Positive Self-Concept: A Universal Virtue Ethic?

1

Positive Self-Concept:A Universal Virtue Ethic?

Timothy A. JudgeUniversity of Florida

Michigan State University 2 October 2006

2

Research Areas

• Personality– Five factor model– Core self-evaluations

• Mood/emotions

• Other– Attitudes– Staffing/careers– Leadership

3

• Positivity is valued in Western society

– Positive psychology movement• Centers (e.g., UM), journals (Journal of Positive

Psychology; Journal of Happiness Studies), conferences, awards, books, etc.

– Happiness is to some a natural right (or goal)• Pursuit of happiness a right in Declaration of

Independence

Positivity

4

Happiness

• Overwhelming majority of Americans are happy

• That has not changed much over time

Source: 2006 Pew Research Center Poll of 3,014 working Americans

5

Self-PositivityA Universal Virtue Ethic?

• Self-positivity– Being positive is perhaps most fundamentally

being self-positive

• From Elizabeth Anscombe (1958):– virtue ethic refocuses moral philosophy from

“what is right?” to “how should I live?”• Universal virtue ethic: everyone should live this way

• Would it benefit everyone to have a positive self-concept? (i.e., UVE)

6

• Self-esteem most widely studied trait in • Baumeister et al. (2003):

– “Self-esteem is thus not a major predictor or cause of almost anything”

• Crocker and Knight (2005):– “Although high self-esteem produces pleasant feelings and

enhanced initiative, it does not cause high academic achievement, good job performance, or leadership”

BUTDoes Positive Self-Concept Matter?

7

Rebuttal

Does Positive Self-Concept Matter?

• Response– The recent spate of critiques of self-esteem

research bears an eerie resemblance to a parallel wave of criticisms of attitudes and traits that appeared during the late 1960’s – Swann et al., (American Psychologist, in press)

• So there is a controversy– Does positive self-concept matter to applied

criteria (in workplace, in life)?

8

6 Questions

1. Is there a broad self-concept factor (CSE) thatcauses indicators like self-esteem?

2. How does the broad factor (CSE) relate tovarious work and life outcomes?

3. Does CSE add beyond the five-factor model?

4. Can one be too positive (overly self-positive)?

5. How does CSE work (how, when, what [Swann])?

6. What are remaining unanswered questions?

PA

ST

FU

TU

RE

9

Broad vs. Specific Traits

• Bandwidth-fidelity paradox: earliest stages of scientific psychology– sensations (Titchener, 1910); intelligence (Spearman,

1927); attitudes (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1974)

• Parsimony is a goal of psychology– Ceteris paribus, the simplest explanation, or fewest number

of constructs, is preferred

• If a broad factor explains overlap in measures, unique non-error variance must show incremental validity (Humphreys, 1962)

10

“The Big Three”

• Self-esteem, locus of control, and neuroticism are the most widely studied individual traits in personality psychology

• Search of PsycINFO database

– Self-esteem: 26,740 entries

– Locus of control: 14,910 entries

– Neuroticism/emotional stability: 9,516 entries

• The 3 traits have been the subject of 48,898 studies in PsycINFO database

11

Core Traits

• Nearly always studied in isolation– In personality research…

• In the few cases where 2 are included, interrelationship typically are not considered

• When interrelationship is considered…– neuroticismlocus of control (Wambach & Panackal, 1979)

– locus of a controlneuroticism (Morelli et al., 1979)

– In organizational behavior research…• Nearly all studies including more than one core trait

treat them as wholly independent

12

Core Self-

Evaluations

• Judge, Locke, & Durham (ROB, 1997) proposed a broad construct, core self-evaluations (CSE), that reflects a positive self-concept

• CSE is a latent trait indicated by– High self-esteem– High self-efficacy (generalized)– Internal locus of control– Low neuroticism (high emotional stability)

13

Question #1

Do Traits Indicate Higher-Order Factor?

Trait SE GSE LOC ES

Self-esteem (SE) — 9

2,431 47

14,691 19

5,565

Generalized self-efficacy (GSE) .85 — 13 13,088

7 1,541

Locus of control (LOC) .52 .56 — 31 6,538

Emotional stability (ES) .64 .62 .40 —

Numbers in green are meta-analyzed correlations.Numbers in black are number of studies.Numbers in blue are combined N.

Source: Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 2002)

14

Self-Esteem #1

Self-Esteem #2

Self-Esteem #3

Self-Efficacy #1

Self-Efficacy #2

Self-Efficacy #3

Neuroticism #1

Neuroticism #2

Neuroticism #3

Locus #1

Locus #2

Locus #3

Locusof

Control

Neuroticism

Self-Efficacy

Self-Esteem

CoreSelf

Evaluations

1.00

1.00

.88

.79

-.76

.59

.91

.54

.98

.73

.67

.77

1.00

.58

.75

1.00

Question #1Do Traits Indicate

Higher-Order Factor?

Source: Erez & Judge (JAP, 2001)

15

Question #2Does CSE Predict

Outcomes?

• Controlling for the common factor (or direct measure), individual core traits rarely contribute incremental prediction– If a broad factor explains overlap in measures, the

unexplained non-error variance that is unique to the measures must be examined for its usefulness (Lubinski & Dawis, 1992)

– Core would predict better than individual traits due to reliability of composite. However, we can

• compare first factor extracted (CSE) to subsequent factors• compare direct measure to single composite of core traits

16

• Acid tests

– Do core traits load on same factor as Big Five traits?

• We have never found this to be the case in CFA models

– CFAs very (overly?) sensitive to misspecification

– Does CSE provide incremental validity beyond optimally weighted composite (OLS weights) of Big Five traits?

Question #3CSE and FFM

17

Question #3

Does CSE Add Beyond FFM?

Sales

Volume

“Objective”

Rated

Performance

“Subjective”

Before Conscientiousness

Core self-evaluations =.35** =.44**

After Conscientiousness

Core self-evaluations =.33** =.44**

Source: Erez and Judge (Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001)

Note: ** p < .01. N=124 life insurance agents.

18

JS LS JP

CSES beyond 4 core traits 2/2 3/3 2/2

4 core traits beyond CSES 0/2 1/3 0/2

CSES beyond Extraversion 2/2 3/3 2/2

Extraversion beyond CSES 2/2 3/3 0/2

CSES beyond Conscientiousness 2/2 3/3 1/2

Conscientiousness beyond CSES 0/2 0/3 0/2

Source: Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (Personnel Psychology, 2003)

Question #3Does CSE Add Beyond FFM?

JS=job satisfactionLS=life satisfaction

JP=job performance

19

Question #3


20

Question #3


• Collected data from– fitness center– child care center

• Employees completed core self-evaluations scale and a FFM measure

• Supervisors rated performance of employees– Two supervisors per employee (ICC1=.50)

21

Overall Job

PerformanceContextual

PerformanceTask

Performance

Neuroticism .16 .31** .20*

Extraversion .05 -.02 .05Openness -.07 -.07 -.11Agreeableness -.05 .13 -.07Conscientiousness .16† .06 .23**

Core self-evaluations .32** .39** .28**

Notes: Estimates are βs. N=164. † p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

Source: Judge and Erez (in preparation)


22

• CSE more related to neuroticism than to

conscientiousness, extraversion– Indeed, part of concept

• So, one might argue that core traits fit under umbrella of neuroticism (ES)– But, ES measures under-predict

• Derived from psychopathology, and over-sample stress/anxiety compared to self-worth

– Am easily disturbed / Change my mood a lot– Get irritated easily / Get upset easily– Have frequent mood swings / Get stressed out easily


23

1 2 3 4 5

Neuroticism Measure

1. Big Five Inventory(β) .19

2. Goldberg IPIP(β) .12

3. Goldberg AB5C(β) -.06

4. NEO(β) .15

5. Eysenck(β) .32**

Core Self-Evaluations

CSES(β) .42** .36** .36** .41** .52**

∆R .28** .28** .29** .20** .37**

R2 .12 .11 .12 .11 .15

Source: Judge and Erez (in preparation)


Crit

erio

n=ov

eral

l job

per

form

ance

24

6 Questions







25

Question #4

Can One Be Too Positive?

• Is positivity always good? (Judge & Ilies, AME, 2004)

– Harmful effects of self-esteem pursuit

– Costs of self-deception

– Extreme self-positivity=narcissism• Definition: self-love, or an exceptional interest in and

admiration for yourself

• Narcissism correlates r=.35 with self-esteem

• Many controversies about narcissism in psychology (e.g., costs-benefits)

• Very little study of narcissism in I-O/OB/strategy

26

• DSM-IV: narcissism=grandiose self-regard;

exaggeration of talents, skills– May lead to enhanced view of self with respect to

various work outcomes

• Collected data in two samples relating self and other ratings of– Leadership– Workplace deviance– Task and contextual performance

Question #4Can One Be Too Positive?

27

Self Rating

(SF)β

Supervisor Rating (SP)

β

SF-SP Difference

F

Neuroticism -.01 -.11 0.90Extraversion -.01 .01 0.01Openness .25** .17* 8.93**

Agreeableness .19** -.02 2.74Conscientiousness .56** .09 29.35**

Narcissism .05 -.25** 5.53**

Notes: Criterion=Contextual performance. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

Source: Judge, LePine, and Rich (JAP, 2006)


28

Self Rating

(SF)β

Other Rating (OP)

β

SF-SP Difference

F

Neuroticism -.21** -.09 3.51**

Extraversion .11 .08 1.45Openness .29** .16 10.22**

Agreeableness .12 -.01 1.15Conscientiousness .23** .06 4.09**

Narcissism .22* -.20* 7.09**

Notes: Criterion=Leadership effectiveness. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

Source: Judge, LePine, and Rich (JAP, 2006)


29

Question #5How Does CSE Work?

• Early findings– High CSE people set higher goals / are more

committed to them (Erez & Judge, JAP, 2001)

– High CSE people seek and attain more challenging jobs

• Perceptions of intrinsic job characteristics (Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, JAP, 1998)

• Objective ratings of job complexity (Judge, Bono, & Locke, JAP, 2000)

• Choice of complex tasks (Srivastava, Locke, & Judge, under review)

30

• Do high CSE folks capitalize on

advantages (earned and bestowed) at the onset of adulthood?– Studied using NLS where individuals have

been followed over period of 27 years, first entering study in 1979 (N=12,686) when age 14-22

• CSE measured with items collected 1979, 1980, 1987, 1992

• Average income measured 1994-2002


31

Measure of CSE in NLS

Constructed from Items Measured 1979-20021. I have little control over the things that happen to me (r)2. There is little I can do to change many of the important things in my life (r)3. What happens to me in the future mostly depends on me4. I feel that I am a person of worth, on an equal basis with others5. I feel that I have a number of good qualities6. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure (r)7. I feel I do not have much to be proud of (r)8. I wish I could have more respect for myself (r)9. I’ve been depressed (r)10. I’ve felt hopeful about the future11. What happens to me is of my own doing12. When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work


32

$90,758

$51,544

$43,861$37,836

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

$100,000

8 years 10 years 12 years 14 years

High CSE

Low CSE

Predicted Income 1994-2002

Parents’ Education in 1979

Source: Judge and Hurst (in preparation)


33

$103,297

$54,636

$44,135$38,703

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

15 30 45 60 75

High CSE

Low CSE


Parents’ Occupational Prestige 1979

Roofer Carpenter Musician Therapist Economist Waiter Plumber Nurse(RN) Manager Chemist



34

Childhood Poverty 1979



$80,877

$40,528

$57,077

$38,546

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

Yes No

High CSE

Low CSE


35

$31,722

$93,941

$34,348$48,851

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

10 12 14 16

High CSE

Low CSE


Years of Education



36

$63,318

$106,743

$39,070 $39,955

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

High CSE

Low CSE


High School Grade Point Average



37

$60,219

$143,280

$50,809

$36,867$25,000

$50,000

$75,000

$100,000

$125,000

$150,000

600 800 1000 1200

High CSE

Low CSE


SAT Score



38

• One final issue: CSE may predict

criteria because it is more state-like– Self-esteem and emotional stability show

signs of both continuity and change– Even if one accepts that self-concept

does change:• Change must be predictable• Change must be lasting


39

From: Trzesniewski, Donnellan, & Robins (JPSP, 2003)

.60

---

.54

.43 .43

.60

Note: Orange bars/numbers are average stability across traitsaccording to Roberts & DELVecchio (JPSP, 2000)


From: Stability of self-esteem across the life span. By Trzesniewski, Kali H.; Donnellan, M. Brent; Robins, Richard W. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 2003 Jan Vol 84(1) 205-220

40

• Forces that work against change

– self-verification– ego defensive threats to self-esteem

• Crocker argues that self-esteem is unstable when it is– Contingent, especially when contingent on

external vs. internal things• EX: other’s approval, appearance, competence

• IN: family support, virtue, “God’s love”


41

75

25

45

55

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Favorable Evaluation UnfavorableEvaluationP

erce

nta

ge

Choosi

ng Inte

ract

ion P

artn

er

Positive Self-Concept

Negative Self-Concept

Source: Judge, Cable, and Klinger (in progress)


Choice of Evaluation

Pe

rce

nt

Tim

e C

ho

se

n

42

6 Questions







43

• CSE construct

– Are other traits – PA, NA, optimism, hope – indicators of CSE? (Schmitt, 2006)

– Role of LOC (far and way poorest indicator)

• Pursuit of high CSE may be costly– Crocker: reasons underlying pursuit matter

• Defensive CSE– Motivation to maintain positive self-concept

has costs

Question #6Other Issues? (topics under current or prospective study)

44

• Positivity and reality

– Optimism, pessimism, and positive illusions– Religion and religiosity

• Insufficient attention in I-O/OB to negative states?

• HR implications– Are we creating “Stepford Organization”?– What about for employees already hired?

Future ResearchBroad Questions: +/POS

45

Future ResearchOngoing Studies: Other

Areas

• Emotional labor– Is emotion work always “laborious”?– Is emotion work more costly for introverts?

• Emotions and work-family interface– Work-family conflict and emotions– Effects of spouse on emotions and work-family

attitudes at home• Personality

– Capitalizing on positive events at work– Courage: Its nature and relevance to I-O/OB

46

Future Research

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2003-2006 Current Next 3 years

CSE

Other traits

Emos

Leadership

Other

Percent of studies

47

Conclusion

Is CSE a Universal Value Orientation?

• Yet to see criteria for which CSE is ‘bad’

• But, of moderate importance in general and surely of limited importance to some– “A fruitful way of looking at variation is in

terms of trade-offs of different fitness benefits and costs” – Nettle (American Psychologist, 2006)

• Links to papers

www.ufstudies.net/tim/VITA/index.htm

Positive Self-Concept: A Universal Virtue Ethic?

Documents

Transcript of Positive Self-Concept: A Universal Virtue Ethic?