Positive Self-Concept:
A Universal Virtue Ethic?
Timothy A. Judge
University of Florida
  
Michigan State University

2 October 2006
1
Research Areas
   
• Personality
– Five factor model
– Core self-evaluations
• Mood/emotions
• Other
– Attitudes
– Staffing/careers
– Leadership
2
Positivity
   
• 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
3
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
4
Self-Positivity
A 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)
5
BUT
Does Positive SelfConcept Matter?
   
• 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”
6
Rebuttal
Does Positive SelfConcept 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)?
7
6 Questions
   
1. Is there a broad self-concept factor (CSE) that
causes indicators like self-esteem?
PAST
2. How does the broad factor (CSE) relate to
various work and life outcomes?
3. Does CSE add beyond the five-factor model?
FUTURE
4. Can one be too positive (overly self-positive)?
5. How does CSE work (how, when, what [Swann])?
6. What are remaining unanswered questions?
8
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)
9
“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
10
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…
– neuroticismlocus of control (Wambach & Panackal, 1979)
– locus of a controlneuroticism (Morelli et al., 1979)
– In organizational behavior research…
• Nearly all studies including more than one core
trait treat them as wholly independent
11
Core SelfEvaluations
   
• Judge, Locke, & Durham (ROB, 1997)
proposed a broad construct, core selfevaluations (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)
12
Question #1
Do Traits Indicate HigherOrder 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)
13
Self-Esteem #1
.54
Self-Esteem #2
Self-Esteem #3
Self-Efficacy #1
Question #1
1.00
.91
   
Do Traits Indicate
Higher-Order Factor?
SelfEsteem
.88
1.00
.98
Self-Efficacy #2
.73
SelfEfficacy
.79
Self-Efficacy #3
Neuroticism #1
1.00
.67
Neuroticism #2
.77
-.76
Neuroticism
Core
Self
Evaluations
Neuroticism #3
.59
Locus #1
1.00
.58
Locus #2
.75
Locus #3
Locus
of
Control
Source: Erez & Judge (JAP, 2001)
14
Question #2
Does 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
15
Question #3
CSE and FFM
   
• 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?
16
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**
Note: ** p < .01. N=124 life insurance agents.
Source: Erez and Judge (Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001)
17
Question #3
Does CSE Add Beyond FFM?
   
JS=job satisfaction
JP=job performance
LS=life satisfaction
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)
18
Question #3
Does CSE Add Beyond FFM?
   
19
Question #3
Does CSE Add Beyond FFM?
   
• Collected data from
– fitness center
– child care center
• Employees completed core selfevaluations scale and a FFM measure
• Supervisors rated performance of
employees
– Two supervisors per employee (ICC1=.50)
20
Question #3
Does CSE Add Beyond FFM?
   
Overall Job
Performance
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Contextual
Performance
Task
Performance
.16
.05
-.07
.31**
-.02
-.07
.20*
.05
-.11
-.05
.16†
.13
.06
-.07
.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)
21
Question #3
Does CSE Add Beyond FFM?
   
• 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
22
Question #3
Does CSE Add Beyond FFM?
Criterion=overall job performance
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)
23
6 Questions
   
1. Is there a broad self-concept factor (CSE) that
causes indicators like self-esteem?
2. How does the broad factor (CSE) relate to
various 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?
24
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
25
Question #4
Can One Be Too Positive?
   
• DSM-IV: narcissism=grandiose self-regard;
exaggeration of talents, skills
– May lead to enhanced view of self with respect
to various work outcomes
• Collected data in two samples relating self
and other ratings of
– Leadership
– Workplace deviance
– Task and contextual performance
26
Question #4
Can One Be Too Positive?
   
Self Rating
(SF)
β
Supervisor
Rating (SP)
β
-.01
-.01
.25**
.19**
-.11
.01
.17*
-.02
Conscientiousness
.56**
.09
Narcissism
.05
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
-.25**
SF-SP
Difference
F
0.90
0.01
8.93**
2.74
29.35**
5.53**
Notes: Criterion=Contextual performance. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
Source: Judge, LePine, and Rich (JAP, 2006)
27
Question #4
Can One Be Too Positive?
Self Rating
(SF)
β
   
Other Rating
(OP)
β
SF-SP
Difference
F
-.21**
.11
-.09
.08
3.51**
1.45
Conscientiousness
.29**
.12
.23**
.16
-.01
.06
10.22**
1.15
4.09**
Narcissism
.22*
-.20*
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
7.09**
Notes: Criterion=Leadership effectiveness. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
Source: Judge, LePine, and Rich (JAP, 2006)
28
Question #5
How 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)
29
Question #5
How Does CSE Work?
   
• 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
30
Question #5
How Does CSE Work?
   
Measure of CSE in NLS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Constructed from Items Measured 1979-2002
I have little control over the things that happen to me (r)
There is little I can do to change many of the important things in my life (r)
What happens to me in the future mostly depends on me
I feel that I am a person of worth, on an equal basis with others
I feel that I have a number of good qualities
All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure (r)
I feel I do not have much to be proud of (r)
I wish I could have more respect for myself (r)
I’ve been depressed (r)
I’ve felt hopeful about the future
What happens to me is of my own doing
When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work
31
Question #5
How Does CSE Work?
   
Predicted Income 1994-2002
$100,000
$90,758
$90,000
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
High CSE
Low CSE
$51,544
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$43,861
$37,836
$20,000
8 years
10 years
12 years
14 years
Parents’ Education in 1979
Source: Judge and Hurst (in preparation)
32
Question #5
   
How Does CSE Work?
Predicted Income 1994-2002
$120,000
$103,297
$100,000
$80,000
$60,000
$40,000
$20,000
High CSE
Low CSE
$54,636
$38,703
$44,135
Roofer
Waiter
Carpenter
Plumber
Musician
Nurse(RN)
Therapist
Manager
Economist
Chemist
15
30
45
60
75
Parents’ Occupational Prestige 1979
Source: Judge and Hurst (in preparation)
33
Question #5
How Does CSE Work?
$100,000
   
Predicted Income 1994-2002
$80,877
$80,000
$60,000
$57,077
$40,000
$38,546
High CSE
Low CSE
$40,528
$20,000
Yes
No
Childhood Poverty 1979
Source: Judge and Hurst (in preparation)
34
Question #5
How Does CSE Work?
   
Predicted Income 1994-2002
$100,000
$93,941
$80,000
High CSE
Low CSE
$60,000
$40,000
$48,851
$34,348
$31,722
$20,000
10
12
14
Years of Education
Source: Judge and Hurst (in preparation)
16
35
Question #5
How Does CSE Work?
   
Predicted Income 1994-2002
$120,000
$106,743
$100,000
$80,000
High CSE
Low CSE
$63,318
$60,000
$40,000
$39,070
$39,955
$20,000
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
High School Grade Point Average
Source: Judge and Hurst (in preparation)
36
Question #5
How Does CSE Work?
   
Predicted Income 1994-2002
$150,000
$143,280
$125,000
$100,000
$75,000
High CSE
Low CSE
$60,219
$50,000
$50,809
$36,867
$25,000
600
800
1000
SAT Score
Source: Judge and Hurst (in preparation)
1200
37
Question #5
How Does CSE Work?
   
• 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
38
Question #5
How Does CSE Work?
   
Note: Orange bars/numbers are average stability across traits
according to Roberts & DELVecchio (JPSP, 2000)
.60
.60
.54
.43
.43
From: Trzesniewski, Donnellan, & Robins (JPSP, 2003)
---
39
Question #5
How Does CSE Work?
   
• 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”
40
Question #5
Chosen Partner
Time Interaction
Percent
Percentage
Choosing
How Does CSE Work?
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
   
75
55
45
25
Favorable Evaluation
Positive SelfConcept
Negative SelfConcept
Unfavorable
Evaluation
Choice of Evaluation
Source: Judge, Cable, and Klinger (in progress)
41
6 Questions
   
1. Is there a broad self-concept factor (CSE) that
causes indicators like self-esteem?
2. How does the broad factor (CSE) relate to
various 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?
42
Question #6
Other Issues? (topics under
current or prospective study)
   
• 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
43
Future Research
Broad Questions: +/POS
   
• 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?
44
Future Research
Ongoing 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 workfamily attitudes at home
• Personality
– Capitalizing on positive events at work
– Courage: Its nature and relevance to I-O/OB
45
Future Research
   
Percent of studies
35
30
25
CSE
Other traits
Emos
Leadership
Other
20
15
10
5
0
2003-2006
Current
Next 3 years
46
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
47