “At company events or

outings I approach colleagues I haven’t met before” (internal contacts subscale) and “For

business purposes I keep in contact with former colleagues” (external contacts subscale)

(Wolff et al., 2011).

In Forret and Dougherty’s (2001) Networking Behavior Scale, of the 28 original

items, four items were retained from the Maintaining Contacts subscale, three from the

Socializing subscale, and three from the Engaging in Professional Activities subscale.

SMEs also slightly reworded the items to better fit in the survey. Participants rate the

extent to which they display given behaviors on a 6-point scale. Sample items include

“given business contacts a phone call or email to keep in touch” (maintaining contacts

subscale) and “participated in social gatherings with people from work” (socializing

subscale) (Forret & Dougherty, 2001). Participants were also asked on a 5-point

agreement scale if they have participated in networking opportunities provided by their

organization, if they are satisfied with them, and if they believe these opportunities have

been important to their overall career progression.

Mentoring Relationships. Mentoring relationships was assessed using 10 items

drawn from Dreher and Ash’s (1990) Career Mentoring Scale—originally 18 items. The

same group of SMEs discussed each item in the larger measure in its relation to

mentoring as a potential barrier to women advancing in organizations, and slightly

reworded some items to better fit the survey. Participants rate the extent to which a

mentor or direct supervisor has displayed given behaviors on a 5-point scale. Sample


144

items include “To what extent has a mentor encouraged you to prepare for advancement”

and “To what extent has a mentor served as a role model” (Dreher & Ash, 1990).

Participants were also asked on a 5-point agreement scale if they have ever participated in

a mentoring relationship, if they have participated in one provided by their organization,

if they are satisfied with the mentoring they have received, and if mentoring has been

important to their overall career progression.

Development Programs. Kraimer, Seibert, Wayne, Liden, and Bravo’s (2011)

Participation in Formal Developmental Activities Scale was used to measure access to

developmental programs. Participants were asked to indicate on a 5-point scale the

extent to which they have participated in six career development activities: training to

develop technical skills, training to develop managerial skills, career planning

workshops, education courses that qualify for tuition reimbursement, job rotations into

different divisions, and job rotations into different functional areas. Participants were

also asked on a 5-point agreement scale the extent to which they have participated in

development programs provided by their organizations, their level of satisfaction in these

programs, and the extent to which these programs have been important to their overall

career progression.

Developmental Assignments. Developmental, or “stretch” assignments, was

assessed by asking participants on a 5-point agreement scale if they have participated in

assignments that have contributed to their professional development, or assignments


145

which grant high visibility. Participants were also asked whether they are satisfied with

these assignments, and whether they have been important to their career progression.

Support for Development & Career Advancement. Kraimer et al.’s (2011)

Organizational Support for Development (OSD) & Perceived Career Opportunities

(PCO) Scales were used to assess the extent to which organizations support their

employee’s development, and that those employees perceive access to career

opportunities. Participants are asked to respond to nine items on a 7-point agreement

scale—six items for OSD (α = 0.89) and three for PCO (α = 0.89) (Kraimer et al., 2011).

Sample items include “My organization provides opportunities for employees to develop

their managerial skills” (OSD subscale) and “My company offers many job opportunities

that match my career goals” (PCO subscale) (Kraimer et al., 2011).

Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction was assessed with Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins,

and Klesh’s (1983) 3-item Overall Job Satisfaction Scale. Participants are asked to

indicate on a 7-point agreement scale the extent to which they like and are satisfied with

their current jobs. The three items have good internal consistency reliability with α =

0.84 (Cammann et al., 1983). Sample items include “All in all, I am satisfied with my

job” and “In general, I like working here” (Cammann et al., 1983).

Career Satisfaction. Career satisfaction was assessed with Greenhaus,

Parasuraman, and Wormley’s (1990) 5-item Career Satisfaction Scale. Participants are

asked to indicate in a 5-point agreement scale the extent to which they are satisfied with

the success or progress they have made in various aspects of their career. The five items


146

have good internal consistency reliability with α = 0.88 (Greenhaus et al., 1990). Sample

items include “I am satisfied with the success I have achieved in my career” and “I am

satisfied with the progress I have made toward meeting my goals for advancement”

(Greenhaus et al., 1990).

Turnover intentions. Turnover intentions were assessed using Jaros’ (1997) 3-

item Turnover Intentions Scale. Participants were asked to indicate on a 5-point scale

about their desire as employees to continue as a member of their current organization.

The three items have fair internal consistency – exceeding .80 in all samples.

“Respondents were asked how often they think about quitting their organization, how

likely it was that they would search for a position with another employer, and how likely

it was that they would leave the organization in the next year” (Jaros, 1997, p. 325).

Workplace status. Workplace status, as part of subjective career success, was

assessed using Djurdjevic, Stoverink, Klotz, Koopman, Yam, and Chiang’s (2017)

Workplace Status Scale—or “an employee’s relative standing in an organization, as

characterized by the respect, prominence, and prestige he or she possesses in the eyes of

other organizational members” (p. 2). The scale consists of five items on a 7-point Likert

scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Sample items include “I

have a great deal of prestige in my organization” and “I possess high status in my

organization.” Reliability estimates were adequate, ranging from α = 0.89-0.96.

Life Satisfaction. Life satisfaction was assessed with Diener, Emmons, Larsen,

and Griffin’s (1985) 5-item Satisfaction with Life Scale. Participants are asked to


147

indicate on a 7-point scale the extent to which general conditions in their life are

satisfactory. The five items have adequate internal consistency reliability with α = 0.87

(Diener et al., 1985). Sample items include “In most ways my life is close to my ideal”

and “I am satisfied with my life” (Diener et al., 1985).

Objective Career Success. Objective career success was assessed by asking

participants to indicate their annual salary ($0-$30k, $31k-$60k, $60k-$100k, or

$100k+), the number of vertical job movements (i.e., movements which increase status,

pay, and/or title - climbing the latter) and lateral job movements (i.e., movements which

maintain similar status and/or pay, but that expand your skills/abilities to broaden your

career - expanding the lattice) that they have had in the last five years, and their tenure

(in years)—for job role, organizational, and industry. Participants were also asked to rate

their own leadership effectiveness on a 7-point effectiveness scale. Participants were also

asked to indicate the stage of career in which they are currently in: (1) Exploration Stage:

narrowing your career choices, deciding what type of work to pursue, and planning your

career goals; (2) Establishment Stage: settling into your job, becoming more comfortable

and secure, and focusing on promotions and advancement; (3) Maintenance Stage:

focusing on keeping your current job, attaining the most current job skills, and

maximizing job performance; or (4) Disengagement Stage: slowing down and beginning

to consider or plan for retirement.

Sample. The survey was completed by Turk Prime workers, restricted to those

who reside in the United States, and who are employees at an organization or business.


148

The final sample consisted of 127 participants who were mostly male (57.5%), White

(77.2%), and on average in their mid-30’s. Participants were well educated, with 0.8%

having less than a high school degree or equivalent, 7.1% having a high school degree or

equivalent, 15.7% having some college; 14.2% an Associate degree, 47.2% a Bachelor’s

degree, 13.4% a Master’s degree, and 1.6% a Professional degree. Further, 15.0% of

participants indicated that they were in the exploration stage of their career, 37.8% in

establishment, 43.3% maintenance, and 3.9% disengagement. Please see Table 40 below

for a full breakdown of annual salary, education, and career stage frequencies by gender.

While 202 participants completed the first part of the survey, only 127 (or about 62.87%)

took the second half of the survey—this was between 10-29 days later, with an average of

19.42 days between surveys (SD = 3.35 days).

Table 40. Study 6 Demographics

Male Female Total

Annual Salary

Less than $30k 10% 17% 27% $31k-$60k 33% 19% 52% $61k-$100k 10% 5% 15% More than $100k 5% 1% 6%

Education

Some high school or equivalent 0% 1% 1% High school graduate or equivalent 5% 2% 7% Some college 8% 8% 16% Associate Degree 5% 9% 14% Bachelor's Degree 28% 19% 47% Master's Degree 10% 3% 13% Professional Degree 1% 1% 2%

Career Stage

Exploration Stage 10% 5% 15% Establishment Stage 24% 14% 38% Maintenance Stage 23% 20% 43% Disengagement Stage 1% 3% 4%


149

Analysis. Quality checks were considered in the cleaning of the data and

elimination of participant responses from the dataset. Participants taking either survey in

less than two minutes were removed from the dataset, as well as those failing more than 1

of the 6 attention checks. All negatively-worded items were reversed-coded, and all

variables were labeled appropriately in SPSS for ease of reading. Participants responding

“N/A” to particular questions concerning developmental opportunities were coded as

missing data. SPSS was used to assess descriptives and correlation analysis. Further,

CFA was be used to reassess the measurement models for the Internal and External Self-

Confidence Scales, and SEM (using AMOS) was used to test the hypothesized criterion

validation model presented in Figure 11 above, as well as the relationship between

Internal Self-Confidence and External Self-Confidence for employees in the workplace.

Missing data in AMOS was addressed by using the Maximum Likelihood

Estimation (MLE) function (and by estimating means and intercepts). MLE procedures

are commonly recommended for SEM over such procedures as listwise or pairwise

deletion, or multiple imputation (Allison, 2003; Arbuckle, 2017; Johnson & Young,

2011; Newman, 2003; and Shin, Davison, & Long, 2017). They work by conducting “an

incremental search for optimal parameter estimates. In the likelihood formulas, candidate

parameter estimates are repeatedly replaced, and for each replacement, the likelihood (or

log-likelihood) value is computed using the sample data. The process terminates when

the particular constellation of parameter estimates are found that maximize the (log)

likelihood and, thus, the best fit to the data” (Shin et al., 2017, p. 428).


150

Results

Reliability Analysis. Both the Internal and External Self-Confidence Scales were

again found to be highly reliable measures. The Internal Self-Confidence Scale had a

Cronbach’s Alpha of .937 and Intraclass Correlation Coefficient of .552** over 12 items,

while the External Self-Confidence Scale had a Cronbach’s Alpha of .913 and Intraclass

Correlation Coefficient of .466** over 12 items.

Descriptives and Correlation Analysis. Correlation analysis was used to test the

direct relationships between the variables presented in the proposed criterion validation

model in Figure 11. Table 42 presents the full correlation matrix, while Table 41

presents the correlations with only the Internal and External Self-Confidence Scales,

including gender comparisons of correlation coefficients. Further, Table 43 compares the

means of all relevant variables in the study based on gender descriptives, and Table 44

gives a full description of the single items used into tap into each of the developmental

opportunities discussed in this study. Of note, none of the single items used to assess

developmental opportunities had a significant gender differences in terms of mean

comparisons.

The relationship between Internal and External Self-Confidence was strong and

significant (r = .592**), and was largely stronger for women (r = .651**, N = 54) than for

men (r = .544**; N = 73), although the difference between correlation coefficients was

non-significant (z = 0.91; p = 0.363). Of note, there were no significant gender


151

differences in the Internal Self-Confidence Scale, the External Self-Confidence Scale, nor

any of their underlying factors. Men displayed marginally higher levels of Internal Self-

Confidence and all of the underlying factors, while women displayed marginally higher

levels of External Self-Confidence, and in taking action, verbal and non-verbal

communication, and independence. Men showed marginally higher scores in terms of

affectivity (similar to emotional stability in this case), and decisiveness. Although again,

none of the mean differences were significant.

Networking Opportunities. Wolff et al.’s (2011) networking items was

significantly correlated to the ISCS (r = .255**), as well as the ESCS (r = .201**). The

items used to assess Networking Behavior derived from Forret and Dougherty’s (2001)

scale had no significant relationship with either the ISCS and the ESCS. Further, the

single items used to assess networking opportunities, were all highly correlated to the

ISCS (r = .348**, .334**, and .329**, respectively), and somewhat less correlated to the

ESCS (r = .331**, .195*, and .212*).

Mentoring Relationships. Mentoring, as an average of Dreher and Ash’s (1990)

Career Mentoring Scale (modified), had significant relationships with both the ISCS (r =

.341**) and the ESCS (r = .205*). In terms of the single items used to assess mentoring

relationships, it appears that the ISCS has a much stronger relationship (r = .253**,

.259**, and .091, respectively) than the ESCS (r = .104, .144, -.031).


152

Development Programs. Kraimer et al.’s (2011) Participation in Formal

Developmental Activities Scale asked participants to rate to extent to which they have

participated in six career development activities: training to develop technical skills,

training to develop managerial skills, career planning workshops, education courses that

qualify for tuition reimbursement, job rotations into different divisions, and job rotations

into different functional areas. Of these, none of the correlations with the ESCS proved

significant. In terms of the ISCS, only two of the items showed significant relationships:

training classes to develop managerial skills (r = .310**), and education courses that

qualified for tuition reimbursement (r = .217*). In terms of the single items used to

assess developmental programs (i.e., participation, satisfaction, and importance to career

success), the ESCS had no significant relationships to display, while all statements were

significantly related to the ISCS (r = .257**, .253**, and .309**, respectively).

Developmental Assignments. Participation in assignments beyond job duties that

contributed to professional development had a significant relationship with the ESCS (r =

.229*). However, that was the only significant relationship with the ESCS and the single

items for developmental assignments. The ISCS had significant relationships with

participation in high-visibility assignments (r = .283**), satisfaction with developmental

assignments (r = .244**), and importance of these assignments to career success (r =

.188*).


153

Support for Development & Career Advancement. Kraimer et al.’s (2011) OSD

and PCO Scales had significant relationships with the ISCS (r = .294** and .237**), but

not with the ESCS (r = .079 and .058).

Subjective Career Success. Cammann, et al.’s (1983) Overall Job Satisfaction

Scale had significant relationships with both the ISCS (r = .415**) and the ESCS (r =

.289**). Greenhaus, et al.’s (1990) Career Satisfaction Scale had significant a

relationship with the ISCS (r = .331**), but not the ESCS (r = .157). Diener, et al.’s

(1985) Satisfaction with Life Scale had significant relationships with both the ISCS (r =

.505**) and the ESCS (r = .345**). Jaros’ (1997) Turnover Intentions Scale had

significant and negative relationships with both the ISCS (r = -.357**) and the ESCS (r =

-.411**). And finally, Djurdjevic, et al.’s (2017) Workplace Status Scale had a

significant relationship with the ISCS (r = .257**), but not the ESCS (r = .131).

Objective Career Success. Neither vertical nor lateral job movements had

significant relationships with the ISCS (r = .118 and .064) nor the ESCS (r = .014 and -

.074). Annual salary had a small but significant relationship with the ISCS (r = .196*),

but not for the ESCS (r = .036). This pattern was only reflected in the female sample (r =

.291*), and not in the male sample (r = .092). Job, organizational, and industry tenure all

exhibited significant correlations with the ESCS (r = .179*, .253**, and .329**).

Industry tenure had a small but significant correlation with the ISCS (r = .227*), but not


154

job or organization tenure (r = .124 and .174). And finally, career stage had significant

relationships with both the ISCS (r = .248**) and the ESCS (r = .418**).

Table 41. Study 6 Correlation Coefficients – Gender Comparisons



155




156

Table 43. Study 6 Full Gender Mean Comparison

Table 44. Study 6 Analysis of Developmental Opportunities Single Items


157

Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Reaffirming confirmatory factor analyses using

maximum likelihood standardized estimation were run using SPSS Amos in order to

assess the factor structure and measurement models of both the Internal and External

Self-Confidence Scales. The models with the best fit for each scale were retested in this

section—using the same parceling techniques and model modifications as in Study 5.

In Study 5, the preferred measurement model of the ISCS was the one in which

Internal Self-Confidence served as a hierarchical second-order latent factor, with three

factors: self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-compassion. The preferred measurement

model of the ESCS was the one-factor model, in which each parcel (i.e., each of the six

dimensions) loaded onto a single factor of External Self-Confidence. The fit statistics are

displayed in Table 45 below. For the Internal Self-Confidence Scale, the Chi-Square test

statistic was fairly small (although still significant—X2 = 23.757**, df = 6), the CFI was

over .95 (CFI = .974), while the GFI (= .947) and TLI (= .935) were only approaching the

preferred value for those test statistics. The RMSEA was well over .08 (at RMSEA =

.153), but the RMR was well under .04 (at RMR = .034). This model still has adequate,

while not ideal, fit. The External Self-Confidence Scale, on the other hand, had a non-

significant Chi-squared value (X2 = 11.836, df = 8, p = .159), GFI (= .969), CFI (= .991),

and TLI (= .983) all well over .95, and a RMSEA (= .062) and RMR (= .062) under .08.

The ESCS model exhibited excellent fit. The path diagrams can be seen in Figure 12 and

Figure 13 below.


158

Table 45. Study 6 Measurement Model Fit Statistics

Internal Self-Confidence

External Self-Confidence

ML Test Statistic Degrees of Freedom P-value (Chi-Square)

23.757 6

.001

11.836 8

.159

Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)

.947

.974

.935

.969

.991

.983

RMSEA RMR

.153

.034 .062 .062

Figure 12. Study 6 ISCS Measurement Model


159

Figure 13. Study 6 ESCS Measurement Model

Structural Equation Modeling. Structural equation modeling was used to

reaffirm whether External Self-Confidence is indeed an outcome of Internal Self-

Confidence, as well as its relationships with the other antecedents and outcomes depicted

in the theoretical criterion validation model. Due to the small sample size collected for

this study, antecedents and outcomes were not all assessed in the same model. Assessing

models with a maximum of two outcomes per model allowed for a more ideal ratio of

parameters to sample size, and permitted for more accurate model estimation.


160

The analyses started off with an assessment of the outcomes which exhibited the

strongest fit within two types of models: (1) Models in which External Self-Confidence

had a partial mediating effect on the relationship between Internal Self-Confidence and

the other outcomes, and (2) Models in which Internal and External Self-Confidence had a

covarying effect with one another. Fit statistics for both types of models can be found in

Table 46, and their graphical depictions can be found in Figure 16. For the models in

which Internal and External Self-Confidence covaried, annual salary and career stage

were the outcomes which provided the strongest fit for the models, with organizational

tenure coming in at a close third. However, when organizational tenure and career stage

were considered in the same model, the fit improved (X2 = 71.08, p = .001, CFI = .963,

TLI = .947, RMSEA = .081). For the models in which External Self-Confidence had a

partial mediating effect on the relationship between Internal Self-Confidence and the

other outcomes in the proposed criterion validation model, the outcomes with the

strongest fit models were lateral job movements and career stage, with salary coming in

at a close third. However, when lateral job movements and career stage were considered

together, the model’s fit improved to an even greater extent (X2 = 9.60, p = .213, CFI =

.993, TLI = .985, RMSEA = .054). Clearly, the latter was the stronger fit of the two

types of models. This strongest fit outcome model is depicted in Figure 14. This model

depicts External Self-Confidence having a moderate, positive, partial mediating effect on

the relationship between Internal Self-Confidence and both lateral job movements and


161

career stage. In the case of the relationship between Internal Self-Confidence and career

stage, it appears that External Self-Confidence may have a full mediation effect.

After the assessment of the outcomes which fit best in the self-confidence model,

antecedents were considered individually for their fit within that best fit outcomes model.

Fit statistics for the addition of antecedents can be found in Table 47. While the single-

item antecedents discussed earlier, and several of the smaller measures, did not provide

the necessary parameters to be included in the model, the SEM program was able to run

Wolff et al.’s (2011) networking scale, Dreher and Ash’s (1990) mentoring scales, and

Kraimer et al.’s organizational support for development and perceived organizational

effectiveness scales as antecedents. While some of these models provided adequate fit

when being added onto the outcome model individually, the strongest model by far was

the one in which Dreher and Ash’s (1990) mentoring scale and Kraimer et al.’s (2011)

organizational support for development scale were assessed together. This model is

depicted in Figure 15 below, and has the best fit of any of the models in this study (X2 =

5.191, p = .393, CFI = .998, TLI = .994, RMSEA = .017). In this multiple mediation

model, mentoring relationships have a strong positive effect on perceptions of

organizational support for development—partially mediating its effect on Internal and

External Self-Confidence. Further, both Internal and External Self-Confidence act as

partial mediators in the relationship between mentoring and perceived organizational

support for development and both lateral job movements and career stage.


162

Table 46. Study 6 SEM Fit Statistics – Outcomes Only

Note. The strongest model in which the ESC has a partial mediation effect on the relationship between ISC and outcomes is the one in which both lateral job movements and career stage serve as the dependent variable. The strongest model in which ISC and ESC covary (as opposed to the ESC being a partial mediator) is the one in which organizational tenure has a partial mediation effect on the relationships between both ISC and ESC. The former has much stronger fit than the latter, and is the preferred model.

Table 47. Study 6 FIT Statistics - Antecedents

Antecedent(s) of Interest X2 df p CFI TLI RMSEA

Networking (Wolff) 13.724 4 .008 .889 .585 .139

Mentoring (Dreher) 3.715 3 .294 .992 .958 .043

OSD (Kraimer) 4.919 4 .296 .989 .958 .043

OSD & PCO 9.682 7 .207 .984 .951 .055

OSD & PCO ESC 7.119 5 .212 .987 .946 .058

MentorOSDESC 5.191 5 .393 .998 .994 .017


163

Figure 14. Study 6 Best Fit SEM Model – Outcomes Only

Figure 15. Study 6 Best Fit SEM Model – Full Model


164

Figure 16. Study 6 SEM Model Compilation – Outcomes Only


165

Supplementary Gender Analysis

Supplementary gender analysis, based on descriptives and correlations, were

assessed to provide additional validation evidence for the ISCS and ESCS. These

supplementary analyses were examined due to predictions that women have lower levels

of self-confidence than men, and receive less opportunities for development, as specified

in the theoretical criterion validation model. While the data provided by this research

thus so far has not supported significant gender differences in Internal nor External Self-

Confidence, perhaps men and women do have different relationships between self-

confidence and some of the antecedents and outcomes provided in the theoretical model.

Networking Opportunities. All items used to assess networking opportunities

were scored marginally higher by men than by women. Networking opportunities, as

assessed by Wolff et al.’s (2011) items, had significant gender differences among the

Internal Contact subscale (p = .01), but not in the External Contact subscale (p = .25).

Forret and Dougherty’s (2001) networking items also had a significant gender difference

(p = .01), although none of the single-items used (in terms of participation, satisfaction,

and importance to career success) had any significant gender differences. Wolff et al.’s

(2011) networking items was significantly correlated to the ISCS (r = .255**), as well as

the ESCS (r = .201**). Interestingly, while the same pattern held for the ISCS between

genders, the relationship between Wolff et al.’s (2011) scale and the ESCS was

significantly stronger for women (r = .413**) than for men (r = .050). The items used to

assess Networking Behavior derived from Forret and Dougherty’s (2001) scale had no


166

significant relationship with either the ISCS and the ESCS. Further, the single items used

to assess networking opportunities, were all highly correlated to the ISCS (r = .348**,

.334**, and .329**, respectively), and somewhat less correlated to the ESCS (r = .331**,

.195*, and .212*). All of these relationships were significant among the women in the

sample, while the case was not so with the males in the sample—especially in terms with

satisfaction with networking opportunities. It appears that the relationship between

satisfaction with networking opportunities and Internal and External Self-Confidence was

stronger for women than for men. Further, it appears that participation in networking

opportunities provided by their organization has a largely stronger relationship with

External Self-Confidence for women (r = .417**) than for men (r = .249*).

Mentoring Relationships. None of the variables used to measure mentoring

relationships exhibited any significant gender differences—while the items from Dreher

and Ash’s (1990) Career Mentoring Scale were scored slightly higher by women, and all

of the single items used to assess mentoring relationships (i.e. participation in,

satisfaction with, and importance to career success) were all scored marginally higher by

men. Further, mentoring, as an average of Dreher and Ash’s (1990) Career Mentoring

Scale (modified), had significant relationships with both the ISCS (r = .341**) and the

ESCS (r = .205*). Again, the relationship between mentoring and the ISCS held when

comparing genders, however, the relationship between mentoring and the ESCS was

significantly higher for women (r = .355**) than for men (r = .086). In terms of the

single items used to assess mentoring relationships, it appears that the ISCS had a much


167

stronger relationship (r = .253**, .259**, and .091, respectively) than the ESCS (r =

.104, .144, -.031). It is also notable how much stronger of a relationship exists between

these single-items and the ISCS for men (r = .380**, .444**, and .237) than for women (r

= .088, .136, .006).

Development Programs. None of the items used to assess developmental

programs had any significant gender differences, although men scored marginally higher

in each of Kraimer et al.’s (2011) activity items, and in satisfaction with developmental

opportunities offered by their organizations. Women, on the other hand, scored

marginally higher in reported participation in these programs, and in their perceived

importance of them to their career success. Kraimer et al.’s (2011) Participation in

Formal Developmental Activities Scale asked participants to rate to extent to which they

have participated in six career development activities: training to develop technical skills,

training to develop managerial skills, career planning workshops, education courses that

qualify for tuition reimbursement, job rotations into different divisions, and job rotations

into different functional areas. Of these, none of the correlations with the ESCS proved

significant. In terms of the ISCS, only two of the items showed significant relationships:

training classes to develop managerial skills (r = .310**), and education courses that

qualified for tuition reimbursement (r = .217*). When assessing the gender breakdown,

these significant relationships only remained so among women—it appears that the

relationship between these educational programs may have a significant effect on the

Internal Self-Confidence of women (r = .387** and .370*), but not of men (r = .226 and


168

.063). In terms of the single items used to assess developmental programs (i.e.,

participation, satisfaction, and importance to overall career success), the ESCS had no

significant relationships to display, while all statements were significantly related to the

ISCS (r = .257**, .253**, and .309**, respectively). The relationship between

participation in and satisfaction with developmental programs provided by their

organizations with both Internal and External Self-Confidence was somewhat stronger for

women (r = .285* and .296*) than for men (r = .236 and .198). On the other hand, the

importance of these programs to career success had a stronger relationship with the

Internal Self-Confidence of men (r = .402**) than for women (r = .229).

Developmental Assignments. There were no significant gender differences in

any of the single items used to assess developmental assignments. Participation in

assignments beyond job duties that contributed to professional development had a

significant relationship with the ESCS (r = .229*), and this was true for women (r =

.334*), but not for men (r = .132). However, that was the only significant relationship

with the ESCS and the single items for developmental assignments. The ISCS had

significant relationships with participation in high-visibility assignments (r = .283**),

satisfaction with developmental assignments (r = .244**), and importance of these

assignments to career success (r = .188*). There were not large gender differences in

these relationships.

Support for Development & Career Advancement. There were no significant

gender differences in either Organizational Support for Development (OSD) and


169

Perceived Career Opportunities (PCO). Kraimer et al.’s (2011) OSD and PCO Scales

had significant relationships with the ISCS (r = .294** and .237**), but not with the

ESCS (r = .079 and .058). Interestingly, the relationship between OSD/PCO and the

ISCS was somewhat higher for men (r = .310** and .421**) than for women (r = .290*

and .040).

Job Satisfaction. There was no significant difference in job satisfaction between

genders, although men scored marginally higher. Cammann, et al.’s (1983) Overall Job

Satisfaction Scale had significant relationships with both the ISCS (r = .415**) and the

ESCS (r = .289**). This relationship was somewhat stronger for men (r = .445** and

.331**) than for women (r = .399** and .242). It appears that both Internal and External

Self-Confidence has stronger relationships with job satisfaction for men than for women.

Career Satisfaction. There were so significant gender differences in career

satisfaction, although men scored marginally higher. Greenhaus, et al.’s (1990) Career

Satisfaction Scale had a significant relationship with the ISCS (r = .331**), but not the

ESCS (r = .157). This pattern held consistent in the gender comparison.

Life Satisfaction. There were no significant gender differences in life satisfaction,

although men scored marginally higher. Diener, et al.’s (1985) Satisfaction with Life

Scale had significant relationships with both the ISCS (r = .505**) and the ESCS (r =

.345**). This relationship was markedly stronger for women (r = .578** and .433**)

than for men (r = .427** and .277*). It appears both Internal and External Self-

Confidence may have stronger effects on the life satisfaction of women than of men.


170

Turnover intentions. There were no significant gender differences in turnover

intentions, although men scored marginally higher. Jaros’ (1997) Turnover Intentions

Scale had significant and negative relationships with both the ISCS (r = -.357**) and the

ESCS (r = -.411**). This pattern held consistent in the gender comparison, although the

relationship between turnover intentions and External Self-Confidence was markedly

higher for men (r = -.507**) than for women (r = -.307*).

Workplace status. There were no significant gender differences in workplace

status, although men scored marginally higher. Djurdjevic, et al.’s (2017) Workplace

Status Scale had a significant relationship with the ISCS (r = .257**), but not the ESCS

(r = .131). This pattern held consistent in the gender comparison.

Objective Career Success. Neither vertical nor lateral job movements had

significant gender differences, nor relationships with the ISCS nor the ESCS—a pattern

which held between genders. There was a significant gender difference in salary, with

men scoring significantly higher than women (p = .002). Annual salary had a small but

significant relationship with the ISCS (r = .196*), but not for the ESCS (r = .036). This

pattern was only reflected in the female sample (r = .291*), and not in the male sample (r

= .092). Job, organizational, and industry tenure all exhibited non-significant gender

differences, although women scored marginally higher in all three. All levels of tenure

exhibited significant correlations with the ESCS (r = .179*, .253**, and .329**), which

held consistent for industry tenure in the gender comparisons, but not in job nor

organizational tenure. The relationships between the ESCS and job and organizational


171

tenure were relatively higher for women (r = .237 and .344*) than for men (r = .094 and

.172). The only significant relationship with the ISCS was for industry tenure (r =

.227*). The pattern for job and organizational tenure remained consistent. However, it

appears the relationship between industry tenure and Internal Self-Confidence was much

stronger for women (r = .305**) than for men (r = .172). And finally, women indicated

higher levels of career stage than did men (p = .05). Career stage had significant

relationships with both the ISCS (r = .248**) and the ESCS (r = .418**). The

relationships between career stage and both Internal and External Self-Confidence were

much stronger for women (r = .379** and .451**) than for men (r = .159 and .386**),

especially in terms of Internal Self-Confidence. While not displayed in the table, this was

also the case for age. The relationship between age and both Internal and External Self-

Confidence was much stronger for women (r = .458** and .451**) than for men (r = .175

and .277*).

Discussion

Overall, the Internal and External Self-Confidence Scales were found to be

strongly and significantly correlated with one another, and moderately and significantly

related to such outcomes as job satisfaction, life satisfaction, turnover intentions, and

perceived effectiveness as an employee. Only Internal Self-Confidence had significant

moderate relationships with such subjective outcomes as career satisfaction and

workplace status. In terms of the potential antecedents, as predicted by the theoretical


172

criterion validation model, it did appear that mentoring relationships and networking

opportunities had significant moderate effects on Internal and External Self-Confidence,

while developmental programs, developmental assignments, organizational support for

development, and perceived career opportunities appeared to have stronger relationships

with Internal Self-Confidence.

It was particularly interesting that there did not appear to be any significant

gender differences in terms of Internal and External Self-Confidence in this study,

although there were some interesting findings in regard to gender in the workplace, and

the relationship that certain antecedents and outcomes have with self-confidence. For

example, the relationship between Internal and External Self-Confidence itself was again

much larger for women than it was for men, although the difference was non-significant

in this smaller sample. Also, it appears that there is a stronger relationship between

networking and External Self-Confidence for women than for men, as well as a stronger

relationship for satisfaction with networking and both Internal and External Self-

Confidence for women than for men. Further, it appeared that Dreher and Ash’s (1990)

Mentoring Scale also had a significantly stronger relationship with External Self-

Confidence for women than for men. Also of note, it appears that participation in

training classes to develop managerial skills, as well as participation in and satisfaction

with developmental programs also seems to have a stronger effect on the Internal and

External Self-Confidence of women than of men.


173

In regards to the gendered effects of Internal and External Self-Confidence on the

outcomes listed in the theoretical criterion validation model, it appears that both Internal

and External Self-Confidence have stronger relationships with job satisfaction for men

than for women, and stronger relationships with life satisfaction for women than for men.

According to these findings, self-confidence plays more of a role in life satisfaction for

women, while it plays more of a role in job satisfaction for men. One last interesting

finding in regards to the correlation analyses was that the relationships between career

stage (as well as age) and both Internal and External Self-Confidence were much stronger

for women than for men, especially in terms of Internal Self-Confidence, indicating that

women may especially grow in their self-confidence as they progress through their career

(and their lifetimes). It is also likely the case that there is a cyclical effect, in which self-

confidence assists in one’s career progression, which in turn builds more self-confidence,

which in turn furthers careers, and so on. A multi-year longitudinal study would be

required to test this cyclical effect, in which self-confidence serves as both an antecedent

and an outcome to career progression and success.

While the correlation coefficients supported the relationship between Internal and

External Self-Confidence, the structural equation models supplied even more evidence to

support a modified version of the proposed criterion validation model. The multiple

mediation model for this study depicted mentoring relationships having a strong positive

effect on organizational support for development—partially mediating its effect on

Internal and External Self-Confidence. Further, both Internal and External Self-


174

Confidence acted as partial mediators in the relationship between mentoring and

organizational support for development and both lateral job movements and career stage.

There is a clear story here: Organizations offering support for development (through such

means as providing mentoring relationships), are playing their part in aiding Internal

Self-Confidence (which is reflected in External Self-Confidence), which has clear effects

on both lateral job movements as well as on career stage. This has particular implications

for women in the work world, given the findings that career stage and both Internal and

External Self-Confidence had a much stronger relationship for women than for men,

especially in terms of Internal Self-Confidence. Again, this was also the case for the

relationship between mentoring (on the Dreher & Ash, 1990 scale) and External Self-

Confidence—the relationship was significantly stronger for women than for men, and

therefore has particular implications for women in the work world.


175

General Discussion

The purpose of this research was to not only summarize the current state of

literature of self-confidence, but to use that information to provide a coherent and

theoretically-derived definition of self-confidence, so that it can be measured and studied

in organizational contexts. This study did just that through the development of the

Integrated Model of Self-Confidence, which (a) operationalizes Internal Self-Confidence

as self-trust, not only as self-efficacy or self-esteem as other researchers have done, (b)

operationalizes Internal Self-Confidence as an attitude, like trust, which can be changed

with proper interventions, and (c) includes affective, behavioral, and cognitive

components in the discussion of self-confidence, and (d) includes a multiple-perception

perspective of the construct by differentiating between internally- and externally-

perceived self-confidence.

The Integrated Model of Self-Confidence states that Internal Self-Confidence, as

an overarching latent construct, is mainly influenced by three factors: self-efficacy, self-

esteem, and self-compassion. Together, these constructs determine how trustworthy an

individual considers themselves to be, and how much they trust themselves. While one’s

attitude towards themselves is undoubtedly important, subtle signals and behaviors (i.e.,

External Self-Confidence) are thought to be indicative of an individual’s level of self-

confidence to others—and therefore inform others’ perceptions of their competence.

According to this research, the most discernible and recognizable confidence cues include

affectivity/optimism; taking action, risks, and initiative; nonverbal communication;


176

verbal communication; independence in thought and action, and trust in one’s own

decisions and judgment. The Integrated Model of Self-Confidence was used to develop

and validate both the Internal and External Self-Confidence Scales (ISCS & ESCS)

through a series of six studies.

Study 1 was a qualitative assessment of how people define and recognize signs of

self-confidence. When respondents were asked what self-confidence means to them,

self-esteem (44%) and self-efficacy (35%) were by far the most frequent definition

themes to arise, highly supporting the assertion that both are essential to the construct

definition of self-confidence. Individuals’ tendencies to avoid or approach risks, goals,

or challenges (18%), independence of opinions, decisions, and actions (16%), self-

compassion and resiliency (13%), one’s trust in their decisions and judgments (13%), and

one’s knowledge of their own strengths, expertise, and competence (9%) were also

common in defining the colloquial use of self-confidence and were considered in its

nomological network.

The information collected in the qualitative study was used to inform the

development of the items used in Study 2—the exploration of initial items with the

purpose of understanding which factors fit best as components of self-confidence, and

which fit better as outcomes or correlates of the construct. This study developed items

based on the qualitative responses collected in Study 1, and the coding categories

developed by the team of subject matter experts (SMEs). Exploratory Factor Analyses

refined these items to be most representative of their prospective categories and


177

confirmed the distinctness of each of the six categories. Confirmatory Factor Analyses

further established the factor structure of each of the items and compared alternative

models, finding that the combination of self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-compassion

best served as indicators of the broader construct of self-confidence—supporting the

Integrated Model of Self-Confidence. And finally, Structural Equation Modeling further

confirmed that self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-compassion serve best as indicators of

self-confidence, and also indicated that the items representative of avoid/approach

behaviors, trust in decisions/judgments, and independence in thoughts and behaviors

serve best as outcomes of self-confidence, rather than as indicators of the construct.

The results of Study 2 were used to develop both the Internal Self-Confidence

Scale (assessed in Study 3), as well as the External Self-Confidence Scale (assessed in

Study 4), using Exploratory Factor Analysis. Both scales loaded well onto one factor,

and had respectable internal reliability consistency and factorability. Contrary to

hypotheses, however, the Internal Self-Confidence Scale did not exhibit significant

gender differences (Study 3). The External Self-Confidence Scale assessed in Study 4,

however, did exhibit gender differences in perceptions of how related each item was to a

self-confident person—women found each item as more representative of a self-confident

person than did men, indicating that women may be particularly sensitive to picking up

these “confidence cues” in their observations of themselves, or of other people.

Further, Study 5 served as both a Confirmatory Factor Analysis and a construct

validation of both the Internal and External Self-Confidence Scales. All construct


178

validation hypotheses were supported—Internal and External Self-Confidence were

found to have significant negative relationships with neuroticism/affectivity and locus of

control, and significant positive relationships with optimism, general risk propensity,

achievement motives, decision-making, independence, shyness/sociability, and problem-

solving confidence. In this study, men scored marginally higher than women in both the

Internal and External Self-Confidence Scales, as well as in the subscales, and a majority

of the items—with a few exceptions. However, the only significant difference was found

in decisiveness, where men reported significantly more decisiveness (or trust in their

decision-making and judgments) than women.

In terms of factorability, the Internal Self-Confidence scale exhibited the best fit

with the parceled version of Model 3, supporting the notion of Internal Self-Confidence

as being a second-order hierarchical model, with three factors, as depicted in the

Integrated Model of Self-Confidence. This justifies looking at the measure as a

unidimensional, as opposed to multidimensional, scale. The External Self-Confidence

Scale, on the other hand, exhibited the best fit with the modified, parceled version of

Model 1—the one-factor model. Because there were already only two items per

dimension, however, this is tantamount to External Self-Confidence being represented as

a first-order latent factor, with each of the six dimensions being considered parceled

observed variables. This also supports the use of the External Self-Confidence Scale as a

unidimensional whole, and not picking or choosing dimensions out of it. The structural

equation modeling supported External Self-Confidence as an outcome of Internal Self-


179

Confidence. However, the fit was improved with the addition of other outcomes such as

General Risk Propensity, Achievement Motives, Independence, Shyness and Sociability,

and Problem-Solving Confidence, supporting the construct validity of both scales.

And finally, Study 6 served as a criterion, or outcome, validation of both the

Internal and External Self-Confidence Scales, regarding the career success of employees.

Overall, the Internal and External Self-Confidence Scales were found to be strongly and

significantly correlated with one another, and moderately and significantly related to such

outcomes as job satisfaction, life satisfaction, turnover intentions, and perceived

effectiveness as an employee. Only Internal Self-Confidence had significant moderate

relationships with such outcomes as career satisfaction and workplace status (classified as

subjective career success measures). In terms of the potential antecedents, as predicted

by the theoretical criterion validation model, it did appear that mentoring relationships

and networking opportunities had significant moderate effects on Internal and External

Self-Confidence, while developmental programs, developmental assignments,

organizational support for development, and perceived career opportunities appeared to

have stronger relationships with Internal Self-Confidence.

It was particularly interesting that there did not appear to be any significant

gender differences in terms of Internal nor External Self-Confidence in this study,

although gender did play a role in the relationships that Internal and External Self-

Confidence played with other variables. Most notably, self-confidence appeared to play

more of a role in life satisfaction for women, while it played more of a role in job


180

satisfaction for men. Also interesting is the finding that the relationships between career

stage (as well as age) and both Internal and External Self-Confidence were much stronger

for women than for men, especially in terms of Internal Self-Confidence, indicating that

women may particularly grow in their self-confidence as they progress throughout their

careers and their lifetimes. Although in terms of career progression, there is very likely a

cyclical effect in which self-confidence assists in furthering along one’s career, which in

turn builds more self-confidence, which in turn furthers careers, and so on. A multi-year

longitudinal study would be required to test this cyclical effect, in which self-confidence

serves as both an antecedent and an outcome to career progression and success.

While the correlation coefficients supported the relationship between Internal and

External Self-Confidence, the structural equation models supplied even more evidence to

support a modified version of the proposed criterion validation model. The multiple

mediation model for this study depicted mentoring relationships having a strong positive

effect on perceptions of organizational support for development—partially mediating its

effect on Internal and External Self-Confidence. Further, both Internal and External Self-

Confidence acted as partial mediators in the relationship between mentoring and

organizational support for development and both lateral job movements and career stage.

There is a clear story here: Organizations providing support for development (through

such means as mentoring relationships), are playing their part in aiding the Internal Self-

Confidence of their employees (which is further reflected in their External Self-

Confidence), which has clear effects on both lateral job movements, as well as on career


181

stage. This has particular implications for women in the work world, given the findings

that career stage and both Internal and External Self-Confidence had a much stronger

relationship for women than for men, especially in terms of Internal Self-Confidence.

Again, this was also the case for the relationship between mentoring (on the Dreher &

Ash, 1990 scale) and External Self-Confidence—the relationship was significantly

stronger for women than for men. Therefore, organizations wishing to develop the self-

confidence of their female employees could very well put extra support into their

mentoring programs.

Overall, both the Internal Self-Confidence Scale (ISCS) and External Self-

Confidence Scale (ESCS) were highly reliable and valid measures, which can feasibly be

used in workplace or organizational settings (with ISCS reliability coefficients ranging α

= .924 - .942, and ESCS reliability coefficients ranging α = .903 - .913). This research

supported the construct and criterion validity and unidimensional factor structure of the

Internal and External Self-Confidence Scales. It is highly recommended that these scales

be used as a whole in order to represent the latent structure, and that researchers not pick

and choose dimensions from either scale to assess on their own. This research also

provides theoretical support to the Integrated Model of Self-Confidence through

confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling using both self-confidence

scales.


182

Scientific and Theoretical Implications

Before this research, the scientific literature has often failed to provide a coherent

and unified conceptualization of self-confidence (Berman, 2005; De Mascia, 2015;

Goldsmith, 2008; Ibarra, Ely, & Kolb, 2013; Kerfoot, 2010; Knippen & Green, 1989;

Mohr, 2014; Tichy & Charan; 1989). What the literature needs is a clear, concrete

definition, operationalization, and measure of self-confidence, which this research

provides. First of all, this paper contributes to theory on self-confidence through the

Integrated Model of Self-Confidence, which draws on an existing theoretical model of

trust and subsequently conceptualizes Internal Self-Confidence as a form of self-trust.

This conceptualization was supported by the data through the validation of the Internal

and External Self-Confidence Scales. Researchers can use these measures to further our

understanding of self-confidence (both internal and external) in multiple contexts. The

development of the Integrated Model of Self-Confidence will help reduce the limited

understanding of self-confidence as a construct across fields and disciplines.

Additionally, the notion of External Self-Confidence as a construct within the

Integrated Model of Self-Confidence is another strong scientific and theoretical

contribution of this research. The subtle signals and behaviors which are often thought

to be indicative of an individual’s level of self-confidence are often used by others to

inform how competent or able they believe another individual to be (Anderson, et al.,

2012; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; Locke & Anderson, 2015). The theory described in

this research delineates this process—one’s Internal Self-Confidence is often reflected in


183

verbal, nonverbal, and behavioral confidence cues (or External Self-Confidence, in terms

of affectivity, taking action, verbal and non-verbal communication, independence, and

decisiveness). Researchers can use the measure of External Self-Confidence developed

in this study to explore this construct in multiple contexts—particularly in terms of

studying the effect of “self-confidence” on women in leadership.

Practical and Workplace Implications

The practical literature has also fallen short in terms of defining or

operationalizing the construct of self-confidence—treating it as a vague and ominous

quality that is important for employees to possess (Berman, 2005; De Mascia, 2015;

Goldsmith, 2008; Ibarra, Ely, & Kolb, 2013; Kerfoot, 2010; Knippen & Green, 1989;

Mohr, 2014; Tichy & Charan; 1989). While there is some speculation on the

antecedents and outcomes of self-confidence in the practical literature (such as

developmental opportunities and leadership effectiveness), these propositions are not yet

empirically backed (Baldoni, 2009; Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004; Ireland, Hitt, & Williams,

1992; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991; White, de Sanctis, & Crino, 1981). That is what the

development of the Internal and External Self-Confidence Scales will help accomplish—

it will help further our understanding of the impact of self-confidence on career

progression which has been proposed in the practical literature. Now that there are

sensible measures of the construct, we can study the antecedents to self-confidence

through longitudinal research in order to better understand the levers that will improve it.


184

The operationalization of these new measures will help alleviate the particularly

limited understanding that we currently have concerning the implications of self-

confidence in the work world. Now self-confidence can feasibly and reliably be studied

in workplace settings. These scales (particularly the Internal Self-Confidence Scale) can

further be used to select employees and/or leaders who need to be or appear self-

confident in their positions, as well as to target which current employees need

interventions in terms of self-confidence (though the use of high-potential programs,

formal training, developmental assignments, mentoring, or networking opportunities).

Further, use of the External Self-Confidence Scale would likely help coach leaders and

managers regarding the perceptions of self-confidence that others may have of them.

Leaders having an understanding of how self-confident they appear to others will be able

to actively shape those perceptions, and appear more competent to subordinates, clients,

supervisors, colleagues, or anyone else they may encounter in the work world.

Limitations

While this research is certainly groundbreaking, there are several limitations that

need to be taken under consideration. Most importantly, the samples mostly consisted of

either students, mTurk workers, or both—samples which potentially may not generalize

to a full-time working population, nor to the overall population in general. Two more

limitations to keep in mind refer specifically to Study 6. First, the smaller sample size

affected the power of the statistical analyses. Second, some measures were comprised of


185

a single item. Of note, the single-item variables have been clearly labeled in order to

assist in accurate interpretation. These factors may have very well impeded the full

testing of the hypothesized theoretical criterion validation model, and full validation of

the Integrated Model of Self-Confidence in workplace settings.

Further, common method bias may be of small concern, as all data was collected

through cross-sectional surveys. While the longitudinal designs in Studies 5 and 6 may

help relieve some of the cross-sectionality, measurement bias may still play a factor in

some of the results, and should be considered in their interpretation. Additionally, all

studies collected data from those currently residing in the United States, which may

further impede the generalizability of the results, considering that self-confidence may be

a strictly “Westernized” concept. The model and the associated scales may potentially be

only generalizable to such contexts.

One final limitation to take into consideration when interpreting the results of this

study is the bias that may have been introduced in the development and refinement of the

categories, or dimensions, that were assessed in each scale. The first study (being 69%

female, as half the sample came from the Women’s Business Center, now

weVENTURE), and the second study (being 60% female) were pivotal in the

development of the scales developed in Studies 3 and 4. Because the samples of these

studies were so heavily skewed toward females, females were able to have more of a say

in what self-confidence means, and the dimensions that resulted from the analyses of the

first two studies. This could very well explain the lack of a gender difference found in


186

the Internal and External Self-Confidence scales. It could be that the dimensions used to

assess self-confidence (internal and external) in this set of studies is tapping something

entirely different than any of the other measures that have been used to tap into this

construct in past research. So while it may be considered a limitation that there was such

a heavy bias towards females in the samples of the first two studies, this could also serve

as a strength of these scales—that they are framing self-confidence in a way that has

potentially been ignored in the past.

Future Directions

The development of the Integrated Model of Self-Confidence, along with the

Internal and External Self-Confidence Scales, opens up the world to an array of future

research. For example, future researchers will be able to use the newly developed scales

to study many workplace phenomena—such as the lack of equal representation of women

in higher-level and executive leadership positions, and how self-confidence (whether it be

internal or external) may act as an individual-level barrier hindering progression up

leadership hierarchies. Are women in leadership less self-confident, or do they just

appear so? Do women exhibit the same indicators or self-confidence—is it equally

desirable to do so in terms of perceived leadership effectiveness, influence, and

likability? Which indicators of self-confidence may be more or less effective for women

in leadership roles to try to display? Where does the double bind come into play here?


187

Organizations will also be able to study the effect that different interventions

(such as formal training, developmental assignments, high-potential programs,

networking opportunities, and mentoring relationships) have on the self-confidence of

their employees. Is self-confidence the mechanism through which these interventions

impact career success? Which would be more useful for organizations to try to impact—

Internal or External Self-Confidence? Which matters more in terms of progression up

leadership hierarchies and in terms of career success? How do the Internal and External

Self-Confidence levels wax and wane over time based on these work interventions?

Future research will also be able to study the “Confidence Gap,” as described by

Kay and Shipman (2014). Is this phenomenon still alive and well? Is it more of a

reference to Internal or External Self-Confidence—where does the gap really lay?

Further, many state this it is wise to “fake it ‘till you make it!” But is this sound advice,

given that people may only be looking at your confidence cues (or External Self-

Confidence) in order to determine your perceived level of competence? Does “faking it

‘till you make it” though External Self-Confidence have eventual tiring or exhausting

effects on Internal Self-Confidence? What relationship does authenticity have with one’s

levels of both Internal and External Self-Confidence?

And finally, while this research used the External Self-Confidence Scale as a form

of self-assessment, it can be used to rate others, as well. Multiple-rater studies would be

an excellent next step. For example, does one’s perceived level of External Self-

Confidence align with others’ perceptions of their self-confidence? Which has more of


188

an effect on their Internal Self-Confidence? On their life satisfaction or career success?

Now that self-confidence (both internal and external) can be feasibly and reliably studied

based on one coherent and theoretically-derived definition of the construct, much

research is needed to really solidify the construct in both the scientific and practical

literature.

Conclusion

To recap, this research not only summarized and consolidated the current state of

the literature on self-confidence, but it also developed the Integrated Model of Self-

Confidence, which was validated over a series of six studies. This research explored

Internal Self-Confidence as a form of self-trust through the development of the Integrated

Model of Self-Confidence, which states that self-confidence, as an overarching latent

construct, is mainly influenced by three factors: self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-

compassion. Together, these constructs determine how trustworthy an individual

considers themselves to be, and how much they trust themselves (i.e., Internal Self-

Confidence). While one’s attitude towards themselves is undoubtedly important, subtle

signals and behaviors (i.e., External Self-Confidence) are thought to be indicative of an

individual’s level of self-confidence—and therefore inform others’ perceptions of their

competence. According to this research, the most discernible and recognizable

confidence cues include affectivity/optimism; taking action, risks, and initiative;


189

nonverbal communication; verbal communication; independence in thought and action,

and trust in one’s own decisions and judgment.

The Integrated Model of Self-Confidence was used to develop and validate both

the Internal and External Self-Confidence Scales (ISCS & ESCS) through a series of six

studies. Overall, both the Internal Self-Confidence Scale (ISCS) and External Self-

Confidence Scale (ESCS) were highly reliable and valid measures, which can be used in

workplace or organizational settings. This research supported the construct and criterion

validity and unidimensional factor structure of the Internal and External Self-Confidence

Scales. It is highly recommended that these scales be used as a whole in order to

represent their latent structures, and that researchers don’t pick and choose dimensions

from either scale to assess individually. This research also provides theoretical support to

the Integrated Model of Self-Confidence through confirmatory factor analysis and

structural equation modeling using both self-confidence scales.


190

References *Addis, S. (2008). Self-confidence...your most important life skill. Rough Notes, 151(8),

36-37.

*Al-Hebaish, S. (2012). The correlation between general self- confidence and academic achievement in the oral presentation course. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(1), 60-65.

*Albarracín, D., & Mitchell, A. L. (2004). The role of defensive confidence in preference for proattitudinal information: How believing that one is strong can sometimes be a defensive weakness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(12), 1565-1584. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1177/0146167204271180

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 127-136. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.127

Allison, P. D. (2003). Missing data techniques for structural equation modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112(4), 545-557. doi:http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.545

*Ambition and gender at work (2011). Institute of Leadership and Management. Retrieved January 18, 2015, from https://www.i-l-m.com/~/media/ILM Website/Downloads/Insight/Reports_from_ILM_website/ILM_Ambition_and_Gender_report_0211 pdf.ashx

*Anderson, C., Brion, S., Moore, D. A., & Kennedy, J. A. (2012). A status-enhancement account of overconfidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 718-735. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/a0029395

*Andrews, P. H. (1987). Gender differences in persuasive communication and attribution of success and failure. Human Communication Research, 13(3), 372-385.

Ann, S. M. (2005). Exploring mentoring and leadership development in health care organizations: Experience and opportunities. Career Development International, 10(6), 493-511,586.

Arbuckle, J. L. (2017). IBM SPSS Amos 25 User's Guide. Chicago: IBM SPSS.

*Aycan, Z. (2004). Key success factors for women in management in turkey. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(3), 453-477. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00180.x


191

*Baack, J., Carr-Ruffino, N., & Pelletier, M. (1993). Making it to the top: Specific leadership skills - A comparison of male and female perceptions of skills needed by women and men managers. Women in Management Review, 8(2), 17.

*Balakrishnan, J. D., & Ratcliff, R. (1996). Testing models of decision making using confidence ratings in classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(3), 615-633. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/0096-1523.22.3.615

*Baldoni, J. (2009, July 13). To Lead More Effectively, Increase Your Self-Confidence. Retrieved February 28, 2016, from https://hbr.org/2009/07/to-lead-more-effectively

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

*Barbalet, J. M. (1998). Emotion, Social Theory, and Social Structure: A Macrosociological Approach. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

*Barrett, M. (2009). Have they learnt to interrupt? Gender in Management, 24(6), 432-454. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1108/17542410910980405

*Baumeister, R. F., Hamilton, J. C., & Tice, D. M. (1985). Public versus private expectancy of success: Confidence booster or performance pressure? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(6), 1447-1457. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1447

*Bearden, W. O., Hardesty, D. M., & Rose, R. L. (2001). Consumer self-confidence: Refinements in conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 121-134. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1086/321951

*Beattie, S., Hardy, L., Savage, J., Woodman, T., & Callow, N. (2011). Development and validation of a trait measure of robustness of self-confidence. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(2), 184-191. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.09.008

*Bell, G. D. (1967). Self-confidence and persuasion in car buying. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research (Pre-1986), 4(000001), 46.

*Benabou, R., & Tirole, J. (1999). Self-confidence: Intrapersonal strategies. St. Louis: Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis.

*Benabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2002). Self-confidence and personal motivation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3), 871-915.


192

*Berman, E. L. (2005). Courage and confidence. Industrial Management, 47(5), 6.

Betts, S. C., & Pepe, L. J. (2005). The value of mentoring: A five-factor framework. Allied Academies International Conference. Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict. Proceedings, 10(1), 1-5.

Betz, N. E., & Klein, K. L. (1996). Relationships among measures of career self-efficacy, generalized self-efficacy, and global self-esteem. Journal of Career Assessment, 4(3), 285-298. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1177/106907279600400304

*Beyer, S. (1990). Gender differences in the accuracy of self-evaluations of performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 960-970. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.960

*Beyer, S., & Bowden, E. M. (1997). Gender differences in self-perceptions: Convergent evidence from three measures of accuracy and bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(2), 157-172.

*Bierema, L. L. (1994). How executive businesswomen develop and function in male-dominated organizational culture (Order No. 9422696). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304097794).

*Borno, H. (2000, Aug 21). IMPOSTERS you may ooze self-confidence but are you, like so many other women, just faking it? if so, here's how to get the real thing. Daily Mail

*Bowman, C. (1999). Action-led strategy and managerial self-confidence. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14(7), 558-568.

*Brabender, V., & Boardman, S. K. (1977). Sex differences in self-confidence as a function of feedback and social cues. Psychological Reports, 41(3), 1007-1010.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

*Brewer, W. F., Sampaio, C., & Barlow, M. R. (2005). Confidence and accuracy in the recall of deceptive and nondeceptive sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 52(4), 618-627. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.017

*Briñol, P., DeMarree, K. G., & Petty, R. E. (2010). Processes by which confidence (vs. doubt) influences the self. Handbook of the uncertain self. (pp. 13-35) Psychology Press, New York, NY.


193

*Briñol, P., Petty, R. E., & Barden, J. (2007). Happiness versus sadness as a determinant of thought confidence in persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 711-727. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.711

Brown, K., & Ridge, S. (2002). Moving into management: Gender segregation and its effect on managerial attainment. Women in Management Review, 17(7), 318-327.

Brutus, S., Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., & McCauley, C. D. (2000). Developing from job experiences: The role of organization-based self-esteem. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(4), 367-380.

*Bukszar, E. (2003). Does overconfidence lead to poor decisions? A comparison of decision making and judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Business and Management, 9(1), 33-43.

*Buratti, S., & Allwood, C. M. (2012). The accuracy of meta-metacognitive judgments: Regulating the realism of confidence. Cognitive Processing, 13(3), 243-253. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1007/s10339-012-0440-5

Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J. (1983). Assessing the attitudes and perceptions of organizational members. In S. Seashore, E. Lawler, P. Mirvis, & C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures, and practice. New York: John Wiley.

*Carr, P. G., Thomas, V. G., & Mednick, M. T. (1985). Evaluation of sex-typed tasks by black men and women. Sex Roles, 13(5-6), 311-316.

Catalyst (2015a). Women CEOs of the fortune 1000. Retrieved January 5, 2015, from: http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-ceos-fortune-1000

Catalyst (2015b). U.S. women in business. Retrieved January 5, 2015, from: http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/us-women-business

Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45(3), 619.

Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(2), 330-339. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/0022-3514.41.2.330

*Chelminski, P., & Coulter, R. A. (2007). The effects of cultural individualism and self-confidence on propensity to voice: From theory to measurement to practice. Journal of International Marketing, 15(4), 94.

http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-ceos-fortune-1000

http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/us-women-business


194

Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2004). General self-efficacy and self-esteem: Toward theoretical and empirical distinction between correlated self-evaluations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 375-395.

*Cheng, H., & Furnham, A. (2002). Personality, peer relations, and self-confidence as predictors of happiness and loneliness. Journal of Adolescence, 25(3), 327-339. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1006/jado.2002.0475

*Chernev, A. (2009). Choosing versus rejecting: the impact of goal-task compatibility on decision confidence. Social Cognition, 27(2), 249-260.

Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E. (2014). Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences. The Qualitative Report, 19(32), 1-20.

*Chuang, S., Cheng, Y., Chang, C., & Chiang, Y. (2013). The impact of self-confidence on the compromise effect. International Journal of Psychology, 48(4), 660-675. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.666553

*Chusmir, L. H., & Koberg, C. S. (1991). Relationship between self-confidence and sex role identity among managerial women and men. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131(6), 781-790.

*Chusmir, L. H., Koberg, C. S., & Stecher, M. D. (1992). Self-confidence of managers in work and social situations: A look at gender differences. Sex Roles, 26(11-12), 497.

Cianni, M., & Romberger, B. (1995). Perceived racial, ethnic, and gender differences in access to developmental experiences. Group & Organization Management, 20(4), 440.

*Clark, N. M., & Gakuru, O. N. (2014). The effect on health and self-confidence of participation in collaborative learning activities. Health Education & Behavior,41(5), 476-484. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1177/1090198114549157

*Clarke, M. (2011). Advancing women's careers through leadership development programs. Employee Relations, 33(5), 498-515. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01425451111153871

*Cohen, L. L., & Swim, J. K. (1995). The differential impact of gender ratios on women and men: Tokenism, self-confidence, and expectations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(9), 876.


195

*Comeig, I., Grau-Grau, A., Jaramillo-Gutiérrez, A., & Ramírez, F. (2016). Gender, self-confidence, sports, and preferences for competition. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1418.

Connerley, M. L., Mecham, R. L., & Strauss, J. P. (2008). Gender differences in leadership competencies, expatriate readiness, and performance. Gender in Management, 23(5), 300-316. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17542410810887347

Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 325-334. doi:http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6

Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 322-331. doi:http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322

*Coudevylle, G. R., Gernigon, C., & Martin Ginis, K.A. (2011). Self-esteem, self-confidence, anxiety and claimed self-handicapping: A mediational analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12(6), 670-675. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.05.008

*Cox, D. F., & Bauer, R. A. (1964). Self-confidence and persuasibility in women. Public Opinion Quarterly, 28(3), 453-466.

*Cox, R. H., Martens, M. P., & Russell, W. D. (2003). Measuring anxiety in athletics: The revised competitive state anxiety inventory--2. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25(4), 519-533.

*Cramer, R. J., Brodsky, S. L., & DeCoster, J. (2009a). Expert witness confidence and juror personality: Their impact on credibility and persuasion in the courtroom. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 37(1), 63-74.

*Cramer, R. J., Neal, T. M. S., & Brodsky, S. L. (2009b). Self-efficacy and confidence: Theoretical distinctions and implications for trial consultation. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 61(4), 319-334. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017310

*Crawford, J. D., & Stankov, L. (1996). Age differences in the realism of confidence judgements: A calibration study using tests of fluid and crystallized intelligence. Learning and Individual Differences, 8(2), 83-103.

*Day, R. C., & Hamblin, R. L. (1964). Some effects of close and punitive styles of supervision. American Journal of Sociology, 69(5), 499-510.


196

*De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2004). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader self-confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95(2), 140-155. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.04.002

*De Mascia, S. (2015). Are women better leaders than men? Human Resource Management International Digest, 23(7), 1-4.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem; efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 31-49, Chapter xvi, 257 Pages) Plenum Press, New York, NY.

*Deeley, S. T., & Love, A. W. (2012). The emotion self-confidence model of suicidal ideation. Advances in Mental Health, 10(3), 246-257.

*Deeley, S. T., & Love, A. W. (2013). Longitudinal analysis of the emotion self-confidence model of suicidal ideation in adolescents. Advances in Mental Health, 12(1), 34-45. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5172/jamh.2013.12.1.34

*DePaulo, B. M., Charlton, K., Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J., & Muhlenbruck, L. (1997). The accuracy-confidence correlation in the detection of deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(4), 346-357. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0104_5

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

Djurdjevic, E., Stoverink, A. C., Klotz, A. C., Koopman, J., da, M. V., Yam, K. C., & Chiang, J. T. (2017). Workplace status: The development and validation of a scale. Journal of Applied Psychology, doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/apl0000202

Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. A. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in managerial, professional, and technical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 539-546. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/0021-9010.75.5.539

Dreher, G. F., & Cox, T. H., Jr. (1996). Race, gender, and opportunity: A study of compensation attainment and the establishment of mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 297-308. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.297

Dries, N., & De Gieter, S. (2014). Information asymmetry in high potential programs. Personnel Review, 43(1), 136-162. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2011-0174


197

*Dumitrescu, A. L., Zetu, L., & Teslaru, S. (2012). Instability of self-esteem, self-confidence, self-liking, self-control, self-competence and perfectionism: Associations with oral health status and oral health-related behaviours. International Journal of Dental Hygiene, 10(1), 22-29. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1111/j.1601-5037.2011.00519.x

Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

*Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573-598. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573

Eddleston, K. A., Baldridge, D. C., & Veiga, J. F. (2004). Toward modeling the predictors of managerial career success: Does gender matter? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(4), 360-385.

Ehrich, L. C. (2008). Mentoring and women managers: Another look at the field. Gender in Management, 23(7), 469-483. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17542410810908839

Ehrlinger, J., & Dunning, D. (2003). How chronic self-views influence (and potentially mislead) estimates of performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 5-17. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5

Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

*Else-Quest, N., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(1), 103-127. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018053

Ely, R. J., Ibarra, H., & Kolb, D. M. (2011). Taking gender into account: Theory and design for women's leadership development programs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(3), 474.

*Emerson, M. S. (1998). The reliability and validity of a new instrument to assess personality traits in the work environment: The personal success profile (Order No. 9836001). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304420025).

Epstein, S. (1973). The self-concept revisited: Or a theory of a theory. American Psychologist, 28(5), 404-416. doi:http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/h0034679


198

*Erwin, T. D., & Kelly, K. (1985). Changes in students' self-confidence in college. Journal of College Student Personnel, 26(5), 395-400.

*Evans, D. (2010). Aspiring to leadership ... a woman's world? an example of developments in France. Cross Cultural Management, 17(4), 347-367. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1108/13527601011086577

Fairchild, C. (2014, July 8). Women CEOs in the Fortune 1000: By the numbers. Retrieved January 13, 2015, from http://fortune.com/2014/07/08/women-ceos-fortune-500-1000/

*Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1978). On the predictive validity of attitudes: The roles of direct experience and confidence. Journal of Personality, 46(2), 228-243.

*Feather, N. T. (1969). Attribution of responsibility and valence of success and failure in relation to initial confidence and task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13(2), 129-144. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/h0028071

*Feltz, D. L., & Öncü, E. (2014). Self-confidence and self-efficacy. Routledge companion to sport and exercise psychology: Global perspectives and fundamental concepts. (pp. 417-429) Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, New York, NY.

*Fielden, S. L., Davidson, M. J., Dawe, A. J., & Makin, P. J. (2003). Factors inhibiting the economic growth of female owned small businesses in north west England. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 10(2), 152.

*Flynn, J., Heath, K., & Holt, M. (2011, October 19). Four Ways Women Stunt Their Careers Unintentionally. Retrieved February 28, 2016, from https://hbr.org/2011/10/four-ways-women-stunt-their-careers

*Foote, C. J. (2000). I know what I know: A study of gender differences in item-specific confidence. Educational Research Quarterly, 23(3), 35.

Forret, M. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (2001). Correlates of networking behavior for managerial and professional employees. Group & Organization Management, 26(3), 283-311.

Forret, M. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (2004). Networking behaviors and career outcomes: Differences for men and women? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 419-437.


199

Foster, B. P., Lonial, S., & Shastri, T. (2011). Mentoring, career plateau tendencies, turnover intentions and implications for narrowing pay and position gaps due to gender - structural equations modeling. Journal of Applied Business Research, 27(6), 71-84.

*Freeman, P., & Rees, T. (2010). Perceived social support from team-mates: Direct and stress-buffering effects on self-confidence. European Journal of Sport Science,10(1), 59-67. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1080/17461390903049998

*Gabriel, S., Renaud, J. M., & Tippin, B. (2007). When I think of you, I feel more confident about me: The relational self and self-confidence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(5), 772-779. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.07.004

*Gadiesh, O., & Coffman, J. (2015, May 18). Companies Drain Women's Ambition After Only 2 Years. Retrieved February 28, 2016, from https://hbr.org/2015/05/companies-drain-womens-ambition-after-only-2-years?referral=00060

*Garant, V., Charest, C., Alain, M., & Thomassin, L. (1995). Development and validation of a self-confidence scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 81(2), 401-402.

Gavrilov-jerkovic, V., Jovanovic, V., Uljevic, D., & Brdaric, D. (2014). When less is more: A short version of the personal optimism scale and the self-efficacy optimism scale. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(2), 455-474. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9432-0

Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1984). On the meaning of within-factor correlated measurement errors. Journal of Consumer Research (Pre-1986), 11(1), 572.

*Ghosh, D., & Ray, M. R. (1997). Risk, ambiguity, and decision choice: Some additional evidence. Decision Sciences, 28(1), 81-104.

*Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., & Kleinbölting, H. (1991). Probabilistic mental models: A Brunswikian theory of confidence. Psychological Review, 98(4), 506-528. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/0033-295X.98.4.506

*Goldsmith, M. (2008, May 18). 7 Steps to Boost Your Leadership Self-Confidence. Retrieved February 28, 2016, from https://hbr.org/2008/05/7-steps-to-boost-your-leadersh

*Goldsmith, M. (2009, October 30). Build Your Self Confidence Like a Leader. Retrieved February 28, 2016, from https://hbr.org/2009/10/build-your-self-confidence-lik

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9432-0


200

*Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1965). The Adjective Check List Manual. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

*Greenacre, L., Tung, N. M., & Chapman, T. (2014). Self confidence, and the ability to influence. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 18(2), 169-180.

Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 64-86. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.2307/256352

*Grove, J. R., & Heard, N. P. (1997). Optimism and sport confidence as correlates of slump-related coping among athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 11(4), 400-410.

*Guérin, E., Arcand, I., & Durand-Bush, N. (2010). A view from the inside: An in-depth look at a female university student's experience with a feel-based intervention to enhance self-confidence and self-talk. The Qualitative Report, 15(5), 1058-1079.

Hackett, G., & Betz, N. E. (1981). A self-efficacy approach to the career development of women. Journal of Vocational Behavior,18(3), 326-339.

*Hannah, S. T., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., & Harms, P. D. (2008). Leadership efficacy: Review and future directions. Leadership Quarterly, 19(6), 669.

*Hanton, S., & Connaughton, D. (2002). Perceived control of anxiety and its relationship to self-confidence and performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73(1), 87-97.

*Hart, P. L., Spiva, L., Baio, P., Huff, B., Whitfield, D., Law, T., Wells, W., & Mendoza, I. G. (2014a). Medical‐surgical nurses' perceived self‐confidence and leadership abilities as first responders in acute patient deterioration events. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 23(19-20), 2769-2778. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1111/jocn.12523

*Hart, P. L., PhD., R.N., Spiva, L., PhD, R.N., P.L.N.C., & Mareno, N., PhD., R.N. (2014b). Psychometric properties of the clinical decision-making self-confidence scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 22(2), 312-22.

*Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., Mpoumpaki, S., & Theodorakis, Y. (2009). Mechanisms underlying the self-talk-performance relationship: The effects of motivational self-talk on self-confidence and anxiety. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(1), 186-192. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.07.009


201

*Hays, K., Maynard, I., Thomas, O., & Bawden, M. (2007). Sources and types of confidence identified by world class sport performers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19(4), 434-456. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1080/10413200701599173

Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106(4), 766-794.

*Heppner, P. P., & Petersen, C. H. (1982). The development and implications of a personal problem-solving inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29(1), 66-75. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/0022-0167.29.1.66

*Hidayat, Y., & Budiman, D. (2014). The influence of self-talk on learning achievement and self confidence. Asian Social Science, 10(5), 186-193.

Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319-340. doi:http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319

Higgins, E. T. (1996). The "self-digest": Self-knowledge serving self-regulatory functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1062-1083.

Higgins, M. C. (2000). The more, the merrier? multiple developmental relationships and work satisfaction. The Journal of Management Development, 19(3), 277-296.

Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104-121.

*Hollenbeck, G. P., & Hall, D. T. (2004). Self-confidence and leader performance. Organizational Dynamics, 33(3), 254-269.

Hopkins, M. M., O'Neil, D. A., Passarelli, A., & Bilimoria, D. (2008). Women's leadership development strategic practices for women and organizations. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(4), 348-365.

*House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23(3), 409-473.

Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.

Hung, K., & Tangpong, C. (2010). General risk propensity in multifaceted business decisions: Scale development. Journal of Managerial Issues, 22(1), 88-106.


202

Hutz, C. S., Midgett, A., Pacico, J. C., Bastianello, M. R., & Zanon, C. (2014). The relationship of hope, optimism, self-esteem, subjective well-being, and personality in Brazilians and Americans. Psychology, 5(6), 514-522.

*Ibarra, H., Ely, R. J., & Kolb, D. M. (2013, September). Women Rising: The Unseen Barriers. Retrieved February 28, 2016, from https://hbr.org/2013/09/women-rising-the-unseen-barriers

*Instone, D., Major, B., & Bunker, B. B. (1983). Gender, self confidence, and social influence strategies: An organizational simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(2), 322-333. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.2.322

*Ireland, R. D., Hitt, M. A., & Williams, J. C. (1992). Self-confidence and decisiveness: Prerequisites for effective management in the 1990s. Business Horizons, 35(1), 36.

*Jackson, S. A., & Kleitman, S. (2014). Individual differences in decision-making and confidence: Capturing decision tendencies in a fictitious medical test. Metacognition and Learning, 9(1), 25-49. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1007/s11409-013-9110-y

James, W. (1892). The self Macmillan and Co, Macmillan and Co, London. doi:http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/11630-012

Jaros, S. J. (1997). An assessment of meyer and allen's (1991) three-component model of organizational commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51(3), 319-337. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1006/jvbe.1995.1553

Johnson, D. R., & Young, R. (2011). Toward best practices in analyzing datasets with missing data: Comparisons and recommendations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 73(5), 926-945.

*Johnson, W., & McCoy, N. (2000). Self-confidence, self-esteem and assumption of sex role in young men and women. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90(3), 751-756.

*Johnson, W., Zava, D., & McCoy, N. (2000). Overall self-confidence, self-confidence in mathematics, and sex-role stereotyping in relation to salivary free testosterone in university women. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91(2), 391-401.

Joiner, T. A., Bartram, T., & Garreffa, T. (2004). The effects of mentoring on perceived career success, commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 5(1), 164-170.


203

*Jones, G., Swain, A., & Cale, A. (1991). Gender differences in precompetition temporal patterning and antecedents of anxiety and self-confidence. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13(1), 1-15.

*Jones, L. G., & Jones, L. P. (1989). Context, confidence and the able girl. Educational Research, 31(3), 189-194.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80-92. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80

*Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765-780. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 303.

*Kalaian, H. A., & Freeman, D. J. (1994). Gender differences in self-confidence and educational beliefs among secondary teacher candidates. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(6), 647-658.

*Kamas, L., & Preston, A. (2012). The importance of being confident; gender, career choice, and willingness to compete. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,83(1), 82-97. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.013

Kanazawa, S. (2004). General intelligence as a domain-specific adaptation. Psychological Review, 111(2), 512-523. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.111.2.512

*Kanter, R. M. (2014, January 03). Overcome the Eight Barriers to Confidence. Retrieved February 28, 2016, from https://hbr.org/2014/01/overcome-the-eight-barriers-to-confidence

*Karimi, A., & Saadatmand, Z., (PhD.). (2014). The relationship between self-confidence with achievement based on academic motivation. Kuwait Chapter of the Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 4(1), 210-215.

Kay, K., & Shipman, C. (2014). The confidence code: The science and art of self-assurance--what women should know. New York, NY: HarperCollins.


204

*Kennedy, J. A., Anderson, C., & Moore, D. A. (2013). When overconfidence is revealed to others: Testing the status-enhancement theory of overconfidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(2), 266-279. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.08.005

*Kerfoot, K. M. (2010). Leaders, self-confidence, and hubris: What's the difference? Nursing Economics, 28(5), 350-1, 349.

Kilian, C. M., Hukai, D., & McCarty, C. E. (2005). Building diversity in the pipeline to corporate leadership. The Journal of Management Development, 24(1), 155-168.

Kim, S. (2007). Learning goal orientation, formal mentoring, and leadership competence in HRD. Journal of European Industrial Training, 31(3), 181-194.

*Kimball, M. M., & Gray, V. A. (1982). Feedback and performance expectancies in an academic setting. Sex Roles, 8(9), 999-1024.

*Kipnis, D., & Lane, W. P. (1962). Self-confidence and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46(4), 291-295. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0044720

*Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1991). Leadership: Do traits matter? The Executive, 5(2), 48.

*Kirkwood, J. (2009). Is a lack of self-confidence hindering women entrepreneurs? International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 1(2), 118-133. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17566260910969670

*Kleitman, S., & Moscrop, T. (2010). Self-confidence and academic achievements in primary-school children: Their relationships and links to parental bonds, intelligence, age, and gender. Trends and prospects in metacognition research (pp. 293-326) Springer Science + Business Media, New York, NY. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1007/978-1-4419-6546-2_14

*Kleitman, S., & Stankov, L. (2007). Self-confidence and metacognitive processes. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(2), 161-173. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.004

*Knippen, J. T., & Green, T. B. (1989). Building self-confidence. Supervisory Management, 34(8), 22.

*Koberg, C. S., Chusmir, L. H., & Carlin, W. B. (1992). Gender and hierarchical level coalignment with managers' self-confidence. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 29(2), 14-17.


205

*Koellinger, P., Minniti, M., & Schade, C. (2007). "I think I can, I think I can": Overconfidence and entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology,28(4), 502-527. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1016/j.joep.2006.11.002

*Koivula, N., Hassmén, P., & Fallby, J. (2002). Self-esteem and perfectionism in elite athletes: Effects on competitive anxiety and self-confidence. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(5), 865-875. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00092-7

*Kolb, J. A. (1999). The effect of gender role, attitude toward leadership, and self-confidence on leader emergence: Implications for leadership development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10(4), 305-320.

*Koriat, A. (2012). The self-consistency model of subjective confidence. Psychological Review, 119(1), 80-113. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/a0025648

Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Bravo, J. (2011). Antecedents and outcomes of organizational support for development: The critical role of career opportunities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 485-500. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/a0021452

Kram, K.E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

*Krueger, N.,Jr, & Dickson, P. R. (1994). How believing in ourselves increases risk taking: Perceived self-efficacy and opportunity recognition. Decision Sciences,25(3), 385.

*Lachman, V. D. (2001). Professional presence: How do you get it? Nursing Management, 32(10), 41-2.

Lang, J. W. B., & Fries, S. (2006). A revised 10-item version of the achievement motives scale: Psychometric properties in German-speaking samples. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22(3), 216-224. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1027/1015-5759.22.3.216

*Larrick, R. P., Burson, K. A., & Soll, J. B. (2007). Social comparison and confidence: When thinking you're better than average predicts overconfidence (and when it does not)*. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 76.

*Lenney, E. (1977). Women's self-confidence in achievement settings. Psychological Bulletin, 84(1), 1-13. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.1.1


206

*Lenney, E., & Gold, J. A. (1982). Sex differences in self-confidence: The effects of task completion and of comparison to competent others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8(1), 74-80.

*Lenney, E., Gold, J., & Browning, C. (1983). Sex differences in self-confidence: The influence of comparison to others' ability level. Sex Roles, 9(9), 925-942.

Linderbaum, B. A., & Levy, P. E. (2010). The development and validation of the feedback orientation scale (FOS). Journal of Management, 36(6), 1372-1405. doi:http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1177/0149206310373145

Linehan, M., & Scullion, H. (2008). The development of female global managers: The role of mentoring and networking. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(1), 29-40. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1007/s10551-007-9657-0

*Lirgg, C. D. (1991). Gender differences in self-confidence in physical activity: A meta-analysis of recent studies. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13(3), 294-310.

*Lirgg, C. D., & Feltz, D. L. (1989). Female self-confidence in sport: Myths, realities, and enhancement strategies. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance,60(3), 49.

Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151-173. doi:http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1

*Locander, W. B., & Hermann, P. W. (1979). The effect of self-confidence and anxiety on information seeking in consumer risk reduction. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research (Pre-1986), 16(000002), 268.

*Locke, C. C., & Anderson, C. (2015). The downside of looking like a leader: Power, nonverbal confidence, and participative decision-making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 58, 42.

*Locke, K. D. (2005). Connecting the horizontal dimension of social comparison with self-worth and self-confidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(6), 795-803. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1177/0146167204271634

Lorr, M., & More, W. W. (1980). Four dimensions of assertiveness. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 15(2), 127-138. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1207/s15327906mbr1502_1


207

*Lundeberg, M. A., Fox, P. W., & Punćcohaŕ, J. (1994). Highly confident but wrong: Gender differences and similarities in confidence judgments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 114-121. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.114

*Lundeberg, M. A., Fox, P. W., Brown, A. C., & Elbedour, S. (2000). Cultural influences on confidence: Country and gender. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 152-159. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.152

*Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2004). Human, social, and now positive psychological capital management: Investing in people for competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 33(2), 143-160.

*Luthans, F., Luthans, K. W., & Luthans, B. C. (2004). Positive psychological capital: Beyond human and social capital. Business Horizons, 47(1), 45-50.

Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (2000). Climbing the corporate ladder: Do female and male executives follow the same route? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 86-101.

*Machida, M., Ward, R. M., & Vealey, R. S. (2012). Predictors of sources of self-confidence in collegiate athletes. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(3), 172-185.

*Maclellan, E. (2014). How might teachers enable learner self-confidence? A review study. Educational Review, 66(1), 59.

*Malkin, C., & Stake, J. E. (2004). Changes in attitudes and self-confidence in the women's and gender studies classroom: The role of teacher alliance and student cohesion. Sex Roles, 50(7), 455-468.

*Manning, P., & Ray, G. (1993). Shyness, self-confidence, and social interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56(3), 178.

Martín-Albo, J., Núñez, J.L., Navarro, J. G., & Grijalvo, F. (2007). The rosenberg self-esteem scale: Translation and validation in university students. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 10(2), 458-67

Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 123-136. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.123

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.


208

*Mayseless, O., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1987). What makes you so sure?: Effects of epistemic motivations on judgmental confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(2), 162.

McAlearney, A. S., ScD., & Butler, P. W. (2008). Using leadership development programs to improve quality and efficiency in healthcare. Journal of Healthcare Management, 53(5), 319-31.

*McCarty, P. A. (1986). Effects of feedback on the self-confidence of men and women. Academy of Management Journal, 29(4), 840-847.

McCauley, C. D., Eastman, L. J., & Ohlott, P. J. (1995). Linking management selection and development through stretch assignments. Human Resource Management (1986-1998), 34(1), 93.

McDonagh, K. J., & Paris, N. M. (2012). The leadership labyrinth: Career advancement for women. Frontiers of Health Services Management, 28(4), 22-8.

*Melamed, T. (1996). Career success: An assessment of a gender-specific model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 217.

*Merkle, E. C., & Van Zandt, T. (2006). An application of the poisson race model to confidence calibration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(3), 391-408. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/0096-3445.135.3.391

*Miller, D. J., Spengler, E. S., & Spengler, P. M. (2015). A meta-analysis of confidence and judgment accuracy in clinical decision making. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62(4), 553-567. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000105

*Mills, B. D. (1996). Trait sport confidence, goal orientation and competitive experience of female collegiate volleyball players. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82(3), 1085-1086.

*Mobius, M. M., & Rosenblat, T. S. (2006). Why beauty matters. The American Economic Review, 96(1), 222-235. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1257/000282806776157515

*Mohr, T. S. (2014, August 25). Why Women Don't Apply for Jobs Unless They're 100% Qualified. Retrieved February 28, 2016, from https://hbr.org/2014/08/why-women-dont-apply-for-jobs-unless-theyre-100-qualified

*Moore, D. A., & Healy, P. J. (2008). The trouble with overconfidence. Psychological Review, 115(2), 502-517. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.502


209

*Mowday, R. T. (1979). Leader characteristics, self-confidence, and methods of upward influence in organizational decision situations. Academy of Management Journal (Pre-1986), 22(4), 709.

Neff, K. D. (2003). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and Identity, 2(3), 223-250. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298860309027

Neff, K. D., & Vonk, R. (2009). Self-compassion versus global self-esteem: Two different ways of relating to oneself. Journal of Personality, 77(1), 23-50. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00537.x

Newman, D. A. (2003). Longitudinal modeling with randomly and systematically missing data: A simulation of ad hoc, maximum likelihood, and multiple imputation techniques. Organizational Research Methods, 6(3), 328.

Ng, I., & Irene Hau-siu Chow. (2009). Cross-gender networking in the workplace: Causes and consequences. Gender in Management, 24(8), 562-576. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1108/17542410911004849

*Nygren, T. E., & Ransom-Flint, T. (1997). Dispositional self-confidence in judgment and framing bias susceptibility in a dynamic decision making environment. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society ...Annual Meeting,1, 249.

*O’Neil, D. A., Hopkins, M. M., & Bilimoria, D. (2015). A framework for developing women leaders: Applications to executive coaching. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 51(2), 253-276. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1177/0021886315575550

O'Neil, D. A., Hopkins, M. M., & Sullivan, S. E. (2011). Do women's networks help advance women's careers?: Differences in perceptions of female workers and top leadership. The Career Development International, 16(7), 733-754. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1108/13620431111187317

Ohlott, P. J., Ruderman, M. N., & McCauley, C. D. (1994). Gender differences in managers' developmental job experiences. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), 46.

*Oney, E., & Oksuzoglu-Guven, G. (2015). Confidence: A critical review of the literature and an alternative perspective for general and specific self-confidence. Psychological Reports, 116(1), 149-163. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/07.PR0.116k14w0


210

*Oskamp, S. (1967). Overconfidence in case-study judgments. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29(3), 261-265. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/h0022125

*Owens, T. J. (1993). Accentuate the positive--and the negative: Rethinking the use of self-esteem, self-deprecation, and self-confidence. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56(4), 288.

*Pallier, G. (2003). Gender differences in the self-assessment of accuracy on cognitive tasks. Sex Roles, 48(5), 265-276.

*Pasveer, K. A. (1998). Self-trust: Definition and creation of the self-trust questionnaire (Order No. NQ31065). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304430902).

*Patalano, A. L., & LeClair, Z. (2011). The influence of group decision making on indecisiveness-related decisional confidence. Judgment and Decision Making,6(2), 163.

Paul, H., & Garg, P. (2014). Factor structure of the resilience scale-14: Insights from an Indian sample. South Asian Journal of Management, 21(2), 71-86.

Pay Equity & Discrimination (2013). The Institute for Women's Policy Research. Retrieved January 16, 2015, from http://www.iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination

*Perry, P., MSN, RN, C.N.S., C.N.E. (2011). Concept analysis: Confidence/Self-confidence. Nursing Forum, 46(4), 218.

*Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., & Tormala, Z. L. (2002). Thought confidence as a determinant of persuasion: The self-validation hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 722-741. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.722

*Pollock, T. (2004). Increase your self-confidence. Products Finishing, 69(2), 10.

*Popper, M., Amit, K., Gal, R., Mishkal-Sinai, M., & Lisak, A. (2004). The capacity to lead: Major psychological differences between leaders and nonleaders. Military Psychology, 16(4), 245-263. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1207/s15327876mp1604_3

Potter, W. J., & Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27(3), 258-284.

*Pratch, L. (2011, November 28). Why Women Leaders Need Self-Confidence. Retrieved February 28, 2016, from https://hbr.org/2011/11/women-leaders-need-self-confidence

http://www.iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination

http://www.iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination


211

*Preckel, F., & Freund, P. A. (2005). Accuracy, latency, and confidence in abstract reasoning: The influence of fear of failure and gender. Psychology Science, 47(2), 230-245.

*Price, P. C., & Stone, E. R. (2004). Intuitive evaluation of likelihood judgment producers: Evidence for a confidence heuristic. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17(1), 39-57.

*Puncochar, J. M., & Fox, P. W. (2004). Confidence in individual and group decision making: When "two heads" are worse than one. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 582-591. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.582

*Putnam, L., & Heinen, J. S. (1976). Women in management - the fallacy of the trait approach. MSU Business Topics, 24(3), 47.

Raabe, B., & Beehr, T. A. (2003). Formal mentoring versus supervisor and coworker relationships: Differences in perceptions and impact. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(3), 271-293.

Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff, K. D., & Van Gucht, D. (2011). Construction and factorial validation of a short form of the self-compassion scale. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 18(3), 250.

Ragins, B. R., & Cotton, J. L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 529-550. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.529

*Rees, T., & Freeman, P. (2007). The effects of perceived and received support on self-confidence. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(9), 1057-1065. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1080/02640410600982279

Rich, K. (2013). Mentoring and turnover intentions in the military: Mediating role of multidimensional commitment and moderating role of gender within mentor-protégé dyads. Rochester: Social Science Research Network. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2307742

Risky Business: Managing Risk in a Volatile World. (2012, July 2). Retrieved December 1, 2015, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/tatianaserafin/2012/07/02/risky-business-managing-risk-in-a-volatile-world/

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.


212

*Ryska, T. A. (2002). Effects of situational self-handicapping and state self-confidence on the physical performance of young participants. The Psychological Record,52(4), 461-478.

*Sadler, I. (2013). The role of self-confidence in learning to teach in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 50(2), 157.

*Sander, P., & Sanders, L. (2006). Understanding academic confidence. Psychology Teaching Review, 12(1), 29-41.

*Santos-Pinto, L. (2012). Labor market signaling and self-confidence: Wage compression and the gender pay gap. Journal of Labor Economics, 30(4), 873.

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4(3), 219-247. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/0278-6133.4.3.219

*Schyns, B., & Sczesny, S. (2010). Leadership attributes valence in self-concept and occupational self-efficacy. Career Development International, 15(1), 78-92. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1108/13620431011020907

Schyns, B., & von Collani, G. (2002). A new occupational self-efficacy scale and its relation to personality constructs and organizational variables. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11(2), 219-241. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320244000148

Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1995). Decision-making style: The development and assessment of a new measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(5), 818-831. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1177/0013164495055005017

*Sergeev, I., Lipsky, A. M., Ganor, O., Lending, G., Abebe-Campino, M. G., Morose, M. A., Katzenell, M. U., Ash, B. G. N., & Glassberg, E. (2012). Training modalities and self-confidence building in performance of life-saving procedures. Military Medicine, 177(8), 901-6.

Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51(2), 663-671.

Shin, T., Davison, M. L., & Long, J. D. (2017). Maximum likelihood versus multiple imputation for missing data in small longitudinal samples with nonnormality. Psychological Methods, 22(3), 426-449. doi:http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/met0000094


213

*Shipman, A. S., & Mumford, M. D. (2011). When confidence is detrimental: Influence of overconfidence on leadership effectiveness. Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 649.

*Shrauger, J. S., & Schohn, M. (1995). Self-confidence in college students: Conceptualization, measurement, and behavioral implications. Assessment, 2(3), 255-278.

*Siegrist, M., Gutscher, H., & Earle, T. C. (2005). Perception of risk: The influence of general trust, and general confidence. Journal of Risk Research, 8(2), 145-156. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1366987032000105315

*Slaughter, J. E., Cable, D. M., & Turban, D. B. (2014). Changing job seekers’ image perceptions during recruitment visits: The moderating role of belief confidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1146-1158. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037482

*Sleeper, L. A., & Nigro, G. N. (1987). It's not who you are but who you're with: Self-confidence in achievement settings. Sex Roles, 16(1-2), 57-69.

Smeets, E., Neff, K., Alberts, H., & Peters, M. (2014). Meeting suffering with kindness: Effects of a brief self-compassion intervention for female college students. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 70(9), 794

Snyder, R. A., & Williams, R. R. (1982). Self theory: An integrative theory of work motivation. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 55(4), 257.

Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Sage Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.4135/9781412986038

Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 221-232.

*Sporer, S. L., Penrod, S., Read, D., & Cutler, B. (1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: A meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 118(3), 315-327. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/0033-2909.118.3.315

*Srivastava, S. K. (2013). To study the effect of academic achievement on the level of self confidence. Journal of Psychosocial Research, 8(1), 41-51.

*Stajkovic, A. D. (2006). Development of a core confidence-higher order construct. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1208-1224. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1208


214

*Stajkovic, A. D., Lee, D., Greenwald, J. M., & Raffiee, J. (2015). The role of trait core confidence higher-order construct in self-regulation of performance and attitudes: Evidence from four studies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,128, 29-48. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.02.001

*Stankov, L., & Crawford, J. D. (1997). Self-confidence and performance on tests of cognitive abilities. Intelligence, 24(2), 93-109.

*Stankov, L., & Lee, J. (2008). Confidence and cognitive test performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 961-976. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/a0012546

*Stankov, L., Lee, J., Luo, W., & Hogan, D. J. (2012). Confidence: A better predictor of academic achievement than self-efficacy, self-concept and anxiety? Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 747-758. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.05.013

*Sturdy, A., Brocklehurst, M., Winstanley, D., & Littlejohns, M. (2006). Management as a (self) confidence trick: Management ideas, education and identity work. Organization, 13(6), 841-860.

*Subramanyam, V. (2013). Building self-confidence in athletes. Indian Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(2), 372-374.

Sugiyama, K., Cavanagh, K. V., van Esch, C., Bilimoria, D., & Brown, C. (2016). Inclusive leadership development: Drawing from pedagogies of women's and general leadership development programs. Journal of Management Education, 40(3), 253.

Tafarodi, R. W., & Swann, W.B., Jr. (1996). Individualism-collectivism and global self-esteem: Evidence for a cultural trade-off. Journal of Cross - Cultural Psychology, 27(6), 651-672.

*Tavani, C. M., & Losh, S. C. (2003). Motivation, self-confidence, and expectations as predictors of the academic performances among our high school students. Child Study Journal, 33(3), 141-151.

*Taylor, J. W. (1974). The role of risk in consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing (Pre-1986), 38(000002), 54.

*Tichy, N., & Charan, R. (1989, September/October). Speed, Simplicity, Self-Confidence: An Interview with Jack Welch. Retrieved February 28, 2016, from https://hbr.org/1989/09/speed-simplicity-self-confidence-an-interview-with-jack-welch


215

Tolli, A. P., & Schmidt, A. M. (2008). The role of feedback, causal attributions, and self-efficacy in goal revision. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 692-701. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.692

*Tormala, Z. L., Rucker, D. D., & Seger, C. R. (2008). When increased confidence yields increased thought: A confidence-matching hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(1), 141-147. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.11.002

*Tsui, L. (1998). The effects of gender, education, and personal skills self-confidence on income in business management. Sex Roles, 38(5-6), 363-373.

*Turk, D. C., & Winter, F. (2006). Gaining self-confidence. The pain survival guide: How to reclaim your life. (pp. 149-161) American Psychological Association. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11298-008

Valerio, A. M. (2006). An action plan for developing women leaders. Leadership in Action, 26(5), 16-19.

Valerio, A. M. (2009). Developing women leaders: A guide for men and women in organizations. Wiley-Blackwell.

VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(6), 995-1015. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1177/0013164497057006009

*Vealey, R. S. (1986). Conceptualization of sport-confidence and competitive orientation: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8(3), 221-246.

*Vealey, R. S., & Chase, M. A. (2008). Self-confidence in sport. Advances in sport psychology (3rd ed.). (pp. 68-97,430-435) Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL.

*Vealey, R. S., Hayashi, S. W., Garner-Holman, M., & Giacobbi, P. (1998). Sources of sport-confidence: Conceptualization and instrument development. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 20(1), 54-80.

*Vosloo, J., Ostrow, A., & Watson, J. C. (2009). The relationships between motivational climate, goal orientations, anxiety, and self-confidence among swimmers. Journal of Sport Behavior, 32(3), 376-393.

Wagnild, G. (2009). A review of the resilience scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 17(2), 105-113. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1891/1061-3749.17.2.105


216

Wagnild, G. M., & Young, H. M. (1993). Development and psychometric evaluation of the resilience scale. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1(2), 165-178.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96(3), 465-490. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.96.3.465

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

Weiss, H., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1-74.

*White, K. A. (2009). Self-confidence: A concept analysis. Nursing Forum, 44(2), 103-114.

*White, Krista A, PhD, R.N., C.C.R.N. (2014). Development and validation of a tool to measure self-confidence and anxiety in nursing students during clinical decision making. Journal of Nursing Education, 53(1), 14-22. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.3928/01484834-20131118-05

*White, M. C., de Sanctis, G., & Crino, M. D. (1981). Achievement, self-confidence, personality traits, and leadership ability: A review of literature on sex differences. Psychological Reports, 48(2), 547-569.

Whittaker, T. A. (2012). Using the modification index and standardized expected parameter change for model modification. Journal of Experimental Education, 80(1), 26-44. doi:http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1080/00220973.2010.531299

*Wolfe, R. N., & Grosch, J. W. (1990). Personality correlates of confidence in one's decisions. Journal of Personality, 58(3), 515-534.

Wolff, H., & Moser, K. (2009). Effects of networking on career success: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 196-206. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1037/a0013350

Wolff, H., Schneider-Rahm, C., & Forret, M. L. (2011). Adaptation of a German multidimensional networking scale into English. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 244-250. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1027/1015-5759/a000070


217

Women underestimate themselves: Female managers are as good or better than men – but they don’t know it or show it (2000, December). Turknett Leadership Group. Retrieved January 13, 2015, from http://www.turknett.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Press-release-women-leadersREv.pdf

*Wright, P. (1975). Factors affecting cognitive resistance to advertising. Journal of Consumer Research (Pre-1986), 2(1), 1.

*Yorke, M. (2016). The development and initial use of a survey of student ‘belongingness’, engagement and self-confidence in UK higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(1), 154-166. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1080/02602938.2014.990415

*Yukl, G., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1992). Theory and research on leadership in organizations. Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 3 (2nd ed.). (pp. 147-197) Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.

*Zaccaro, S. J., Kemp, C., & Bader, P. (2004). Leader traits and attributes. The nature of leadership. (pp. 101-124) Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.

Zessin, U., Dickhauser, O., & Garbade, S. (2015). The relationship between self-compassion and well-being: A meta-analysis. Applied Psychology. Health and Well - being, 7(3), 340-364. doi: http://dx.doi.org.portal.lib.fit.edu/10.1111/aphw.12051

*Zuckerman, D. M. (1985). Confidence and aspirations: Self-esteem and self-concepts as predictors of students' life goals. Journal of Personality, 53(4), 543-560.


218

Appendices

- Appendix A. Self-Confidence Definition Categories by Discipline

- Appendix B. Trends in Scales Used to Measure Self-Confidence.

- Appendix C. Internal Self-Confidence Scale

- Appendix D. External Self-Confidence Scale


219

Appendix A. Self-Confidence Definition Categories by Discipline


220

Appendix B. Trends in Scales Used to Measure Self-Confidence

Measure Citations Sample Items

Adjective Checklist – self-confidence subscale

Chusmir & Koberg, 1991; Chusmir, Koberg, & Stecher, 1992; Gough & Heilbrum, 1965; Koberg, Chusmir, & Carlin, 1992; Pasveer, 1998

1. Assertive 2. Outgoing

Agnihotri's Self-Confidence Inventory Srivastava, 2013 Could not locate items

Beattie's Trait Robustness of Self-Confidence Inventory

Beattie et al. (2011)

1. A bad result in competition has a very negative effect on my self-confidence

2. My self-confidence remains stable regardless of fluctuations in fitness level

Cattell's (1970) 16 Personality Factors Questionnaire – anxiety subscale

Melamed (1996) 1. Am afraid that I will do the wrong thing 2. Don't worry about things that have

already happened

CSAI (any version)

Cox, Martens & Russell, 2003; Coudevylle et al., 2011; Dumitrescu et al., 2012; Freeman & Rees, 2010; Hatzigeorgiadis et al., 2009; Jones et al., 1991; Koivula et al., 2002; Rees & Freeman, 2007; Vosloo et al., 2009

1. I’m confident I can meet the challenge. 2. I’m confident of coming through under

pressure.

Day & Hamblin’s (1964) Self-Confidence scale

Bell, 1967; Chuang et al., 2013; Day & Hamblin, 1964

1. I feel capable of handling myself in most social situations

2. I don’t spend much time worrying about what people think of me

Emerson's Personal Success Profile—self-confidence factor

Emerson (1998)

1. I prefer to work on routine rather than challenging projects

2. I feel more comfortable following the leadership of others than being the leader

Erwin Identity Scale– Confidence Subscale Erwin & Kelly (1985)

1. No matter how hard I try, I do not feel prepared to enter the working world

2. My confidence is readily shaken when I see so many capable people with abilities as good or better than mine

Gabriel et al’ Self-Confidence Scale

Gabriel, Renaud & Tippin (2007)

1. Right now, I feel like I really know who I am

2. Right now, I feel very comfortable with who I am

Garant's self-confidence scale

Garant et al., 1995; Johnson et al., 2000; Johnson & McCoy, 2000

Could not locate items

Kolb's 5-item self-confidence scale Kolb (1999) 1. I have confidence in my own decisions


221

2. I have what it takes to succeed in my chosen career

Locke’s confidence items Locke (2005)

1. Confident” vs “insecure 2. Feel good about yourself vs. bad about

yourself

Popper et al.’s measure of self-confidence Popper et al. (2004)

• Rotter's Locus of Control Scale • Speilberger's Trait Anxiety Scale • Chen & Gully's General Self-Efficacy

Scale

Self-Esteem Scales

Al-Hesbaish, 2012; Chelminski & Coulter, 2007; Cox & Bauer, 1964; Locander & Hermann, 1979; Malkin & Stake, 2004; Nygren & Ransom-Flint, 1997; Owens, 1993

• Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale (Al-Hesbaish, 2012)

• Tafarodi & Swan’s Self-Liking and Self-Competence Scales (Chelminski & Coulter, 2007)

• Janis & Field’s Feelings of Inadequacy (Cox & Bauer, 1964)

• Coppersmith’s Self-Esteem (Locander & Hermann, 1979)

• Stake’s (1985) Performance Self-Esteem Scale (Malkin & Stake, 2004)

• Mirels’ Self-Doubt Scale (Nygren & Ransom-Flint, 1997)

• Items drawn from Rosenberg’s and Cobb’s Self-Esteem Scales (Owens, 1993)

Shrauger’s Personal Evaluation Inventory – general confidence subscale

Cheng & Furnham, 2002; Shrauger & Schohn, 1995

1. I lack some important capabilities that may keep me from being successful.

2. I have fewer doubts about my abilities than most people.

Siegrist et al. General Confidence Scale

Siegrist, Gutscher, & Earle (2005)

1. Nowadays, things seem to be getting more and more out of control.

2. A person can never have too much insurance to protect against the inevitable disasters in life.

Specific Self-Efficacy Scales

Albarracín & Matichell, 2004; Bearden, Hardesty, & Rose, 2001; Hart et al., 2014a; Hart et al., 2014b; Heppner & Peterson, 1982; Kalaian & Freeman, 1994; Manning & Ray, 1993; Sander & Sanders, 2006; Schyns & Sczesny, 2010; White, 2014

• Defensive Confidence Scale (Albarracín & Matichell, 2004)

• Problem-solving confidence (Heppner & Peterson, 1982)

• Self-confidence in caring for patients in acute deterioration (Hart et al., 2014a; Hart et al., 2014b)

• Schyns & von Collani’s Occupational Self-Efficacy Scale (Schyns & Sczesny, 2010)

• Nursing Anxiety & Self-Confidence with Clinical Decision Making (White, 2014)

• Bearden’s Consumer Self-Confidence Scale (Bearden, Hardesty, & Rose, 2001)


222

• McCroskey’s (1982) Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (Manning & Ray, 1993)

• Academic Behavioural Confidence Scale (Sander & Sanders, 2006)

• Self-Confidence in Teaching (Kalaian & Freeman, 1994)

Texas Social Behavior Inventory (TSBI) (Helmreich & Stapp, 1974) – Form A

Zuckerman, 1985 1. I would describe myself as self-

confident 2. I feel confident of my appearance

Vealey’s measure of state sport confidence, trait sport confidence, or sources of confidence

Grove & Heard, 1997; Hidayat & Budiman, 2014; Lirgg, 1991; Machida, Ward, & Vealey, 2012; Mills, 1996; Ryska, 2002; Vealey, 1986; Vealey et al., 1998

Vealey (1986) Trait Sport-Confidence Inventory: 1. Compare your confidence in your

ability to execute the skills necessary to be successful to the most confidence athlete you know

2. Compare your confidence in your ability to make critical decisions during competition to the most confident athlete you know

Wright's Generalized Social Confidence scale

Greenacre, Tung, & Chapman, 2014; Wright, 1975

1. I do not spend much time worrying about what people think of me

2. I feel capable of handling myself in most social situations

Yorke’s Self-Confidence Scale Yorke, 2016

1. I worry about the difficulty of my program

2. I’m confident of completing my program successfully


223

Appendix C. Internal Self-Confidence Scale Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. There is no right or wrong answer. Please be as honest as possible. 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Somewhat disagree 4 = Neither agree nor disagree

5 = Somewhat agree 6 = Agree 7 = Strongly Agree

Self-efficacy

1. I am capable of achieving my goals. 2. I believe in my ability to succeed. 3. I have what it takes to get things done. 4. I often have doubts in my ability to meet my goals. (R)

Self-esteem

5. I am a person of value and worth. 6. I am happy with who I am as a person. 7. I am sure of myself and my beliefs. 8. I feel good about myself and who I am.

Self-compassion

9. When I make a mistake, I can easily forgive myself. 10. While I may not be perfect, I am good enough. 11. I can learn from failures and try again. 12. I have the ability to cope with feeling of self-doubt.


224

Appendix D. External Self-Confidence Scale Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. There is no right or wrong answer. Please be as honest as possible. Others (besides myself) would describe me as someone who: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Somewhat disagree 4 = Neither agree nor disagree

5 = Somewhat agree 6 = Agree 7 = Strongly Agree

Affectivity

1. Often appears nervous or anxious. (R) 2. Appears comfortable in most situations.

Taking Action

3. Appears eager to take on more responsibility or challenge. 4. Appears afraid to act or try new things. (R)

Nonverbal Communication

5. Has difficulty making lasting eye contact with people. (R) 6. Often makes nervous gestures or has fidgety body language. (R)

Verbal Communication

7. Often mumbles when speaking to others. (R) 8. Often speaks up to voice views or opinions.

Independence

9. Frequently needs approval from others. (R) 10. Often looks for reassurance or confirmation from other people. (R)

Decisiveness

11. Often appears worried about making the wrong decision. (R) 12. Often has a difficult time making up their mind. (R)

by - Florida Institute of Technology

Documents

Transcript of by - Florida Institute of Technology