Upload
kuniko
View
75
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Positive Self-Concept: A Universal Virtue Ethic?. Timothy A. Judge University of Florida. Michigan State University 2 October 2006. Personality Five factor model Core self-evaluations Mood/emotions Other Attitudes Staffing/careers Leadership. Research Areas. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
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
Does CSE Add Beyond FFM?
20
Question #3
Does CSE Add Beyond FFM?
• 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)
Question #3Does CSE Add Beyond FFM?
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
Question #3Does CSE Add Beyond FFM?
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)
Question #3Does CSE Add Beyond FFM?
Crit
erio
n=ov
eral
l job
per
form
ance
24
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?
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)
Question #4Can One Be Too Positive?
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)
Question #4Can One Be Too Positive?
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
Question #5How Does CSE Work?
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
Question #5How Does CSE 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)
Question #5How Does CSE Work?
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
Predicted Income 1994-2002
Parents’ Occupational Prestige 1979
Roofer Carpenter Musician Therapist Economist Waiter Plumber Nurse(RN) Manager Chemist
Source: Judge and Hurst (in preparation)
Question #5How Does CSE Work?
34
Childhood Poverty 1979
Predicted Income 1994-2002
Source: Judge and Hurst (in preparation)
$80,877
$40,528
$57,077
$38,546
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
Yes No
High CSE
Low CSE
Question #5How Does CSE Work?
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
Predicted Income 1994-2002
Years of Education
Source: Judge and Hurst (in preparation)
Question #5How Does CSE Work?
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
Predicted Income 1994-2002
High School Grade Point Average
Source: Judge and Hurst (in preparation)
Question #5How Does CSE Work?
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
Predicted Income 1994-2002
SAT Score
Source: Judge and Hurst (in preparation)
Question #5How Does CSE Work?
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
Question #5How Does CSE Work?
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)
Question #5How Does CSE Work?
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”
Question #5How Does CSE Work?
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)
Question #5How Does CSE Work?
Choice of Evaluation
Pe
rce
nt
Tim
e C
ho
se
n
42
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?
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