Origins, Benefits, Possible Costs
Timothy A. Judge
University of Florida
University of Michigan
January 23, 2006

2
• Positivity is valued in Western society
– Positive psychology movement
– Benefits of positive thinking
• Traits are foundation of positive psychology
– Mind is source of positive feelings, attitudes, behaviors
– Mind’s functioning is substantially genetic
– Ergo the above statement
– But logical assertion ≠ empirical estimation

3
Issue #1
• Controversy over whether positive selfregard matters
Issue #2
• Positively too many positive traits

Does Positive Self-Regard Matter?
4
• Self-esteem most widely studied trait
• Baumeister et al. (2003):
– “Self-esteem is thus not a major predictor or cause of almost anything”
• Crocker and Knight (2005):
– “Although high self-esteem produces pleasant feelings and enhanced initiative, it does not cause high academic achievement, good job performance, or leadership”

5
Construct Proliferation
• “A fad of one-shot” studies—Eriksen (1957)
• “Craze of proliferation”—Jensen (1958)
• “Pets”—Allport (1958)
• “Gad, what a mess!”—Blake & Mouton (1959)
• “Sprawl and diversity”—Adelson (1969)
• “Escalation without end in sight”—Goldberg (1971)
• “Bewildering array of scales”—John (1990)

6
• “A necessary condition for a construct to be scientifically admissible is that it occurs in a nomological net” (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955)
• “Rarely do we see the development of a nomological net…frequently the relations among what appear to be similar constructs remain unclear” (Pervin, 1997)
• “Jangle” fallacy (Block, 1996)—using different terms for the same construct

7
• Careerism
– “ obsessive discoverer
’ s complex
”
– “ new Columbuses
”
(Sorokin, 1956)
• Attention deficit
– C ryptomnesia : tendency to mistake an old concept for their new, seemingly original one (Merton, 1973)
• Academic tendency toward reductio ad absurdum

8
• Bandwidth-fidelity paradox: earliest stages of scientific psychology
– elements of sensations (Titchener, 1910)
– structure of intelligence (Spearman, 1927)
– nature of attitudes (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1974)
• Parsimony is a goal of psychology
– Ceteris paribus , the simplest explanation, or fewest number of constructs, is preferred
• If a broad factor explains overlap in measures, unexplained (unique) nonerror variance must show incremental validity
(Humphreys, 1962)

9
With this preamble —controversy over whether positive self-regard matters and a profusion of positive traits —I’m going to discuss my research on an integrative positive trait, core self-evaluations

• Self-esteem, locus of control, and neuroticism are the most widely studied individual traits in personality psychology
• Search of PsycINFO database
– Self-esteem: 20,203 articles
– Locus of control: 13,428 articles
– Neuroticism/emotional stability: 20,026 articles
10
• The 3 traits have been the subject of more than 50,000 studies

• Nearly always studied in isolation
– In personality research
…
• In the few cases where 2 are included, interrelationship typically are not considered
• When interrelationship is considered, results are often bewildering
…
– 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

12
• Judge, Locke, & Durham (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)

13
Necessary to Establish Legitimacy of CSE
1. Do core traits covary and do they indicate a common factor?
2. Does core self-evaluations predict criteria?

Correlations Among Traits
Trait SE GSE LOC ES
Self-esteem ( SE )
Generalized self-efficacy (
Locus of control ( LOC
Emotional stability ( ES
)
)
GSE )
—
.85
.52
.64
9
2,431
—
.56
.62
47
14,691
13
13,088
—
.40
19
5,565
7
1,541
31
6,538
—
Numbers in red are meta-analyzed correlations.
Numbers in black are number of studies.
Numbers in blue are combined N.
14
Source: Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 2002)

15
Self-Esteem #1
Self-Esteem #2
1.00
.91
.54
Self-Esteem #3
Self-Efficacy #1 1.00
Self-Efficacy #2
.98
.73
Self-Efficacy #3
Neuroticism #1
Neuroticism #2
1.00
.77
.67
Neuroticism #3
Locus #1
Locus #2
1.00
.58
.75
Locus #3
Self-
Esteem
Self-
Efficacy
.79
Neuroticism
-.76
.59
Locus of
Control
.88
Core
Self
Evaluations

Do Core Traits Matter?
Meta Analysis Results-Job Performance
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
End points indicate limits of 80% CV
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
SE GSF LOC ES
Notes : SE=self-esteem; GSF=generalized self-efficacy; LOC=locus of control;
ES=emotional stability
16
Source: Judge & Bono (Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001)

Do Core Traits Matter?
Meta Analysis Results-Job Satisfaction
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
End points indicate limits of 80% CV
0.2
0.1
0
SE GSF LOC ES
Notes : SE=self-esteem; GSF=generalized self-efficacy; LOC=locus of control;
ES=emotional stability
17
Source: Judge & Bono (Journal of Applied Psychology, 2001)

Discriminant Validity?
Issue of Incremental Validity
18
• Controlling for common factor individual core traits almost never contribute to predicting satisfaction or performance
– Little specific-factor variance
– If a broad factor explains overlap in measures, the unexplained non-error variance that is unique to the measures must be examined for its usefulness (Lubinski & Dawis, 1992)
– This specific factor variance, beyond the core trait, is rarely (though sometimes) useful

19
• Core traits load on higher factor
• CSE predicts satisfaction, performance
• Rarely does individual core trait (specificfactor) variance add beyond the core
• Why is CSE predictive?
– High CSE people set higher goals and are more committed to them
(Erez & Judge, JAP, 2001)
– High CSE people seek and attain more challenging jobs (Judge et al., JAP, 1998, JAP, 2000)

1. CSE is a composite concept--a combination of Big Five traits (C,E,ES)
2. CSE is redundant--simply another measure of emotional stability
3. CSE has limited utility (no incremental validity) once the Big Five traits assessments of #1 and #2
20
4.
One can be too positive so CSE isn’t always a good thing

Core Self-Evaluations Scale
1.
I am confident I get the success I deserve in life.
2.
Sometimes I feel depressed. ( r )
3.
When I try, I generally succeed.
r =reverse scored
4.
Sometimes when I fail I feel worthless. ( r )
5.
I complete tasks successfully.
6.
Sometimes, I do not feel in control of my work. ( r )
7.
Overall, I am satisfied with myself.
8.
I am filled with doubts about my competence. ( r )
9.
I determine what will happen in my life.
10.
I do not feel in control of my success in my career. ( r )
11.
I am capable of coping with most of my problems.
12.
There are times when things look pretty bleak and hopeless to me. ( r )
21
Source: Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (Personnel Psychology, 2003)

Relation of CSES to Criteria
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
.41
.49
.54
.45
.23
.24
Sample 1
Sample 2
JS LS JP
JS=Job Satisfaction; LS=Life Satisfaction; JP=Job Performance
22
Source: Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (Personnel Psychology, 2003)

What Does CSE Add?
JS LS
CSES beyond 4 core traits
4 core traits beyond CSES
CSES beyond Extraversion
Extraversion beyond CSES
CSES beyond Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness beyond CSES
2/2
0/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
0/2
3/3
1/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
0/3
23
Source: Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen (Personnel Psychology, 2003)
0/2
1/2
0/2
JP
2/2
0/2
2/2

CSE=Emotional Stability?
• CSE more related to neuroticism than to conscientiousness, extraversion
24
• If CSE=emotional stability
– Measures of emotional stability (neuroticism) need to be revisited
• Derived from psychopathology
• Assess stress/anxiety more than evaluation of one
’ s self worth or competence
– Am easily disturbed / Change my mood a lot
– Get irritated easily / Get upset easily
– Have frequent mood swings / Often feel blue
– Worry about things / Get stressed out easily
– Am relaxed most of the time / Seldom feel blue

25

26
New Study with Amir Erez
• Collected data from (a) fitness center and
(b) child car center
• Employees completed CSES, a FFM measure, and job attitudes
• Supervisors rated performance of employees
– Two supervisors per employee

Incremental Validity: Job Attitudes
Job satisfaction
Org.
Commitment
P-O
Fit
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
CSES
.06
.18*
-.05
.13
.07
.33
**
Notes: N=167.
† p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
.38
**
.11
-.09
.28
**
.15
†
.12
27
Source: Judge and Erez (in preparation)
.02
.22
**
.18
*
.00
.16
.08

Addressing Controversies 1-3
Incremental Validity: Stress/Stressors
Role
Ambiguity
Life
Stress
Somatic
Complaints
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
CSES
-.05
-.23**
.08
-.21*
-.07
-.21
*
Notes: N=167.
† p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
-.05
-.23**
.08
-.21
*
-.07
-.23
*
28
Source: Judge and Erez (in preparation)
.30**
.00
.00
.07
-.04
.33
**

Addressing Controversies 1-3
Incremental Validity: Motivation
Overall
Motivation
Intrinsic
Motivation
Goal
Commitment
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
.08
.12
.16*
.03
.14
†
CSES
.23
*
Notes: N=165.
† p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
29
Source: Judge and Erez (in preparation)
.06
.31**
.20*
.09
.16
†
.16
†
.11
.22
**
.13
†
.06
.05
.32
**

Addressing Controversies 1-3
Incremental Validity: Performance
Overall Job
Performance
Contextual
Performance
Task
Performance
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
.16
.05
-.07
-.05
.16
†
.31**
-.02
-.07
.13
.06
CSES
.32
**
Notes: N=164.
† p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
30
Source: Judge and Erez (in preparation)
.39
**
.20
*
.05
-.11
-.07
.23
**
.28
**

Addressing Controversies 1-3
Incremental Validity: Performance
1 2 3 4 5
Neuroticism Measure
1. Big Five Inventory
2. Goldberg IPIP
3. Goldberg AB5C
4. NEO
.19
.12
-.06
.15
5. Eysenck
Core Self-Evaluations
.32**
CSES
∆R
R2
31
Source: Judge and Erez (in preparation)
.42** .36** .36** .41** .52**
.28** .28** .29** .20** .37**
.12
.11
.12
.11
.15

Addressing Controversies 1-3
Summary
32
• CSES predicts most criteria, controlling for neuroticism and other Big Five measures
• Surprisingly, CSE better predicts stressors, stress, and strain compared to measures of neuroticism
• CSES predicts performance
– Controlling for every measure of neuroticism, yet reverse not true

Controversy #4
Can One Be Too Positive?
• Is positivity always good?
(Judge & Ilies, AME,
2004)
– Harmful effects of self-esteem pursuit
33
– Costs of self-deception
– Extreme self-positivity=narcissism
• Definition: self-love, or an exceptional interest in and admiration for yourself
• Narcissism correlates r=.35 with self-esteem
• Many controversies about narcissism in psychology
(e.g., costs-benefits)
• Very little study of narcissism in OB

Controversy #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
34

Controversy #4
Can One Be Too Positive?
Self Rating
(SF)
Supervisor
Rating (SP)
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Narcissism
-.01
-.01
.25
**
.19
**
.56
**
.05
-.11
.01
.17
*
-.02
.09
-.25
**
Notes: Criterion=Contextual performance. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
SF-SP
Difference
0.90
0.01
8.93
**
2.74
29.35
**
5.53
**
35
Source: Judge, LePine, and Rich (in press, JAP)

Controversy #4
Can One Be Too Positive?
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Narcissism
Self Rating
(SF)
-.21**
.11
.29**
.12
.23**
.22**
Supervisor
Rating (SP)
-.09
.08
.16
-.01
.06
-.20*
Notes: Criterion=Leadership effectiveness. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
SF-SP
Difference
3.51**
1.45
10.22**
1.15
4.09*
7.09**
36
Source: Judge, LePine, and Rich (in press, JAP)

• Positive traits do matter
• Positive traits proliferate the literature and should be reduced to common core
37
• Common core—CSE—is important
– CSE is not mere composite of FFM
– CSE not assessed with measures of ES
– CSE has incremental validity
– One can be too self-positive, but this is not the same as CSE

http://www.ufstudies.net/tim/michigan/index_UM.htm
Contents
• Michigan 1-23-06 Presentation
• Bono & Judge European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology (2003)
• Judge et al. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology (2002)
• Judge et al. Personnel Psychology (2003)
• Judge & Bono Journal of Applied Psychology (2001)
• Judge, LePine, & Rich Journal of Applied Psychology (in press)
• Judge & Ilies Academy of Management Executive (2004)
38