You are on page 1of 48

Journal of Management

Vol. 38 No. 1, January 2012 81-128


DOI: 10.1177/0149206311419661
The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Core Self-Evaluations: A Review


and Evaluation of the Literature
Chu-Hsiang (Daisy) Chang
Michigan State University
D. Lance Ferris
Pennsylvania State University
Russell E. Johnson
Michigan State University
Christopher C. Rosen
University of Arkansas
James A. Tan
St. Cloud State University

Core self-evaluation (CSE) represents the fundamental appraisals individuals make about their
self-worth and capabilities. CSE is conceptualized as a higher order construct composed of
broad and evaluative traits (e.g., self-esteem and generalized self-efficacy). The authors review
15 years of CSE theory and research, focusing in particular on the outcomes, mediators, and
moderators of CSE via qualitative and quantitative literature reviews. Meta-analytic results
support the relation of CSE with various outcomes, including job and life satisfaction, in-role
and extra-role job performance, and perceptions of the work environment (e.g., job
characteristics and fairness). The authors conclude with a critical evaluation of CSE theory,
measurement, and construct validity, highlighting areas of promise and concern for future CSE
research. Key topics requiring further research include integrating CSE within an approach/

Acknowledgements: This article was accepted under the editorship of Talya N. Bauer. All authors contributed
equally to this research (names are listed alphabetically). We thank Robin Fenty, Oliver Rosen, and Oscar Shatner
for their assistance with preparing the manuscript.

Corresponding author: Russell E. Johnson, Department of Management, Michigan State University, N438 North
Business Complex, East Lansing, MI 48824-1121, USA

Email: johnsonr@bus.msu.edu

81
82 Journal of Management / January 2012

avoidance framework, ruling out alternative explanations for the emergence of the higher order
construct, testing the possibility of intraindividual change in CSE, evaluating the usefulness of
CSE for staffing and performance management, and moving beyond CSE to also consider core
external evaluations.

Keywords:core self-evaluation; personality; meta-analysis; motivation; job attitudes; job


performance

Organizational scholars have long been interested in understanding the factors that
contribute to job satisfaction. These factors have ranged from work characteristics (Hackman
& Oldham, 1980) to fairness perceptions (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987) and value
fulfillment (Locke, 1976). Dispositional factors also appear to play a role, as job satisfaction
is relatively stable across time and job circumstances (Staw & Ross, 1985). One criticism of
the dispositional approach, however, was the proliferation of research on individual variables
without integrative theory. To redress this limitation, Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997)
proposed the construct of core self-evaluation (CSE), which refers to fundamental appraisals
that people make of their own self-worth, competence, and capabilities.
Since its introduction, CSE has become a prevalent topic of investigation in the
organizational sciences, as it has been linked to a variety of phenomena such as satisfaction
(Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998), engagement (Rich, LePine, & Crawford, 2010),
and popularity (Scott & Judge, 2009). Searches using leading academic databases yield over
100 articles referencing CSE, and the papers that introduced the construct (Judge et al.,
1997; Judge, Locke, et al., 1998) have been cited over 200 times. The popularity of CSE is
also evidenced by its appearance in introductory organizational behavior textbooks (e.g.,
Levy, 2010; Pinder, 2008) and its appearance in domains outside the organizational
sciences, like gerontology (Baker, Kennedy, Bohle, Campbell, Wiltshire, & Singh, 2011)
and nursing (Almost, Doran, Hall, & Laschinger, 2010). Given its increasing impact and
popularity, as well as some emerging concerns and the potential limitations associated with
the construct (Chen, in press; Johnson, Rosen, & Djurdjevic, 2011; Johnson, Rosen, &
Levy, 2008; Schmitt, 2004), a review of the CSE literature to date seems timely to take stock
of the literature and to highlight gaps and directions for future research.
In the sections that follow, we first review theory regarding the construct itself and its
relation to outcomes; here, we note limitations with the extant framework and suggest
integrating CSE within a broader approach/avoidance theoretical framework. We next
review the different operationalizations of the CSE construct, summarizing the pros and cons
of both direct and indirect CSE measures. We then provide a qualitative and quantitative
review of the effects of CSE as well as the mediators and moderators of these effects. In the
final section, we synthesize our knowledge of CSE and use it to identify themes and issues
requiring further attention. In particular, we discuss issues concerning (a) the internal
structure of the higher order construct, (b) integrating CSE within an approach/avoidance
framework, (c) intraindividual change, (d) the application of CSE in human resource
management, and (e) core external evaluations.
Chang et al. / Core Self-Evaluation 83

Core Self-Evaluation

Theory of Core Self-Evaluation

CSE theory has its origins in the writings of Edith Packer (1985, 1985/1986), who argued
that evaluations of specific situations are affected by more fundamental appraisals. Packer
(1985) referred to these fundamental appraisals as core evaluations. Drawing from diverse
literatures (e.g., philosophy and developmental psychology), Judge et al. (1997) extended
these ideas to develop an integrative theoretical framework that explains dispositional
influences on job satisfaction. Specifically, core evaluations of the self were proposed to be
the most fundamental evaluations that people hold, reflecting a baseline appraisal that is
implicit in all other beliefs and evaluations. (In addition to self-evaluations, the authors
discussed external evaluations of the world and other people, a topic we return to later.)
Ones CSE is manifested in traits that adhere to three criteria: evaluation focus,
fundamentality, and scope. Evaluation focus is the extent to which traits involve evaluations
of the self (e.g., self-esteem is an appraisal of self-worth) as opposed to descriptions of the
self (e.g., agreeableness is a label for behaviors like cooperation and showing empathy).
Fundamentality is the extent to which traits are central to the self-concept. The attribute of
fundamentality reflects ideas advanced by personality theorists (e.g., Cattell, 1965) that
fundamental traits, compared with peripheral traits, have greater interconnectivity with other
traits, perceptions, and attitudes. Scope refers to how broad (e.g., general self-esteem) or
narrow (e.g., organization-based self-esteem) a trait is, with the former being more likely to
reflect self-based evaluations versus domain-specific evaluations.
Based on these criteria, self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, emotional stability, and
locus of control were provisionally identified as CSE traits. Self-esteem is an overall
appraisal of ones self-worth (Rosenberg, 1965). Generalized self-efficacy is an estimate of
ones ability to perform and cope successfully within an extensive range of situations (Chen,
Gully, & Eden, 2001). Emotional stability is the propensity to feel calm and secure (Eysenck,
1990). Lastly, locus of control is the belief that desired effects result from ones own
behavior rather than by fate or powerful others (Rotter, 1966). According to Judge et al.
(1997), these four traits are saturated with the underlying CSE construct, which implies that
they are interrelated and share similar relations with other variables. In support of this view,
empirical findings have verified that the traits are highly correlated (e.g., Judge & Bono,
2001a; Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2002), they load on a higher order factor (e.g.,
Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000; Judge, Locke, et al., 1998), and they have similar relations
with job satisfaction and performance (Judge & Bono, 2001b).
How does CSE influence outcomes? An approach/avoidance framework. Judge et al.
(1997) suggested four processes through which CSE influences outcomes. First, CSE may
have a direct effect on outcomes through a process of emotional generalization, wherein
positive self-views spill over to influence other outcomes. Second, CSE may indirectly
affect outcomes by influencing the cognitions people possess and appraisals they make
regarding different attributes (e.g., of job characteristics). Third, CSE may indirectly affect
84 Journal of Management / January 2012

outcomes by influencing the actions individuals engage in (e.g., persisting on tasks).


Finally, CSE may moderate the relation between variables, such that reactions to events
(e.g., receiving a raise) are influenced by how worthy one views oneself.
One potential problem with this taxonomy of CSEs effects is that while it is useful for
prescribing various questions one can examine (i.e., direct, mediated, and moderating
effects), it is mostly descriptive in nature and lacks a theoretical rationale explaining why
CSE influences outcomes. For example, why is it that CSE influences cognitive appraisals
and behavioral reactions to events? Although recent work has begun to test possible reasons
for why CSE has the effects it does (see our review below of mediators of CSEs effects),
these explanations themselves are numerous and seemingly unconnected. The CSE literature
therefore appears to lack a parsimonious theoretical framework that can comprehensively
explain the effects of CSE as well as provide a guide for the selection of mediators,
moderators, and outcomes. If the CSE field is to advance, a theoretical framework that can
account for the diverse findings in this area must be provided. We believe that an approach/
avoidance theoretical framework (Elliot & Thrash, 2002) is a promising candidate for
integrating CSE research.
Approach/avoidance theoretical frameworks suggest that many categories of human
experience can be classified in terms of sensitivity to positive or negative information (for a
review, see Elliot, 1999). For example, diverse topics such as attitudes, motivation, emotion,
and perception can all be characterized in terms of the extent to which they represent
approaching positive stimuli and avoiding negative stimuli (Carver, Sutton, & Scheier, 2000;
Elliot, 1999). With respect to personality in particular, approach/avoidance frameworks posit
that personality traits represent manifestations of orthogonal biologically based approach-
and-avoidance temperaments or sensitivities toward positive and negative stimuli, respectively
(Elliot & Thrash, 2002). Some personality traits involve a sensitivity to positive stimuli (e.g.,
extraversion) or negative stimuli (e.g., neuroticism) or both (e.g., narcissism and optimism;
Carver & White, 1994; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Direct empirical tests of CSEs placement
within an approach/avoidance framework indicate that high levels of CSE are associated
with a strong approach temperament and weak avoidance temperament (Ferris et al., 2011),
indicating that high-CSE individuals can be conceptualized as both sensitive to positive
stimuli and insensitive to negative stimuli (or alternately, low-CSE individuals are sensitive
to negative stimuli and insensitive to positive stimuli).
These differences in sensitivities to positive (approach) and negative (avoidance)
information are thought to drive the relation between personality traits and other outcomes.
For example, approach/avoidance differences influence the extent to which people focus on
positive or negative information when evaluating situations (Ferguson & Bargh, 2008),
adopt goals directed toward approaching positive or avoiding negative outcomes (Elliot &
McGregor, 2001), and experience emotions that are approach based (e.g., elation and
despair) and avoidance based (e.g., relief or fear; Carver, Avivi, & Laurenceau, 2008). By
focusing on the underlying approach/avoidance nature of personality, evaluations,
motivation, and emotion, the approach/avoidance framework explains why these constructs
are interrelated. For example, given that neuroticism is an indicator of an avoidance
temperament, neurotic individuals tend to experience more avoidance-related emotions and
focus on negative information.
Chang et al. / Core Self-Evaluation 85

An approach/avoidance view of CSE can be readily integrated with Judge et al.s (1997)
original four explanations for CSEs effects but under a single parsimonious framework that
provides a rationale for how CSE influences outcomes. Although not labeled as such, theory
underlying CSEs effects already draws upon approach/avoidance themes to justify hypotheses.
For example, various CSE articles have proposed that high-CSE individuals adopt approach
goals (Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke, 2005) or that low-CSE individuals strive to avoid threats
(Srivastava, Locke, Judge, & Adams, 2010). In other words, approach/avoidance themes are
already implied by CSE research. Furthermore, an approach/avoidance framework suggests
the type of cognitive (e.g., focusing on positive or negative aspects of the evaluative target)
and behavioral (e.g., approaching vs. avoiding an outcome) effects that are likely to occur.
Finally, beyond noting that CSE may moderate the relation between two variables, an
approach/avoidance framework provides a rationale for why such moderation occurs
(e.g., due to sensitivities to positive and negative aspects of antecedent variables). In sum,
our perspective is that it is time to explicitly acknowledge approach/avoidance themes and
use this framework as a general organizing paradigm for CSE research. We return to this
topic when discussing future directions for the CSE literature.

Measuring Core Self-Evaluation

As discussed above, CSE is a multidimensional construct composed of self-esteem,


generalized self-efficacy, emotional stability, and locus of control. To date, several approaches
have been used to measure and represent the shared variance among these four traits. A basic
distinction among the measures is whether they target the CSE traits (indirect approach) or
the CSE construct itself (direct approach). Another distinction involves the use of general
measures versus domain-specific or state measures of CSE. We discuss each of these topics
below.

Indirect approaches. Indirect approaches involve measuring the four CSE traits separately
and then deriving peoples standing on the underlying CSE construct. The validity of
indirect approaches therefore requires that the appropriate traits are measured, yet there are
examples of studies where relevant traits were omitted (e.g., Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, &
Welbourne, 1999, excluded emotional stability; Rode, 2004, excluded locus of control; and
Sager, Strutton, & Johnson, 2006, excluded self-esteem and emotional stability). Given that
CSE represents the shared variance among self-esteem, self-efficacy, emotional stability,
and locus of control, all four traits ought to be measured (see Johnson et al., 2008). Failure
to include the full set of traits may produce biased estimates of the relations that CSE has
with other variables. Thus, there is a need to cross-validate observed relationships in cases
where incomplete measures of CSE were used.
To compute CSE scores, one approach is to aggregate all of the item-level data (e.g.,
Best, Stapleton, & Downey, 2005) or trait-level data (e.g., Bono & Colbert, 2005; Johnson,
Marakas, & Palmer, 2006; Srivastava et al., 2010) into a CSE score. There are also cases
where no attempt is made to combine the trait scores into an overall CSE index; instead, the
traits are entered as a set in analyses (e.g., Avery, 2003; Creed, Lehmann, & Hood, 2009;
86 Journal of Management / January 2012

Judge, Heller, & Klinger, 2008). Such methods are problematic for two reasons. First, CSE
represents the shared variance among the traits, yet these methods also include the unique
trait variance. Second, equal weight is given to each trait when creating a CSE score even
though their contributions to the higher order construct are asymmetrical (e.g., self-esteem
and self-efficacy contribute more than the other traits; Johnson, Rosen, et al., in press).
More sophisticated approaches involve using principal components or exploratory factor
analyses to obtain loadings for each item or trait and then calculating a CSE score based on
the loadings (e.g., Johnson, Kristof-Brown, Van Vianen, De Pater, & Klein, 2003; Piccolo,
Judge, Takahashi, Watanabe, & Locke, 2005). An advantage of these approaches is that they
recognize the disproportionate contributions of the traits to the higher order construct.
However, principal components analysis ought not be used to calculate CSE scores because
it does not distinguish between shared and unique variance (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum,
& Strahan, 1999).
A final indirect approach is to model a higher order CSE construct using item- or trait-
level data (e.g., Boyar & Mosley, 2007; Johnson, Rosen, et al., in press; Judge, Locke,
et al., 1998). This method is preferred because it specifically targets the shared variance
among traits and it allows for disproportionate loadings on the higher order factor. It also
enables researchers to examine the effects of the CSE traits in addition to the higher order
construct. Doing so is important because researchers can establish whether observed effects
are due to the higher order factor versus one of the traits (Johnson, Rosen, Chang, Djurdjevic,
& Taing, in press). Given that the distinction between CSE and specific traits (e.g., emotional
stability) has been questioned (Bono & Judge, 2003; Judge & Bono, 2001a), it must be
shown that CSE has effects that are unique from its traits. If CSE lacks incremental
prediction, then the principle of Occams razor suggests that the higher order construct is
superfluous. Measuring the traits separately also enables researchers to examine interactions
among the traits (e.g., Creed et al., 2009; Djurdjevic, Rosen, & Johnson, 2010; Duffy, Shaw,
Scott, & Tepper, 2006), which would otherwise be overlooked.

Direct approaches. Direct approaches measure CSE itself rather than its traits. The most
common direct measure is the Core Self-Evaluation Scale (CSES; Judge, Erez, Bono, &
Thoresen, 2003), which is backed by a growing body of validation evidence (e.g., Gardner
& Pierce, 2010; Holt & Jung, 2008; Stumpp, Muck, Hulsheger, Judge, & Maier, 2010).
Items on the CSES cut across multiple traits (e.g., the item I determine what will happen in
my life overlaps with self-efficacy and locus of control) and were chosen in part based on
the strength of their relations with job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and job performance
(Judge et al., 2003). In general, the CSES has acceptable internal consistency, testretest
reliability, and convergent and discriminant validity (Gardner & Pierce, 2010; Judge et al.,
2003; Newness & Viswesvaran, 2010).
In addition to the CSES, ad hoc measures of CSE have been created from existing data
sets and scales (e.g., Judge et al., 2000; Judge, Hurst, & Simon, 2009; Resick, Whitman,
Weingarden, & Hiller, 2009). In these cases, researchers selected items that are believed to
overlap with CSE (e.g., What happens to me is of my own doing). Given the ad hoc nature
of these measures, it is imperative to show that these measures converge with validated CSE
scales (e.g., Judge & Hurst, 2008, confirmed that their ad hoc measure related to scores on
Chang et al. / Core Self-Evaluation 87

the CSES). We recommend that researchers continue to provide such evidence when using
ad hoc CSE measures, which is not always practiced (e.g., Judge et al., 2000).

Indirect versus direct approaches. In terms of relative prediction of indirect and direct
measures of CSE, results are mixed. While Judge et al. (2003) found that the CSES
outpredicts a composite of the four traits, Gardner and Pierce (2010) found the opposite.
Findings from our meta-analysis (reported later) were also mixed, which suggests that more
research is required to identify which measure has better predictive validity. A key advantage
of indirect measures is that they preserve the trait structure of CSE, whereas a key advantage
of direct measures is their shorter length. One way to leverage these advantages is to develop
shorter scales for each CSE trait. For example, Hinkin (1995) noted that constructs can be
adequately measured with 3 to 5 items, indicating that indirect CSE measures need
comprise only 20 items or fewer. An ideal CSE scale would be short in length yet would
enable researchers to verify that observed relationships are due to the shared variance among
the traits (i.e., CSE) rather than one of the lower order traits (Johnson, Rosen, Chang, et al.,
in press). A needed direction for research, then, is to develop reliable and valid indirect
measures of CSE that are practical to administer. When relations of CSE with novel correlates
and outcomes are first examined, it is essential to demonstrate that the higher order CSE
construct predicts focal variables incremental to its trait indicators (Johnson, Rosen, &
Chang, 2011; Johnson, Rosen, Chang, et al., in press). To do so, indirect measures that
preserve the structure of the lower order traits are needed. For example, using an indirect
measure, Erez and Judge (2001) found that the higher order CSE factor predicted task
motivation and performance incremental to the lower level traits. Once it is verified that
observed relations are due to the shared variance among the traits (i.e., CSE) rather than a
subset of the traits, then future research involving the same variables may use a direct
measure in place of an indirect one.

General versus domain-specific and state measures. Research has conceptualized


personality traits at domain-specific (e.g., organization-based self-esteem; Ferris, Brown, &
Heller, 2009; Pierce & Gardner, 2004) and state (e.g., state self-esteem; Ferris, Spence,
Brown, & Heller, in press) levels. A natural extension of this logic is that CSE may
similarly exist within particular domains (e.g., work-specific CSE; Bowling, Wang, Tang,
& Kennedy, 2010) or as a state (Schinkel, van Dierendonck, & Anderson, 2004). However,
we have concerns with the use of domain- and state-specific measures because they violate
fundamental assumptions of CSE theory.
In particular, CSE is by definition broad in scope, encompassing evaluations of oneself
in general rather than of ones sense of worth in a particular domain or at a particular
moment in time (Judge et al., 1997). Thus, the notion of examining CSE within a specific
domain or at a specific time is problematic because such assessments no longer represent a
broad trait and hence no longer qualify as being CSE. In other words, it is not clear how
CSE, a fundamental and broad evaluation of oneself that underlies other more narrow
evaluations, can be represented as a narrow and momentary evaluation of oneself. While
questionnaires could undoubtedly be modified to assess CSE in a particular domain or at a
particular time, we would argue that what such questionnaires assess is, by definition, not
88 Journal of Management / January 2012

CSE.1 For these very reasons, we also consider it problematic that some items on the CSES
appear to be domain specific. In particular, items such as I do not feel in control of my
success in my career and Sometimes I do not feel in control of my work violate
fundamental tenets of CSE theory. Consequently, this raises the issue of whether or not the
greater predictive validity of the CSES over its constituent traits with respect to work
outcomes (Judge et al., 2003) is due to the matching of levels of specificity between the
CSES and workplace outcomes (Swann, Chang-Schenider, & McClarty, 2007).

Review of CSE Research

With respect to CSEs relation with correlates and consequences, we conducted a meta-
analysis using published, in-press, and unpublished (e.g., conference papers and dissertations)
CSE research. Where a sufficient number of samples examining any given correlate or
consequence had not accrued, we qualitatively review the findings in brief. Similarly, given
that few studies exist replicating the same mediators and moderators of CSEs effects, we
follow a qualitative approach and review general findings from published and in-press
articles. We conclude each section by summarizing the major themes that emerged from the
reviews.

CSE and Its Consequences and Correlates

For the quantitative review, we first conducted computerized searches of electronic


databases (ABI/Inform, Google Scholar, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, PsycINFO,
and Web of Science) using core self-evaluation as the keyword. Second, we searched the
programs of conferences (e.g., meetings of the Academy of Management and Society for
Industrial/Organizational Psychology) for unpublished papers. Lastly, we posted calls for
unpublished papers on multiple academic listservs. In total, we identified 149 studies and a
total of 599 unique effect sizes for relations of CSE with its outcomes and correlates.
Correlation coefficients were extracted as effect sizes. When multiple interdependent
effect sizes (e.g., measures of job facet satisfaction) were reported in the same sample, we
created a linear composite correlation (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004) to account for the
relationships among the multiple measures of the same construct. Studies were also coded on
the basis of publication status, sample characteristics (employee vs. student, and participant
nationality), study design (time lagged vs. cross-sectional), CSE measure (direct vs. indirect),
and the source of outcome ratings (self-reported vs. other reported). All authors conducted
the coding independently, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion.
The meta-analysis was conducted following the strategy specified by Arthur, Bennett,
and Huffcutt (2001), which is based on the Schmidt-Hunter model. For each variable, a
sample-weighted mean correlation (r) was first calculated. The percentage of variance
accounted for by sampling error was computed to indicate the proportion of variance among
correlations that is due to sampling error associated with sample sizes (Hunter & Schmidt,
2004). The chi-square test for the homogeneity of observed correlations across studies was
Chang et al. / Core Self-Evaluation 89

calculated to determine how the standard error for effect sizes should be estimated
(Rosenthal, 1991). Based on the test results, different formulae were applied to calculate
the standard error used to compute the 95% confidence interval (CI) around the sample-
weighted mean correlation (Whitener, 1990). A 95% CI that excludes zero suggests that the
correlation in question is significant.
We corrected for unreliability in the measures of CSE and outcomes/correlates using
information from the empirical studies (internal consistency alphas; Hall & Brannick, 2002)
to derive the corrected estimate of the correlation coefficient (; Hunter & Schmidt, 2004).
The standard deviation of the corrected estimate was calculated to determine the 95%
credibility interval (CV). The CV, built around the corrected coefficient estimate, serves as
one method for determining the presence of between-study moderators. A CV that includes
zero indicates that there may be between-study moderators creating variance in effect sizes
across studies (Arthur et al., 2001; Whitener, 1990). The Q statistic, which is based on a
chi-square distribution, was also calculated to examine whether there is significant variation
in the corrected coefficients (a significant Q statistic indicates the presence of moderators).
Taken together, when the CV included zero and the Q statistic was significant, we performed
subgroup analyses to examine the moderating effects of study characteristics (e.g.,
publication status and CSE measure used; Cortina, 2003; Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Finally,
Z tests were conducted to compare the magnitude of relations of CSE with outcomes and
correlates for each moderator category.
In addition to the estimates generated based on the Hunter-Schmidt method, we estimated
the effect sizes for relationships between CSE and its correlates and outcomes using the
random effects model (Erez, Bloom, & Wells, 1996). In this model, we allowed for the
possibility that effect sizes extracted from the various primary studies may represent
estimates from multiple underlying populations rather than one single population. As a
result, the variation around , or the corrected population estimate, is presumed to be larger
in random effects models. We followed the recommendations by Erez et al. (1996) to
estimate the systematic variation in subpopulation correlations (T2) and incorporated this
variance estimate while calculating the weights for each effect size (Borenstein, Hedges, &
Rothstein, 2007). Consistent with recent meta-analyses (e.g., Kish-Gephart, Harrison, &
Trevio, 2010), our meta-analytic results report population estimates and CIs for the random
effects model, which were obtained via hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) using HLM
6.04 (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, & Congdon, 2004). In addition to Z tests, which assess
the effects of individual moderators separately, we used HLM to assess the simultaneous
effects of multiple moderators. We only interpreted moderators that yielded significant
results across the Z test and HLM.

CSE and satisfaction. Overall, CSE had strong, positive relations with both job ( = .36)
and life ( = .54) satisfaction (see Table 1) based on the Hunter-Schmidt method, and its
relation with the latter was significantly stronger (Z = 17.09, p < .001). Effect sizes based
on random effects models showed similar pattern (s = .44 and .57, respectively). These
findings are consistent with an approach/avoidance framework, such that high CSE is
associated with a strong approach motivation, rendering positive environmental stimuli
Table 1
Meta-Analytic Relationships Between Core Self-Evaluation (CSE) and Satisfaction

90
Fixed Effects Random Effects
95% CI 95% CV 95% CI
Variables and Moderators k N r SD % SE Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper T 2 Q Z , t(df)
Job satisfaction 86 28,058 .31 .36 .16 11.71 .28 .34 .05 .68 .44 .41 .48 .045 674.95***
Publication status 8.59*** .09*, 2.25(80)
Published 39 16,922 .28 .33 .18 7.78 .23 .33 -.02 .69 458.09***
Unpublished 47 11,136 .36 .42 .10 28.27 .33 .39 .22 .62 153.45***
Study time frame 18.43*** .03, 0.68(80)
Longitudinal 19 12,856 .22 .26 .15 7.41 .16 .28 -.04 .56 238.03***
Cross-sectional 70 15,894 .38 .45 .11 27.25 .36 .41 .24 .67 232.36***
Sample characteristics 4.27*** .18*, 2.25(80)
Students 7 1,282 .23 .26 .10 40.02 .14 .31 .07 .46 17.21**
Employees 77 26,443 .31 .37 .16 10.90 .28 .35 .05 .69 642.27***
Sample cultural background 9.29*** .16*, 2.45(80)
Collectivist 13 4,342 .38 .46 .13 16.34 .31 .44 .21 .72 69.70***
Individualist 67 21,587 .28 .33 .16 11.84 .25 .32 .01 .66 529.50***
CSE measure 8.66*** .12*, 2.14(80)
Indirect (separate traits) 33 7,255 .38 .44 .09 34.70 .34 .41 .26 .62 85.21***
Direct (single CSE) 53 20,803 .29 .34 .17 9.16 .25 .33 .00 .68 550.13***
Life satisfaction 33 7,087 .46 .54 .17 12.66 .41 .51 .22 .87 .57 .51 .62 .050 226.00***
Publication status 2.90** .08, 0.82(27)
Published 22 4,421 .44 .52 .17 13.37 .38 .51 .19 .86 143.61***
Unpublished 11 2,666 .49 .57 .15 12.36 .41 .57 .28 .87 85.51***
Study time frame 1.03 .14, 1.26(27)
Longitudinal 8 1,694 .48 .56 .08 38.93 .42 .54 .42 .71 18.38*
Cross-sectional 27 5,656 .46 .54 .18 11.07 .40 .52 .19 .90 210.24***
Sample characteristics 8.13*** .09, 1.10(27)
Students 16 2,961 .39 .46 .23 9.33 .29 .49 .02 .91 155.74***
Employees 17 4,126 .51 .60 .04 55.16 .48 .54 .51 .69 26.08
Sample cultural background 2.39* .02, 0.17(27)
Collectivist 3 603 .49 .60 .00 100.00 .45 .54 .60 .60 1.55
Individualist 26 5,285 .45 .53 .19 10.95 .38 .51 .16 .90 207.36***
CSE measure 9.81*** .11, 1.15(27)
Indirect (separate traits) 11 2,606 .38 .46 .20 10.11 .28 .49 .07 .84 96.77***
Direct (single CSE) 22 4,481 .50 .60 .12 20.72 .46 .55 .36 .83 97.89***

Note: k = number of effect sizes; N = total subject number; r = mean sample-weighted correlation; = estimate of corrected correlation; SD = corrected standard
deviation of corrected correlation; % SE = percentage of observed variance accounted for by sampling error; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval around the mean
sample-weighted correlation; 95% CV = 95% credibility interval around the corrected correlation; Q = chi-square test for the homogeneity of true correlations across
studies; Z = significant test of the difference between the fixed effects population correlations; and t = significant test of the difference between the random effects
population correlations with hierarchical linear modeling.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Chang et al. / Core Self-Evaluation 91

more salient (Ferguson & Bargh, 2008; Ferris et al., 2011). For job satisfaction, publication
status, sample characteristic (employee vs. student), and cultural background were
significant between-study moderators. CSE had stronger relations with job satisfaction
in unpublished studies, among employee samples, and for participants who were from
collectivist cultures (e.g., China, Korea, Japan). These cross-cultural differences are
particularly interesting, given that research suggests that individual traits should better
predict outcomes in individualistic societies compared to collectivistic cultures (Markus &
Kitayama, 1998; Suh, 2002). Future studies ought to focus on assessing the cross-cultural
similarities and differences in how CSE relates to job and life satisfaction and identifying
reasons for possible cross-cultural differences.

CSE and work commitment. Table 2 summarizes relations between CSE and work
commitment, including affective (AOC), continuance (COC), and normative (NOC)
organizational commitment, and turnover intentions. CSE had a positive, significant relation
with AOC ( = .30), possibly because a strong approach motivation underlies this type of
commitment (Johnson, Chang, & Yang, 2010). This relation was stronger for participants
from a collectivist culture. CSE had a significant, negative relation with COC ( = .22),
meaning that employees with high CSE are less likely to feel trapped with no alternative at
their current employment. The relation between CSE and NOC was nonsignificant. Finally,
CSE had a negative relation with turnover intention ( = .26). Taken together, these results
are consistent with the approach/avoidance theme that high-CSE individuals tend to focus
on positive aspects of their environment and are less sensitive to negative stimuli such as
lack of alternatives.

CSE and motivation. Table 3 reports results for relationships of CSE with motivation.
Overall, a positive relationship existed between CSE and goal level ( = .22), suggesting that
individuals with high CSE tend to set more challenging goals, perhaps owing to their strong
approach motivation. CSE was also positively related to goal commitment ( = .42) and
intrinsic motivation ( = .33). These results suggest that individuals with high CSE are more
committed to goal pursuit and are more likely to be autonomously motivated, indicating those
with high CSE concentrate on the positive aspects of the task at hand, hence fostering more
internally regulated motivation, goal commitment, and persistence (Gagn & Deci, 2005).

CSE and performance. As shown in Table 4, CSE had positive relations with task
performance ( = .19) and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB; = .23) and was
negatively related to counterproductive work behavior (CWB; = .17). Employees with
high CSE thus not only fulfill job duties by performing assigned responsibilities but also
contribute to the psychosocial environment by helping coworkers, promoting the organization,
and refraining from behaving in ways that harm the organization and its members. Our
results also indicate that CSE is positively related to salary level ( = .33), suggesting that
high-CSE employees efforts do not go unnoticed. In terms of moderators, CSE had stronger
relations with self- than other-rated OCB and CWB (and was in fact unrelated to other-rated
CWB). It is therefore not clear to what extent common source bias accounts for observed
92
Table 2
Meta-Analytic Relationships Between Core Self-Evaluation (CSE) and Job Commitment
Fixed Effects Random Effects
95% CI 95% CV 95% CI
Variables and Moderators k N r SD % SE Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper T2 Q Z , t(df)
Affective commitment 20 10,975 .25 .30 .07 30.57 .21 .28 .16 .44 .32 .28 .37 .009 59.23***
Publication status 1.58 .02, 0.29(15)
Published 12 7,647 .25 .31 .07 26.92 .21 .29 .17 .45 37.65***
Unpublished 8 3,328 .23 .28 .07 40.16 .18 .28 .15 .41 19.49**
Study time frame 0.42 .04, 0.42(15)
Longitudinal 3 1,742 .24 .29 .08 22.80 .15 .34 .13 .45 11.29***
Cross-sectional 17 9,233 .25 .30 .07 32.54 .21 .28 .16 .43 47.77***
Sample characteristics 4.34*** .05, 0.60(15)
Students 4 2,622 .19 .23 .04 52.35 .15 .22 .14 .31 7.25
Employees 15 8,234 .26 .32 .06 34.20 .23 .30 .19 .45 38.96***
Sample cultural background 5.71*** .19*, 2.22(15)
Collectivist 4 2,287 .31 .39 .00 100.00 .27 .34 .39 .39 2.53
Individualist 15 8,313 .23 .27 .07 31.52 .19 .26 .13 .41 44.68***
Continuance commitment 5 3,763 .17 .22 .15 8.20 .28 .06 .51 .07 .18 .35 .01 .040 56.05***
Normative commitment 3 698 .01 .01 .14 54.43 .08 .07 .15 .13 .01 .14 .17 .014 5.51
Turnover intention 11 2,911 .22 .26 .08 41.35 .27 .16 .42 .10 .27 .34 .20 .013 26.05**
Publication status 2.79** .14, 1.80(8)
Published 5 1,043 .27 .32 .09 41.44 .36 .18 .49 .14 11.74*
Unpublished 6 1,868 .19 .22 .05 60.57 .23 .14 .32 .12 9.79
CSE measure 2.35* .06, 0.63(8)
Indirect (separate traits) 3 635 .15 .18 .07 58.51 .23 .08 .31 .05 5.09
Direct (single CSE) 8 2,276 .23 .28 .07 44.69 .29 .18 .42 .14 17.47*

Note: k = number of effect sizes; N = total subject number; r = mean sample-weighted correlation; = estimate of corrected correlation; SD = corrected standard
deviation of corrected correlation; % SE = percentage of observed variance accounted for by sampling error; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval around the mean
sample-weighted correlation; 95% CV = 95% credibility interval around the corrected correlation; Q = chi-square test for the homogeneity of true correlations across
studies; Z = significant test of the difference between the fixed effects population correlations; and t = significant test of the difference between the random effects
population correlations with hierarchical linear modeling.
*p <.05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Table 3
Meta-Analytic Relationships Between Core Self-Evaluation (CSE) and Motivation
Fixed Effects Random Effects
95% CI 95% CV 95% CI
Variables and Moderators k N r SD % SE Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper T2 Q Z , t(df)
Goal level 4 1,118 .16 .22 .10 37.87 .07 .26 .03 .41 .27 .09 .43 .031 10.18*
Goal commitment 8 1,879 .33 .42 .12 27.36 .25 .40 .18 .65 .44 .32 .55 .039 26.88***
Publication status 0.73 .00, 0.00(3)
Published 4 580 .36 .44 .12 33.64 .24 .49 .20 .68 11.32*
Unpublished 4 1,299 .31 .41 .11 24.62 .21 .41 .19 .64 15.24**
Study time frame 1.83 .01, 0.05(3)
Longitudinal 3 975 .36 .45 .00 100.00 .30 .41 .45 .45 1.42
Cross-sectional 5 904 .29 .38 .17 20.85 .16 .42 .04 .71 22.50***
Sample characteristics 2.35* .05, 0.24(3)
Students 4 993 .36 .46 .00 100.00 .30 .40 .46 .46 3.67
Employees 4 886 .29 .37 .17 18.02 .15 .43 .05 .70 20.69***
CSE measure 0.81 .09, 0.24(3)
Indirect (separate traits) 3 330 .38 .45 .17 25.18 .20 .56 .13 .78 11.31**
Direct (single CSE) 5 1,549 .32 .41 .10 30.16 .23 .40 .22 .61 15.56**
Intrinsic motivation 12 2,351 .27 .33 .14 24.34 .20 .35 .06 .61 .37 .25 .47 .042 45.78***
Publication status 1.84 .08, 0.68(8)
Published 8 1,460 .29 .36 .15 23.62 .20 .39 .07 .64 30.50***
Unpublished 4 891 .24 .29 .12 28.70 .12 .35 .05 .52 13.76**
Sample characteristics 3.96*** .15, 1.26(8)
Students 4 939 .19 .24 .05 69.58 .13 .25 .14 .34 5.63
Employees 8 1,412 .33 .39 .14 23.67 .23 .42 .11 .68 30.56***
CSE measure 0.23 .06, 0.43(8)
Indirect (separate traits) 3 546 .26 .32 .05 70.20 .18 .34 .22 .42 3.92
Direct (single CSE) 8 1,755 .28 .33 .16 17.76 .17 .38 .02 .65 42.54***

Note: k = number of effect sizes; N = total subject number; r = mean sample-weighted correlation; = estimate of corrected correlation; SD = corrected standard
deviation of corrected correlation; % SE = percentage of observed variance accounted for by sampling error; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval around the mean
sample-weighted correlation; 95% CV = 95% credibility interval around the corrected correlation; Q = chi-square test for the homogeneity of true correlations across
studies; Z = significant test of the difference between the fixed effects population correlations; and t = significant test of the difference between the random effects
population correlations with hierarchical linear modeling.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

93
Table 4
Meta-Analytic Relationships Between Core Self-Evaluation (CSE) and Performance

94
Fixed Effects Random Effects
95% CI 95% CV 95% CI
Variables and Moderators k N r SD % SE Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper T2 Q Z , t(df)
Task performance 38 9,553 .16 .19 .15 19.46 .11 .20 .10 .48 .19 .13 .25 .034 192.33***
Publication status 4.56*** .10, 1.69(32)
Published 20 4,877 .20 .23 .16 17.75 .13 .26 .08 .54 108.99***
Unpublished 18 4,676 .12 .14 .12 26.01 .06 .17 .10 .38 68.84***
Study time frame 0.00 .10, 1.17(32)
Longitudinal 7 1,906 .15 .19 .08 42.55 .08 .22 .02 .35 16.14*
Cross-sectional 31 7,647 .16 .19 .16 17.33 .11 .21 .13 .50 176.66***
Sample characteristics 5.51*** .12, 1.54(32)
Students 10 1,878 .08 .10 .14 27.55 .00 .17 .18 .38 36.15***
Employees 26 6,560 .20 .24 .13 22.38 .15 .25 .02 .50 113.55***
Sample cultural background 8.24*** .22*, 2.72(32)
Collectivist 7 3,548 .25 .31 .15 10.17 .15 .35 .01 .62 61.89***
Individualist 30 5,169 .12 .14 .10 42.25 .08 .16 .06 .34 70.69***
CSE measure 5.10*** .16*, 2.12(32)
Indirect (separate traits) 8 1,680 .24 .29 .12 30.10 .16 .33 .06 .52 26.28***
Direct (single CSE) 30 7,873 .14 .16 .15 19.65 .09 .19 .12 .45 150.71***
Performance measure
Self-rated 6 3,405 .20 .25 .20 6.50 .07 .32 .13 .63 85.46*** 4.06***
Other-rated 22 4,195 .13 .15 .07 35.74 .09 .17 .02 .28 35.39* 0.94
Objective 9 1,240 .11 .12 .18 20.06 .00 .23 .24 .48 44.83***
Organizational citizenship 16 3,002 .19 .23 .07 26.15 .15 .23 .10 .36 .22 .16 .27 .009 25.59*
behavior
Publication status 1.40 .03, 0.45(12)
Published 6 1,161 .16 .20 .03 91.11 .11 .22 .15 .25 6.53
Unpublished 10 1,841 .21 .25 .08 54.87 .15 .26 .10 .40 17.90*
Sample characteristics 0.46 .00, 0.01(12)
Students 3 596 .20 .24 .00 100.00 .12 .28 .24 .24 1.15
Employees 13 2,406 .19 .22 .08 52.65 .13 .24 .07 .38 24.33*
Performance measure 4.05*** .15*, 2.95(12)
Self-rated 6 1,440 .26 .30 .06 60.32 .21 .30 .19 .41 9.70
Other-rated 10 1,562 .13 .16 .00 100.00 .08 .18 .16 .16 3.48
(continued)
Table 4 (continued)
Fixed Effects Random Effects
95% CI 95% CV 95% CI
Variables and Moderators k N r SD % SE Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper T2 Q Z , t(df)
Citizenship behavior type 3.46***
Organizational citizenship 11 2,096 .16 .20 .06 63.08 .12 .21 .07 .32 17.31
behaviorsindividual
Organizational citizenship 11 2,119 .25 .30 .11 33.69 .18 .32 .08 .53 31.62***
behaviorsorganization
Counterproductive work 16 4,313 .15 .17 .15 18.54 .21 .08 .46 .11 .19 .27 .09 .029 85.07***
behavior
Publication status 3.05** .13, 1.07(11)
Published 5 2,224 .11 .13 .10 23.61 .19 .02 .33 .07 20.76***
Unpublished 11 2,089 .19 .22 .17 18.46 .28 .09 .55 .12 58.83***
Study time frame 1.77 .06, 0.48(11)
Longitudinal 3 520 .21 .24 .11 36.22 .35 .08 .45 .03 5.25*
Cross-sectional 13 3,793 .14 .16 .15 17.25 .21 .06 .45 .13 74.30***
Sample cultural background 0.66 .03, 0.29(11)
Collectivist 4 2,399 .13 .16 .13 12.60 .24 .02 .41 .09 30.35***
Individualist 11 1,805 .16 .18 .16 23.52 .25 .06 .50 .13 46.40***
Performance measure 4.33*** .32*, 2.92(11)
Self-rated 10 3,530 .16 .19 .12 19.68 .24 .09 .43 .05 49.52***
Other-rated 5 674 .00 .01 .17 26.76 .15 .14 .33 .32 18.69***
Counterproductive behavior 4.03***
type
Counterproductive work 11 3,570 .13 .16 .14 17.03 .21 .06 .43 .12 63.61***
behaviorindividual
Counterproductive work 8 1,432 .24 .28 .08 50.47 .31 .17 .43 .12 15.68*
behaviororganization
Salary 5 8,826 .28 .33 .01 85.02 .26 .30 .31 .34 .32 .27 .37 .002 5.51

Note: k = number of effect sizes; N = total subject number; r = mean sample-weighted correlation; = estimate of corrected correlation; SD = corrected standard
deviation of corrected correlation; % SE = percentage of observed variance accounted for by sampling error; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval around the mean
sample-weighted correlation; 95% CV = 95% credibility interval around the corrected correlation; Q = chi-square test for the homogeneity of true correlations across
studies; Z = significant test of the difference between the fixed effects population correlations; and t = significant test of the difference between the random effects
population correlations with hierarchical linear modeling.

95
p < .10. *p <.05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
96 Journal of Management / January 2012

relationships between self-reports of CSE and CWB. Future studies ought to focus on further
delineating relationships between CSE and CWB using more powerful methodological
approaches (e.g., longitudinal time frames and other-reported or objective CWB assessments).
Finally, there were too few studies to examine relationships of CSE with other dimensions
of performance like creativity and safety behaviors. Exploring how CSE relates to these
additional performance measures will more fully capture the criterion space of performance.

CSE and perceptions of job characteristics. Judge et al. (1997; Judge, Locke, et al., 1998)
argued that perceptions of job characteristics are a key variable that link CSE with job
satisfaction, such that those with high CSE consider their jobs and workplaces as more
attractive, and thus they experience higher satisfaction. The meta-analytic findings reported
in Table 5 provide support for this proposition: CSE was positively related to perceived job
characteristics ( = .39) as well as to perceived fairness ( = .15) and perceived support (
= .26). These results suggest that high-CSE individuals pay more attention to the positive
aspects of their environments, thus providing indirect support for the linkage between CSE
and approach motivation.

CSE and occupational stress. Reported in Table 6 are meta-analytic relations between
CSE and stressors and strains. Overall, CSE had a negative relation with stressors ( = .30),
which refer to environmental stimuli that are considered threatening and that require coping
efforts from employees (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In addition, CSE also had a negative
relation with strains ( = .42), which are maladaptive responses to stressors that include
psychological (e.g., negative emotions, exhaustion), physical (e.g., psychosomatic complaints),
and behavioral components (e.g., substance abuse; Rosen, Chang, Djurdjevic, & Eatough,
2010). These results are compatible with the notion that employees with high CSE appraise
situations positively, suggesting that CSE may have implications for both primary and
secondary appraisals of the transactional stress model (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). One
contribution for future research is to better integrate CSE with the occupational stress
literature and directly test the effects of CSE on cognitive appraisal processes. Researchers
should also consider moving beyond self-reported strains, which can be biased by transient
factors like mood and other sources of method bias. Instead, relations of CSE to physiological
(e.g., cardiovascular functioning) and behavioral (e.g., alcohol consumption) markers of
strains should be examined.

CSE and individual difference correlates. Table 7 summarizes the relations between CSE
and other individual differences correlates. Overall, CSE had strong and positive relations
with conscientiousness ( = .49), extraversion ( = .45), and positive affectivity ( = .61),
and it has moderate and positive relations with agreeableness ( = .28), approach motivation
( = .32), and learning goal orientation ( = .33). In addition, CSE had strong, negative
relations with avoidance motivation ( = .54), negative affectivity ( = .60), and
performance avoid goal orientation ( = .37). Finally, CSE was weakly related to cognitive
ability ( = .12), openness ( = .19), and performance prove goal orientation ( = .11).
Consistent with an approach/avoidance perspective, CSE related positively to markers of
approach temperament (viz., approach motivation, positive affectivity, extraversion, learning
Table 5
Meta-Analytic Relationships Between Core Self-Evaluation (CSE) and Perceptions of Job Characteristics
Fixed Effects Random Effects
95% CI 95% CV 95% CI
Variables and Moderators k N r SD % SE Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper T2 Q Z , t(df)
Job characteristics 22 6,852 .32 .39 .10 27.97 .28 .36 .20 .58 .43 .37 .48 .019 63.76***
Publication status 2.38* .04, 0.48(16)
Published 13 4,083 .33 .41 .05 54.56 .29 .37 .31 .51 20.62
Unpublished 9 2,769 .30 .36 .13 17.42 .22 .38 .10 .63 40.04***
Study time frame 0.43 .03, 0.31(16)
Longitudinal 3 1,861 .32 .38 .02 59.28 .28 .37 .33 .42 3.60
Cross-sectional 19 4,991 .31 .39 .11 25.99 .26 .36 .17 .61 61.61***
Sample characteristics 2.23* .05, 0.40(16)
Students 4 441 .38 .47 .00 100.00 .30 .46 .47 .47 2.74
Employees 16 6,210 .31 .38 .10 21.89 .26 .36 .18 .58 54.68***
Sample cultural background 0.43 .07, 0.67(16)
Collectivist 3 2,316 .27 .38 .15 8.62 .14 .40 .08 .67 28.44***
Individualist 16 3,335 .32 .39 .04 68.28 .29 .35 .31 .48 20.54
CSE measure 2.86** .07, 0.74(16)
Indirect (separate traits) 7 1,613 .27 .34 .15 20.15 .17 .37 .05 .63 32.65***
Direct (single CSE) 15 5,239 .33 .41 .06 39.67 .29 .37 .28 .53 28.84*
Job characteristics dimension
Autonomy 7 2,502 .27 .32 .13 17.59 .18 .35 .07 .57 36.70*** 5.11***
Skill utilization 3 499 .22 .27 .08 57.17 .14 .31 .12 .42 5.23 3.86***
Overall 15 4,350 .35 .43 .04 57.40 .31 .38 .35 .51 19.49
Fairness perceptions 13 2,546 .12 .15 .04 78.91 .09 .16 .07 .23 .14 .09 .20 .005 16.19
Perceived support 19 10,397 .22 .26 .08 24.30 .18 .26 .10 .43 .28 .23 .34 .011 71.84***
Publication status 3.23** .04, 0.58(16)
Published 7 6,235 .20 .24 .09 15.65 .14 .26 .06 .41 39.12***
Unpublished 12 4,162 .25 .30 .06 49.56 .21 .30 .19 .42 23.09*
Sample characteristics 3.15** .04, 0.56(16)
Students 3 2,178 .27 .32 .06 33.77 .20 .34 .21 .42 8.04*
Employees 14 7,854 .21 .25 .08 27.38 .17 .25 .10 .40 46.88***
Source of support
Organization 6 3,837 .28 .32 .05 35.55 .23 .33 .21 .43 15.16** 1.10
Supervisor 12 7,360 .20 .23 .07 28.61 .16 .24 .09 .37 38.62*** 1.39
Coworker 4 752 .23 .28 .14 27.07 .10 .36 .01 .55 14.59**

Note: k = number of effect sizes; N = total subject number; r = mean sample-weighted correlation; = estimate of corrected correlation; SD = corrected standard
deviation of corrected correlation; % SE = percentage of observed variance accounted for by sampling error; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval around the mean
sample-weighted correlation; 95% CV = 95% credibility interval around the corrected correlation; Q = chi-square test for the homogeneity of true correlations across
studies; Z = significant test of the difference between the fixed effects population correlations; and t = significant test of the difference between the random effects

97
population correlations with hierarchical linear modeling.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Table 6

98
Meta-Analytic Relationships Between Core Self-Evaluation (CSE) and Occupational Stress
Fixed Effects Random Effects
95% CI 95% CV 95% CI
Variables and Moderators k N r SD %SE Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper T2 Q Z , t(df)
Stressors 29 11,483 .25 .30 .22 6.02 .32 .18 .73 .13 .30 .39 .21 .065 432.36***
Publication status 6.41*** .20, 1.59(23)
Published 16 6,456 .30 .35 .17 8.71 .27 .22 .69 .01 155.99***
Unpublished 13 5,027 .20 .24 .26 4.97 .32 .08 .74 .27 248.52***
Study time frame 6.84*** .01, 0.03(23)
Longitudinal 4 1,880 .37 .43 .12 13.36 .48 .26 .66 .20 24.29***
Cross-sectional 26 9,917 .23 .28 .23 5.75 .31 .16 .74 .17 411.90***
Sample characteristics 0.53 .07, 0.72(23)
Students 5 3,326 .27 .32 .19 4.84 .41 .12 .69 .05 91.64***
Employees 21 7,272 .26 .31 .19 8.60 .33 .19 .69 .07 218.72***
Sample cultural background 9.50*** .32*, 2.11(23)
Collectivist 4 2,108 .18 .22 .19 7.03 .33 .02 .59 .16 53.94***
Individualist 21 8,164 .30 .36 .19 7.95 .37 .23 .72 .00 227.89***
CSE measure 0.97 .02, 0.11(23)
Indirect (separate traits) 7 2,442 .28 .32 .13 17.11 .36 .19 .57 .07 37.61***
Direct (single CSE) 22 9,041 .25 .30 .24 5.04 .33 .16 .78 .18 394.23***
Type of stressor
Role ambiguity 4 2,607 .37 .45 .09 14.42 .46 .29 .64 .26 18.27*** 0.87
Workfamily conflict 4 2,655 .24 .28 .25 2.84 .46 .03 .77 .20 134.31*** 6.07***
Interpersonal 7 1,680 .19 .23 .16 20.60 .29 .09 .51 .06 33.02*** 7.05***
mistreatment
Perceptions of politics 4 834 .21 .25 .00 100.00 .28 .15 .25 .25 3.04 5.06***
Overall stress 7 2,339 .36 .43 .18 9.20 .47 .24 .78 .08 65.28***
Strain 28 7,585 .35 .42 .19 9.82 .42 .29 .80 .05 .48 .56 .40 .074 231.11***
Publication status 1.06 .22, 1.54(20)
Published 15 3,903 .35 .41 .20 9.04 .44 .26 .81 .01 146.74***
Unpublished 13 3,682 .36 .43 .18 10.95 .44 .27 .77 .09 88.67***
Study time frame 1.18 .03, 0.25(20)
Longitudinal 6 1,205 .36 .45 .07 41.15 .44 .29 .60 .30 10.01
Cross-sectional 22 6,380 .35 .42 .20 8.16 .43 .27 .82 .01 239.11***
(continued)
Table 6 (continued)
Fixed Effects Random Effects
95% CI 95% CV 95% CI
Variables and Moderators k N r SD %SE Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper T2 Q Z , t(df)
Sample characteristics 6.46*** .03, 0.25(20)
Students 8 2,234 .26 .31 .21 9.64 .38 .13 .72 .09 70.58***
Employees 18 5,089 .38 .45 .15 13.22 .44 .32 .76 .15 118.40***
Sample cultural background 0.94 .11, 0.71(20)
Collectivist 5 2,113 .35 .44 .22 5.35 .51 .19 .88 .00 86.99***
Individualist 21 4,873 .35 .42 .19 11.22 .42 .28 .79 .04 154.51***
CSE measure 9.08*** .09, 0.27(20)
Indirect (separate traits) 12 3,854 .28 .34 .21 7.70 .39 .17 .75 .08 130.45***
Direct (single CSE) 16 3,731 .42 .51 .12 22.08 .48 .37 .75 .28 63.62***
Type of strain
Psychological strain 17 4,471 .41 .49 .20 8.69 .49 .33 .87 .10 171.22*** 6.26***
Physical strain 3 425 .33 .42 .00 100.00 .42 .25 .42 .42 0.36 1.14
General strain 10 3,006 .31 .37 .20 9.09 .41 .20 .76 .01 84.71***

Note: k = number of effect sizes; N = total subject number; r = mean sample-weighted correlation; = estimate of corrected correlation; SD = corrected standard
deviation of corrected correlation; % SE = percentage of observed variance accounted for by sampling error; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval around the mean
sample-weighted correlation; 95% CV = 95% credibility interval around the corrected correlation; Q = chi-square test for the homogeneity of true correlations across
studies; Z = significant test of the difference between the fixed effects population correlations; and t = significant test of the difference between the random effects
population correlations with hierarchical linear modeling.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

99
Table 7

100
Meta-Analytic Relationships Between Core Self-Evaluation (CSE) and Individual Differences
Fixed Effects Random Effects
95% CI 95% CV 95% CI
Variables and Moderators k N r SD % SE Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper T2 Q Z , t(df)
Conscientiousness 37 8,943 .40 .49 .11 26.90 .36 .43 .28 .70 .51 .47 .55 .026 111.81***
Publication status 6.80*** .14*, 2.02(34)
Published 26 5,534 .37 .45 .11 27.39 .33 .41 .23 .68 79.75***
Unpublished 11 3,409 .44 .56 .06 46.80 .40 .48 .49 .67 19.56*
CSE measure 1.55 .06, 0.84(34)
Indirect (separate traits) 9 2,028 .39 .47 .10 27.85 .32 .46 .27 .67 26.15***
Direct (single CSE) 28 6,915 .40 .50 .11 26.62 .36 .44 .29 .71 90.26***
Extraversion 35 8,077 .37 .45 .09 36.65 .34 .40 .28 .62 .47 .43 .51 .018 83.35***
Publication status 1.05 .02, 0.43(32)
Published 26 5,539 .36 .44 .10 34.92 .32 .40 .25 .63 65.34***
Unpublished 9 2,538 .38 .46 .07 44.04 .32 .43 .33 .59 17.76*
CSE measure 3.17** .13*, 1.97(32)
Indirect (separate traits) 13 2,533 .41 .49 .09 36.74 .35 .46 .32 .67 29.77**
Direct (single CSE) 22 5,544 .35 .43 .08 41.12 .31 .38 .27 .58 49.35***
Agreeableness 26 5,927 .22 .28 .16 20.07 .17 .27 .03 .59 .31 .24 .38 .036 123.22***
Publication status 5.04*** .23*, 2.46(23)
Published 21 4,582 .19 .25 .15 22.12 .13 .25 .06 .55 91.11***
Unpublished 5 1,345 .31 .39 .11 26.55 .22 .40 .17 .62 17.87**
CSE measure 4.14*** .16*, 1.97(23)
Indirect (separate traits) 7 1,592 .29 .36 .08 45.41 .22 .36 .21 .51 13.26*
Direct (single CSE) 19 4,335 .20 .25 .17 18.68 .13 .26 .08 .58 99.48***
Openness 24 5,609 .15 .19 .25 10.04 .07 .23 .29 .67 .18 .06 .30 .092 233.31***
Publication status 1.75 .17, 1.29(21)
Published 19 4,055 .14 .18 .27 8.89 .04 .24 .36 .72 209.49***
Unpublished 5 1,554 .18 .23 .13 22.34 .08 .28 .03 .49 21.84***
CSE measure 10.56*** .25*, 2.04(21)
Indirect (separate traits) 7 1,592 .32 .40 .26 7.68 .16 .48 .11 .90 75.74***
Direct (single CSE) 17 4,017 .09 .11 .18 17.89 .01 .16 .24 .46 94.66***
(continued)
Table 7 (continued)
Fixed Effects Random Effects
95% CI 95% CV 95% CI
Variables and Moderators k N r SD % SE Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper T2 Q Z , t(df)
Positive affectivity 28 7,599 .51 .61 .13 14.57 .46 .55 .36 .85 .57 .51 .62 .044 143.03***
Publication status 10.51*** .16*, 2.54(25)
Published 12 3,242 .58 .69 .11 13.99 .52 .64 .47 .92 54.22***
Unpublished 16 4,357 .45 .54 .10 25.15 .41 .50 .35 .73 52.58***
CSE measure 10.80*** .13*, 2.00(25)
Indirect (separate traits) 9 2,159 .60 .72 .14 10.14 .52 .69 .44 .99 50.89***
Direct (single CSE) 19 5,440 .47 .56 .09 27.18 .43 .51 .39 .74 62.19***
Negative affectivity 28 7,281 .50 .60 .14 12.52 .55 .45 .88 .32 .63 .68 .56 .067 170.23***
Publication status 3.12** .12*, 2.01(25)
Published 10 2,531 .48 .57 .13 15.94 .55 .40 .83 .32 53.11***
Unpublished 18 4,570 .52 .62 .15 11.40 .59 .45 .90 .33 111.40***
CSE measure 5.61*** .22**, 2.67(25)
Indirect (separate traits) 7 1,333 .59 .69 .03 60.73 .62 .55 .75 .63 8.61
Direct (single CSE) 21 5,948 .48 .59 .15 11.29 .54 .43 .88 .29 152.20***
Approach motivation 10 1,924 .26 .32 .03 86.42 .22 .31 .26 .37 .32 .26 .37 .005 11.33
Avoidance motivation 9 1,718 .45 .54 .07 48.21 .50 .39 .67 .40 .54 .60 .47 .016 17.04*
CSE measure 3.78*** .18*, 2.47(7)
Indirect (separate traits) 4 820 .39 .47 .05 62.27 .45 .33 .58 .37 6.09
Direct (single CSE) 5 898 .50 .60 .00 100.00 .55 .45 .60 .60 3.46
Learning goal orientation 10 1,828 .27 .33 .07 54.96 .21 .33 .19 .48 .32 .24 .39 .011 17.15*
CSE measure 1.68 .07, 0.78(8)
Indirect (separate traits) 5 857 .29 .37 .00 100.00 .23 .35 .37 .37 1.29
Direct (single CSE) 5 971 .25 .30 .12 32.09 .15 .35 .07 .53 15.40**
Performance prove goal 9 1,665 .08 .11 .10 44.19 .16 .01 .31 .10 .13 .23 .03 .018 20.17**
orientation
CSE measure 2.26* .09, 0.75(7)
Indirect (separate traits) 5 857 .04 .05 .15 31.92 .16 .08 .34 .23 15.63**
Direct (single CSE) 4 808 .13 .16 .00 100.00 .20 .06 .16 .16 1.20
Performance avoid goal 7 1,300 .30 .37 .08 48.88 .37 .23 .52 .21 .39 .49 .29 .019 13.20*
orientation
Cognitive ability 8 2,219 .10 .12 .00 100.00 .06 .14 .12 .12 .14 .08 .19 .002 7.66

Note: k = number of effect sizes; N = total subject number; r = mean sample-weighted correlation; = estimate of corrected correlation; SD = corrected standard
deviation of corrected correlation; % SE = percentage of observed variance accounted for by sampling error; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval around the mean
sample-weighted correlation; 95% CV = 95% credibility interval around the corrected correlation; Q = chi-square test for the homogeneity of true correlations across
studies; Z = significant test of the difference between the fixed effects population correlations; and t = significant test of the difference between the random effects
population correlations with hierarchical linear modeling.

101
*p <.05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
102 Journal of Management / January 2012

goal orientation; Elliot & Thrash, 2002) and negatively to markers of avoidance temperament
(viz., avoidance motivation, negative affectivity, performance avoid goal orientation; Elliot
& Thrash, 2002).

Relations of CSE with variables not included in the meta-analysis. CSE has been
examined as a predictor of other variables, yet there were too few effect sizes to include
them in the meta-analysis. For example, there is evidence that high-CSE individuals adapt
better as expatriates, as they are able to develop more social ties and report more social
support while living abroad (Chiu, Wu, Zhuang, & Hsu, 2009; Johnson et al., 2003). CSE
also positively impacts job search behaviors (Brown, Ferris, Heller, & Keeping, 2007;
Garcia, Triana, Peters, & Sanchez, 2009; Wanberg, Glomb, Song, & Sorenson, 2005). The
role of CSE in groups has also been investigated, such as its impact on conflict management
and the delivery of performance feedback to team members (Almost et al., 2010; Siu,
Laschinger, & Finegan, 2008; Tasa, Sears, & Schat, 2011). Finally, some studies have
investigated the effects of CSE on company performance. For example, Resick et al. (2009)
found that the CSE of Major League Baseball team owners was indirectly related to team
performance and fan attendance. As another example, Simsek, Heavey, and Veiga (2010)
found that CEO CSE was related to the companys entrepreneurial orientation.

CSE and Mediating Mechanisms

Having covered the direct effects of CSE on outcomes, we now consider possible
mediators of these effects. To date, at least 18 published studies have examined the
mediating mechanisms of CSEs effects. The studies, mediators, outcomes examined, and
type of mediator (discussed below) are listed in Table 8. As some studies present a chain of
multiple mediators to explain CSEs relation with an outcome (e.g., Brown et al., 2007) or
examine multiple outcomes (e.g., Judge & Hurst, 2008), any one study may have multiple
entries associated with it.
With respect to the type of mediator, Judge and colleagues (1997) proposed two categories
of mediating mechanisms through which CSE might influence job satisfaction: situational
appraisals and actions. Situational appraisals encompass cognitions and perceptions
regarding the job (e.g., job characteristics) and judgments or estimations of how other things
relate to the self (e.g., social comparisons). Actions were meant to encompass actions that
people take as a result of their core evaluations (e.g., job selection, persistence in the face
of setbacks, attaining practical success) (Judge et al., 1997: 176). The actions category
subsumes both motivation and outcomes one obtains through such actions.
Consistent with the early CSE literatures focus on satisfaction, half of the mediation
studies conducted (nine overall) included satisfaction (job, life, or otherwise) as an outcome
(see Table 8). Given that perceptions of ones job (i.e., job autonomy, skill variety, task
significance, task feedback, and task identity; Hackman & Oldham, 1980) was originally
suggested as a mediator of CSEs relation to satisfaction (Judge et al., 1997), it is not
surprising that perceived job characteristics is one of the most frequently studied mediators of
this relation. A smaller subset of studies (four overall) have examined job performance as an
Chang et al. / Core Self-Evaluation 103

Table 8
Core Self-Evaluation (CSE) and Mediating Mechanisms
Study Mediator Outcome Type
Judge, Locke, et al., (1998) Perceived job characteristics Job satisfaction Situational appraisals
Perceived job characteristics Life satisfaction Situational appraisals
and job satisfaction

Judge, Bono, & Locke (2000) Objective and perceived job Job satisfaction Situational
characteristics appraisals,
actions

Erez & Judge (2001) Motivation Task performance Actions


Motivation to set goals Sales activities Actions
Motivation to set goals and Sales volume Actions
sales activities
Motivation to set goals, sales Task performance Actions
activities, and sales volume

Best, Stapleton, & Downey Burnout Job satisfaction Actions


(2005)

Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke Self-concordant goals Life satisfaction Actions
(2005) Self-concordant goals Job satisfaction Actions
Self-concordant goals Goal attainment Actions

Brown, Ferris, Heller, & Social comparisons Job satisfaction Situational appraisals
Keeping, (2007) Social comparisons Affective Situational appraisals
Social comparisons, job commitment Situational appraisals
satisfaction, and affective Job search
commitment behaviors

Salvaggio et al. (2007) Service quality orientation Climate for service Actions

Judge & Hurst (2008) Educational attainment Increases in job Actions


satisfaction
Educational attainment Increases in salary Actions
Educational attainment Increases in Actions
occupational
status
Health problems Increases in job Actions
satisfaction
Health problems Increases in salary Actions

Garcia, Triana, Peters, & Self-enhancement Perceived job Actions


Sanchez (2009) alternatives

Judge, Hurst, & Simon (2009) Income Financial strain Actions

Scott & Judge (2009) Popularity Receiving help Actions

(continued)
104 Journal of Management / January 2012

Table 8 (continued)
Study Mediator Outcome Type
Stumpp, Hulsheger, Muck, & Task significance Job satisfaction Situational appraisals
Maier (2009) Task significance Affective Situational appraisals
commitment

Grant & Sonnentag (2010) Burnout Task performance Actions

Kamer & Annen (2010) Voice Satisfaction with Actions


Voice feedback Actions
Goal commitment

Rich, LePine, & Crawford Job engagement Task performance Actions


(2010) Job engagement Contextual Actions
performance

Srivastava, Locke, Judge, & Seeking complexity Perceived job Actions


Adams (2010) characteristics
Seeking complexity and Job or task Actions, situational
perceived job satisfaction appraisals
characteristics

Ferris et al. (2011) Avoidance motivation Task performance Actions


Avoidance motivation Contextual Actions
performance
Avoidance motivation Workplace deviance Actions
Approach motivation Workplace deviance Actions

Sears & Hackett (in press) Role clarity Leadermember Situational appraisals
exchange

outcome. Following established models of performance (e.g., Campbell, 1990) and


suggestions by CSE theorists (e.g., Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998), motivation has typically
been examined as a mediating mechanism in the prediction of job performance (defined
broadly as task performance, citizenship behavior, and deviance; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002).
However, the type of motivation mechanism examined has varied between studies. The
remaining CSE mediation studies have examined outcomes that are largely unique to their
study. Of the published studies examined, only one (Judge et al., 2009) examined CSE as a
mediator rather than as an exogenous variable.
In summarizing the mediators of CSEs effects, two themes are readily apparent. First,
there is an inordinate focus on the mediators of CSEs relation with job satisfaction and job
performance compared with the number outcomes that have been linked to CSE (as
illustrated by our meta-analytic results). Second, the vast majority of studies conducted have
not examined mediating mechanisms; however, in order to understand why CSE influences
outcomes, mediation studies are neededparticularly mediation studies linking CSE to
outcomes other than job satisfaction and job performance. We should emphasize that this
Chang et al. / Core Self-Evaluation 105

should not be seen as a call for more mediation studies on different outcomes as an end in
and of itself, as two additional themes to emerge from our review of mediating mechanisms
warrant close consideration prior to conducting new mediation research on CSE. In
particular, our review suggests that (a) virtually all mediation studies being published are not
building on prior work and (b) a theoretically based guide for selecting relevant mediators
is lacking.

Controlling for established mediators. With respect to mediation studies not building on
past work, despite numerous mediators of CSEs effects being identified, most articles
examine new mediators without controlling for established ones. In fact, virtually all CSE
papers suffer from this oversight (including our own). While it is true that this state of affairs
characterizes any new field of inquiry, it is also true that any field of inquirynew or old
advances only by ruling out alternate explanations (Platt, 1964). Thus, while identifying
new mediators may increase ones chances at publication, not controlling for existing ones
does little to advance CSE research as a whole. This is not to say that new mediators cannot
be identified but, rather, that the onus is on researchers to demonstrate that new mediators
have effects that are unique from those of old mediators. We therefore encourage
researchers to focus on building on past work when considering mediators of both new and
previously established consequences of CSE.

Lack of a theoretical framework. Although the number of mediators has greatly


proliferated, this proliferation can be criticized for lacking a coherent theoretical lens within
which to understand the effects of CSE. For example, what is the common theoretical basis
connecting mediators as diverse as popularity, income, job characteristics, and social
comparisons? While it is possible that CSE operates through multiple, distinct mechanisms,
this contention seems presumptuous (in that few studies have tested multiple mediating
mechanisms) and lacks parsimony. Consistent with our previous suggestion regarding CSE
theory in general, a broad theoretical framework is needed both to account for the effects of
mediators examined thus far and to guide future mediator selection. Given that most
mediating mechanisms can be conceptualized in terms of approach/avoidance motivation,
we believe this represents a parsimonious mechanism to account for the effects of CSE.

CSE and Moderating Effects

We identified 13 studies that provide evidence that CSE interacts with other variables to
predict outcomes (see Table 9). Researchers have focused primarily on interactions between
CSE and stressor variables, personal characteristics, and job characteristics, with a few
studies examining moderators falling outside of these categories. Therefore, we adopted a
taxonomy that includes four categories (i.e., stressor, job characteristic, personal characteristic,
other) of moderators. Below, we summarize research that has examined interactions between
CSE and moderators, and we discuss trends that have emerged from this research.
CSE has been proposed to be a resource that allows individuals to more effectively cope
with stressors by providing individuals with a sense of control (leading to fewer resources
106 Journal of Management / January 2012

Table 9
Core Self-Evaluation (CSE) and Moderating Variables
Study Moderator Outcomes Type
Best, Stapleton, & Perceived organizational Burnout Stressor
Downey (2005) constraints

Bono & Colbert (2005) Feedback level Commitment to developmental Other


goals

Judge & Hurst (2007) Parental education Income Personal characteristic


Parental occupational Income Personal characteristic
prestige
Freedom from family Income Personal characteristic
poverty
Years of education Income Personal characteristic
High school GPA Income Personal characteristic
Standardized test scores Income Personal characteristic

Tsaousis, Nikolaou, Positive affect Physical health Personal characteristic


Serdaris, & Judge Negative affect Physical health Personal characteristic
(2007) Life satisfaction Physical health Personal characteristic

Harris, Harvey, & Perceived social Job satisfaction Stressor


Kacmar (2009) stressors
Perceived social Altruism Stressor
stressors
Perceived social Turnover intentions Stressor
stressors

Kacmar, Collins, Harris, Perceived politics Job performance Stressor


& Judge (2009) Perceived leader Job performance Other
effectiveness

Pierce & Gardner (2009) Perceived job Organization-based self-esteem Job characteristic
characteristics

Rosopa & Schroeder Cognitive ability Academic performance Personal characteristic


(2009)

Grant & Sonnentag Perceived prosocial Emotional exhaustion Personal characteristic


(2010) impact
Perceived prosocial Emotional exhaustion Personal characteristic
impact

Grant & Wrzesniewski Prosocial motivation Job performance Personal characteristic


(2010) Agreeableness Job performance Personal characteristic
Duty Job performance Personal characteristic
(continued)
Chang et al. / Core Self-Evaluation 107

Table 9 (continued)
Study Moderator Outcomes Type
Ng & Feldman (2010) Age Affective commitment Personal characteristic
Idiosyncratic contracts Affective commitment Situational characteristic
Age Idiosyncratic Affective commitment Personal and job
Contracts characteristic

Simsek, Heavey, & Veiga Environmental Entrepreneurial orientation Other


(2010) dynamism

Tasa, Sears, & Schat Team-level collective Performance management Other


(2011) efficacy behavior

being depleted by stressors) or by being associated with more positive appraisals of ones
job (building optimism, a known coping resource; Harris, Harvey, & Kacmar, 2009;
Hobfoll, 2001; Riolli & Savicki, 2003). Empirical findings have provided some support for
these propositions, demonstrating that CSE buffers the effects of social stressors (Harris
et al., 2009) and organizational constraints (Best et al., 2005: Study 2) on outcomes.
However, researchers have also observed effects in the opposite direction: Kacmar, Collins,
Harris, and Judge (2009) found that organizational politics was most detrimental to those
with high CSE. Finally, several studies have failed to support interactions between CSE and
stressors (e.g., Best et al., 2005: Study 1; Kammeyer-Mueller Judge, & Scott, 2009; Luria
& Torjman, 2009).
Consistent with Judge et al.s (1997) suggestions that CSE biases how employees
appraise the environment, researchers have proposed that the relationships of job
characteristics with outcomes are contingent upon CSE, such that positive aspects of work
are thought to be more salient to high-CSE employees (Judge, Erez, et al., 1998). This
perspective has received some support (Pierce & Gardner, 2009), though at least one study
has failed to support an interaction between job characteristics and CSE (Judge, Erez, et al.,
1998). Moreover, Ng and Feldman (2010) found support for the opposite predictionthat
is, low-CSE individuals benefitted most from favorable conditions. To date, the nature of the
interplay between CSE and job characteristics is unclear.
Several studies have also examined interactions between CSE and personal characteristics.
These studies have drawn from suggestions (e.g., Johnson et al., 2008; Judge & Hurst, 2007)
that high-CSE individuals are more effective self-regulators and thus able to capitalize on
their advantages because they (a) appraise situations in more positive ways; (b) view
situations as consistent with their positive self-images, which leads to positive outcomes
(i.e., seeking out challenging work) through self-verification and attribution processes; and
(c) are more motivated and committed to pursuing opportunities that are presented to them.
These propositions have received support, with research demonstrating that CSE enhances
linkages between personal characteristics (e.g., socioeconomic status and prosocial
orientation) and various indicators of performance and well-being (e.g., financial prosperity
and health; Grant & Wrznesiewski, 2010; Judge & Hurst, 2007; Rosopa & Shroeder, 2009).
108 Journal of Management / January 2012

Finally, several studies have investigated moderators that do not fit cleanly in one of the
aforementioned categories. These studies have generally relied on similar logic, suggesting
that CSE is associated with appraisals or motivational processes that drive responses to
situations. For example, CEOs with high CSE respond to environmental instability by
engaging in more entrepreneurial strategic choices (Simsek et al., 2010), and high-CSE
individuals exhibit more commitment to developmental goals when selfother feedback
discrepancies are greater (Bono & Colbert, 2005). Researchers have also identified situations
that limit the effects of CSE, showing that (a) CSE has a weaker, positive relationship with
performance for members of teams with high collective efficacy (Tasa et al., 2011) and (b)
the negative relationship between CSE and emotional exhaustion is mitigated by the
perceived prosocial impact of ones work (Grant & Wrzesniewski, 2010).
In summarizing our review of moderators, three themes emerged. First, the stressor and
job characteristics findings are mixed, suggesting that CSE may have buffering, exacerbating,
or no moderating effects, depending on the study. One explanation for the inconsistent
findings is that CSE is a broad, distal trait that taps into several motivational- and appraisal-
oriented processes that influence relationships between constructs in opposing ways.
Therefore, rather than using CSE as a proxy for situational appraisals or motivation, we
recommend that researchers directly measure and test moderating processes (i.e., motivational
forces and appraisals) attributed to CSE. Another explanation for the inconsistent findings is
that the moderating effect of CSE is itself subject to moderation (i.e., a three-way interaction).
For example, recent work suggests that regardless of stressors or self-worth, basing ones
self-worth on workplace performance leads to maintaining high levels of performance as a
means of self-enhancement (Ferris, Brown, Lian, & Keeping, 2009; Ferris, Lian, Brown,
Pang, & Keeping, 2010).
A second theme is that CSE is linked to an ability to take advantage of beneficial
circumstances. Specifically, evidence suggests that CSE is associated with a particular
motivational orientation that makes individuals better at identifying and pursuing
opportunities as they emerge. This is consistent with the approach/avoidance framework of
CSE, such that high-CSE individuals view their circumstances and experiences in a positive
light and are less sensitive to negative information.
Finally, our review indicates that the work environment can overpower the benefits of
high CSE (Kacmar et al., 2009) and can compensate for low CSE (Grant & Wrznesiewski,
2010). Understanding when the environment augments the beneficial effects of high CSE or
mitigates the harmful effects of low CSE may require researchers to develop and test more
complex models, such as three-way interactions and mediated moderation. Thus, while our
meta-analysis indicates that CSE has significant bivariate relationships with a variety of
outcomes, it is important for researchers to continue to consider the boundary conditions of
these relationships.

Future Directions for CSE Research

We conclude our review by discussing construct- and criterion-related issues that require
further attention. Chief among them are the need for more research on (a) the structural validity
of the higher order CSE construct, (b) incorporating CSE within an approach/avoidance
Chang et al. / Core Self-Evaluation 109

framework, (c) possible intraindividual change in CSE, (d) the role of CSE in human resource
management, and (e) core external evaluations.

Issues Concerning the Structural Validity of CSE

In some respects, the cart has moved ahead of the horse in the CSE literature. We know
that CSE predicts a multitude of criteria, yet there remains some uncertainty about the
structural validity of CSE (Johnson, Rosen, Chang, et al., in press). This uncertainty stems
from questions concerning the inclusion criteria for CSE traits, the nature of the relationship
between the higher order CSE construct and its traits, and the source of the shared variance
among the CSE traits. Answering these questions offers a way for future research to
consolidate our understanding of CSE and, ultimately, to enhance the utility of CSE as a
predictor in basic and applied research.

What are the inclusion criteria for CSE? The definition of CSE as a fundamental
appraisal of ones own self-worth, competence, and capabilities is sufficiently fuzzy that
several traits appear to fit the bill. When the construct was first introduced, positive
affectivity, negative affectivity, and optimism were proffered as CSE traits (Judge et al.,
1997). Other suggestions have included adding extraversion and excluding locus of control
(Johnson, Rosen, & Djurdjevic, 2011; Johnson et al., 2008) or simply subsuming all of the
traits under broadly defined emotional stability (Judge & Bono, 2001a). To date, the
inclusion criteria used to identify CSE traitsfundamental, evaluative, and broadare
conceptual in nature and not easily tested. What is lacking, and greatly needed, are
empirically testable inclusion criteria coupled with these conceptual criteria (Johnson,
Rosen, & Chang, 2011; Johnson, Rosen, Chang, et al., in press).
What might serve as testable criteria? One option might be a minimum cutoff value for
trait loadings on the higher order CSE factor. If CSE is presumed to cause peoples standing
on the four traits, then there should be large proportions of shared variance among the traits
and higher order construct. A cutoff value of = .70, for example, would mean that the CSE
factor accounts for around half of the variance in the traits, and only those traits whose
loadings meet this cutoff would be retained. Given that CSE is believed to be the source of
the trait indicators, there should be high internal consistency among the traits. Thus, another
inclusion criterion might be a sufficiently high composite latent variable reliability (see
Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) of the higher order CSE construct. Given the dispositional
nature of CSE, the traits ought to show moderate levels of stability. A third inclusion
criterion, then, might be a minimum cutoff value for testretest reliability. As a final
example, inclusion criteria might involve specifying a nomological network of variables
that the CSE traits are expected to correlate with. Traits that exhibit consistent relations with
theoretically derived correlates would be retained as CSE traits. Thus, an important direction
for future research is to develop appropriate inclusion criteria and then apply them to the
existing set of traits as well as to other candidate traits (e.g., extraversion and optimism;
Johnson, Rosen, & Chang, 2011). Only those traits that satisfy all of the theoretical and
empirical criteria would be included as indicators of the higher order CSE construct.
110 Journal of Management / January 2012

What is the nature of CSEtrait relations? In addition to identifying traits that comprise
CSE, it is important to specify the nature of the relationship of CSE with lower level traits
(Johnson, Rosen, & Chang, 2011; Johnson, Rosen, Chang, et al., 2011). The contemporary
view is that CSE is a superordinate construct (Judge et al., 2003), meaning that CSE causes
peoples standing on each trait. This view, however, has received some criticism (Johnson
et al., 2008) and has not, to date, been directly tested. The other possibility is that CSE is an
aggregate construct, such that it is the sum of the lower order traits, which are independent
entities. An example of an aggregate construct is overall job satisfaction, which is the sum
(but not the cause) of its indicators (e.g., satisfaction with pay, coworkers, upper management,
etc.).
Determining the exact nature of constructindicator relations is necessary to properly
model and analyze them (Edwards, 2001; Law, Wong, & Mobley, 1998; MacKenzie,
Podsakoff, & Jarvis, 2005). Superordinate constructs are modeled such that the loadings
point from the construct to its indicators, and the higher order construct is comprised solely
of shared variance among the indicators. Aggregate constructs, in contrast, have loadings
that point from the indicators to the construct, and the construct is formed from the shared
and unique variance of the indicators (Law & Wong, 1999; MacCallum & Browne, 1993).
It is also important to establish the nature of constructindicator relations because results
sometimes vary across superordinate and aggregate models. For example, Taing, Johnson,
and Jackson (2010) found that modeling CSE as a superordinate versus aggregate construct
produced meaningful differences in factor loadings (e.g., self-esteem and emotional stability
had the highest loadings on the superordinate and aggregate constructs, respectively) and
criterion-related validity (e.g., the aggregate construct explained more variance in job
satisfaction than the superordinate construct did). We therefore encourage future research
aimed at empirically testing the nature of CSEtrait relations. Theoretical (e.g., Johnson
et al., 2008; MacKenzie et al., 2005) and statistical (e.g., Bollen & Ting, 2000; Franke,
Preacher, & Rigdon, 2008) guidelines for evaluating the appropriateness of CSE as a
superordinate versus aggregate construct are available.

What contributes to the emergence of the higher order CSE factor? A final consideration
regarding structural validity is ruling out alternate explanations for the emergence of higher
order factors (Johnson, Rosen, Chang, et al., in press). While there is moderate to large
overlap among the CSE traits (Judge et al., 2002), some of this shared variance may be due
to factors other than the traits. In virtually all cases, data on the CSE traits have been
collected from a single source at one point in time, increasing the likelihood that observed
scores are saturated with common method variance (CMV). CMV refers to systematic error
variance owing to measurement methods rather than the constructs of interest (Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Sources of CMV include the use of similar items and
response formats, response biases like social desirability, and transient factors like mood
(Bagozzi & Yi, 1990; Podsakoff et al., 2003). It has been estimated that up to 25% of the
variance in observed relationships may be attributable to CMV (Buckley, Cote, & Comstock,
1990; Doty & Glick, 1998; Williams, Cote, & Buckley, 1989). CMV is a concern for both
direct and indirect measures of CSE because self-evaluations are especially prone to social
desirability and impression management biases (Crampton & Wagner, 1994; Moorman &
Podsakoff, 1992).
Chang et al. / Core Self-Evaluation 111

Although researchers have taken steps to minimize the effects of CMV on relationships
between CSE and other variables by collecting predictor and criterion data at different times
(e.g., Johnson et al., 2003) or from different sources (e.g., Judge, Locke, et al., 1998), rarely
are the same precautions applied to the CSE traits themselves. One exception was a study
by Johnson, Rosen, and Djurdjevic (2011) in which they applied various controls for CMV
to the higher order CSE construct. The application of various statistical and procedural
controls produced noticeable reductions in parameter estimates. The most striking changes
occurred when the traits were measured separately at two-week intervals, producing
significant drops in the loadings for all four traits (in fact, locus of control no longer loaded
on the CSE factor) and a two-thirds reduction in the variance explained in job satisfaction
by CSE. It is therefore imperative that researchers take steps to mitigate the effects of CMV
on CSEindicator relations and CSEoutcome relations, such as measuring the variables at
different times and controlling for measured (e.g., social desirability) and unmeasured
sources of CMV (see Johnson, Rosen, & Djurdjevic, 2011; Richardson, Simmering, &
Sturman, 2009).
Besides CMV, unmeasured variables that relate to the focal constructs may also be
responsible for inflating the shared variance among indicators of CSE. For example, several
of the CSE traits (e.g., self-esteem and generalized self-efficacy) reflect success in achievement
domains (Johnson et al., 2008). If so, then general cognitive ability and other precursors of
success may inflate the shared variance among the CSE traits. It is important, then, to
demonstrate that the higher order CSE factors still emerge when possible confounding
variables like cognitive ability are simultaneously modeled. Thus, there is a need for research
that reexamines the higher order structure of the CSE construct in a systematic way that rules
out the effects of CMV and other confounding variables. Note that controlling for such
effects on the shared variance among the CSE indicators requires indirect measures. Thus,
consistent with our earlier recommendation, there is a need for valid indirect measures of
CSE that are viable to administer in applied settings.

Fully Integrating CSE Research Within an Approach/Avoidance Framework

As noted previously, a limitation of the CSE literature is the lack of a parsimonious


theoretical framework that can guide the selection of outcomes, mediators, and moderators.
An approach/avoidance framework represents a promising candidate for integrating CSE
research, as this framework was designed to account for how personality traits relate to
outcomeswhich is exactly what the CSE literature requiresand because CSE research
has explicitly or implicitly drawn from approach/avoidance themes for some time now. CSE
has been linked to a variety of variables, including self-concordant goals (Judge et al., 2005)
and popularity (Scott & Judge, 2009), and an approach/avoidance framework makes
connections among these variables apparent. For example, Judge and colleagues (2005)
characterized self-concordant goals as being fundamentally approach in nature and hence
should be more likely to be adopted by high-CSE individuals. Similarly, popularity is likely
to accrue through the pursuit of approach social goals (Gable, 2006), which leads to more
frequent positive relational events (Elliot, Gable, & Mapes, 2006). Thus, approach motivation
may underlie observed relations of CSE with both self-concordant goals and popularity.
112 Journal of Management / January 2012

In addition to providing a parsimonious theoretical framework, couching CSE within an


approach/avoidance framework generates directions for future research based on existing
approach/avoidance theory. As noted earlier, approach and avoidance theories are used in
numerous literatures of interest to management scholars, ranging from neuropsychology
(Cain & LeDoux, 2008) and emotions (Carver et al., 2008) to motivation (Elliot, 1999) and
decision making (Higgins, 2006). By highlighting the approach/avoidance nature of CSE,
theoretical extensions of CSE research to new research areas become possible. For example,
Higgins (2006) suggested that individuals are more likely to choose options that fit ones
approach/avoidance orientation, while work by Miller and Nelson (2002) suggests that
people who are highly avoidance oriented are more likely to make inaccurate judgments of
other peoples motivations. These propositions hint at possible links between CSE and
decision making.
The notion of approach/avoidance fit can be applied to different domains, such as
social relations (Gable, 2006). One would expect that individuals with high CSE would be
most satisfied when matched or fitted with others who have similar approach/avoidance
orientations. Such a finding may help explain why Kammeyer-Mueller and Judge (2008)
found that CSE level was only weakly related to having a mentor in the workplace. While
they predicted that high-CSE employees would be more attractive to potential mentors,
based on a notion of fit, high-CSE individuals would only be attractive to mentors who
similarly possessed high CSE levels.
An approach/avoidance framework also has implications for practitioners seeking to
mitigate the effects of low CSE. In particular, given that low CSEs detrimental effects may
be due to insensitivity to positive stimuli, intervening through strong situational primes (e.g.,
task instructions) to redirect attention toward the positive aspects of situations could help
circumvent the negative effects of low CSE. Consistent with this, Grant and Sonnentag
(2010) found that low-CSE individuals who focused on the positive consequences of their
actions were less likely to experience burnout and eventually performed better than low-CSE
individuals who did not focus on the positive consequences.
Ultimately, an approach/avoidance framework represents but one potential framework
within which to conceptualize CSEs nature and effects, as there may be other equally
effective or parsimonious frameworks. However, given that approach/avoidance permeates
virtually all aspects of human existence (Elliot, 1999) and existing CSE research already
draws upon it (Ferris et al., 2011), we believe that approach/avoidance is a promising
framework for both integrating and extending the CSE literature.

Intraindividual Change in CSE Levels

From a practical perspective, managers are undoubtedly interested in whether or not CSE
levels are malleable. Over time, we think that it is virtually certain that CSE levels change.
For example, studies have documented mean-level changes in neuroticism (Roberts, Walton,
& Viechtbauer, 2006) and self-esteem (Orth, Trzesniewski, & Robins, 2010) over time.
Interestingly, experiences in social rolesincluding those as an employeehave been
implicated in driving such changes in personality (Heller, Ferris, Brown, & Watson, 2009;
Chang et al. / Core Self-Evaluation 113

Wood & Roberts, 2006). For example, research has demonstrated that increased occupational
success relates to increased social dominance over time (Roberts, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2003).
Unfortunately, the exact theoretical mechanisms through which social role experiences
influence individual personality traits have yet to be demonstrated. Initial theorizing has
focused on how social role experiences influence goal choices and motives, which in turn
influence the expression of personality traits and changes in mean levels of personality traits
over time (Heller, Perunovic, & Reichman, 2009). For example, individuals who pursued
approach goals emphasizing positive outcomes tended to be more extraverted, while
individuals who pursued avoidance goals emphasizing negative outcomes tended to be more
neurotic (Heller, Komar, & Lee, 2007). Such work is easily integrated within an approach/
avoidance viewpoint on CSE to suggest that organizations seeking to boost employees CSE
levels may seek to focus their attention on approach goals while minimizing focus on
avoidance goals.
More generally, we view research on determinants of CSE levels to be a promising area
of future research, both because no work has examined this topic to date and because it
represents an emerging area within personality research as a whole. As such, CSE scholars
have an opportunity to contribute important theoretical and empirical work to a developing
area. Given that organizational role experiences are thought to influence personality change,
organizational scholars are well positioned for examining intraindividual changes in CSE
because of their expertise in conducting research in work settings. We believe that
organizational scholars can leverage their organizational and personality research interests
to benefit the field of personality psychology as a whole.

Applications of CSE in Human Resource Management

Staffing. Although it has been stated that CSE is, along with conscientiousness, the most
useful personality trait in the realm of human performance (Judge et al., 2004: 342), very
little research has examined the utility of CSE vis--vis conscientiousness and other traits for
predicting job performance. Much of the research conducted on the use of personality traits
for personnel selection has relied on the Big Five taxonomy. CSE differs from these traits in
that it is broader in scope and may therefore produce higher validity coefficients when job
performance is also operationalized broadly. Indeed, our meta-analysis results revealed that
CSE relates, albeit modestly, to task performance ( = .19), OCB ( = .23), and CWB
( = .17). However, these results do not tell us whether CSE predicts job performance
incremental to other common individual differences, such as conscientiousness and cognitive
ability. Demonstrating incremental validity in the latter case is particularly germane because
the variance predicted by personality measures above cognitive ability measures can
sometimes be quite small (Barrett, Miguel, Tan, & Hurd, 2001). Given that our meta-analytic
results indicate that relationships of CSE with other individual differences tended to be
moderate in size (s ranged from .12 to .61), the incremental prediction of CSE ought to be
directly evaluated.
The predictive validity of CSE relative to its trait indicators should also be evaluated. As
Chernyshenko, Stark, and Drasgow (2011) noted, an advantage of CSE is that it combines
114 Journal of Management / January 2012

achievement orientation, assertiveness, and optimistic tendencies into a single factor, yet
observed effects may only owe to one of these dimensions. If only a subset of CSE traits
relate to job performance (e.g., self-efficacy), then it may not be legally defensible to
measure other traits (e.g., locus of control; see Connecticut v. Teal, 1982). Thus, indirect
measures of CSE are needed in order to verify that all of the traits are equally valid predictors
of performance.
At least two others issues must be addressed when assessing the use of CSE in a
selection context. First, researchers and practitioners must ascertain whether the use of CSE
leads to adverse impact. While it is commonly assumed that personality measures have little
to no adverse impact, this is not always true (Hough, Oswald, & Ployhart, 2001). Adverse
impact is a concern given that CSE is significantly correlated with various childhood
indicators of socioeconomic status, such as parents education level and occupational
prestige, years of education, and freedom from poverty (Judge & Hurst, 2007). Thus,
membership in traditionally disadvantaged groups may covary with low levels of CSE,
resulting in disproportionately more people who belong to those groups being excluded
from pools of candidates.
The second issue involves the possibility of CSE scores being faked. Research using
laboratory and actual personnel selection conditions has shown that applicants inflate their
scores on positive personality traits, including conscientiousness, emotional stability, goal
orientation, and locus of control (e.g., Douglas, McDaniel, & Snell, 1996; Tan & Hall,
2005). As noted by Crampton and Wagner (1994), response distortion is especially likely in
the case of self-perceptions and self-evaluations, making it a concern for CSE. Initial
empirical findings back up these concerns, as moderate correlations have been observed
between CSE and social desirability: Kluemper (2008) reported a correlation of .50 between
CSE and social desirability, and Johnson, Rosen, and Djurdjevic (2011) observed substantial
decreases in the trait loadings on the higher order CSE factor when social desirability was
controlled for. It does appear that people are motivated to alter reports of CSE, which would
presumably increase in high-stakes contexts where CSE scores factor into personnel
decisions. Such response distortion is worrisome because it can reduce predictive validity
(e.g., Mueller-Hanson, Heggestad, & Thornton, 2003). There is need, then, for research on
the frequency and magnitude of faking, as well as the effect that faking high CSE has on
criterion-related validity. If faking does afflict CSE responses, then the efficacy of strategies
aimed at reducing faking must also be investigated.

Performance management. Relatively little is known about how CSE can be leveraged to
improve job performance. However, because of its association with self-appraisals and
motivation (Bono & Colbert, 2005; Erez & Judge, 2001), CSE should have broad
implications for various phases of the performance management process, including goal
setting, coaching, and performance appraisal. Supporting this perspective, our meta-analysis
indicates that CSE relates to setting challenging goals ( = .22), commitment to goal pursuits
( = .42), and learning goal orientation ( = .33). Nonetheless, organizational scholars have
only scratched the surface with regard to the role of CSE in performance management,
limiting the practical utility of CSE. Below, we identify ways that CSE can be used to
improve knowledge of employee reactions to feedback and the performance appraisal
Chang et al. / Core Self-Evaluation 115

context, topics that have received a substantial amount of attention in the human resource
management literature (Kluger & DeNisi, 1998; Levy & Williams, 2004).
Owing to its association with self-appraisals, CSE may be particularly well suited for
improving understanding of employee reactions to negative feedback. Specifically, self-
enhancement theory suggests that negative feedback may be more damaging to employees
who harbor less favorable views of themselves, as negative information may reinforce
preconceived notions of their value and worth (Ilies, De Pater, & Judge, 2007; McCauley,
Lombardo, & Usher, 1989), leading to the adoption of less challenging goals and a reduction
in the amount of effort dedicated to achieving goals. On the other hand, negative feedback
may have more positive implications for high-CSE employees. Specifically, because high-
CSE individuals hold generally positive views of themselves, they are less likely to look to
others solely for self-enhancing positive feedback. Instead, those with high CSE may also be
interested in obtaining any form of feedback that may be used to improve performance. As
such, high-CSE employees are likely to be seen by superiors, peers, and subordinates as
more effective because they are open to receiving and using both positive and negative
feedback to improve their performance (Ashford & Tsui, 1991). Interestingly, self-
consistency theory could be used to generate opposing hypotheses, as it suggests that CSE
may interfere with the ability of employees to accept and respond to feedback (Ilies et al.,
2007; Jussim, Yen, & Aiello, 1995). Specifically, negative feedback may conflict with the
self-perceptions of high-CSE employees, leading them to reject negative information about
themselves outright. These contradictory hypotheses suggest the need for more research to
understand how CSE affects responses to performance feedback.
Another fruitful area for investigation pertains to employee reactions to the performance
appraisal system. The literature (see Levy & Williams, 2004) suggests that the context
surrounding the performance appraisal process is particularly important to understanding
rater and ratee behavior, including performance ratings, behavioral reactions, cognitive
reactions, and perceptions of justice. A number of situational factors have been identified as
relevant to the performance appraisal process, but little is known about how self-perceptions
interact with features of the social context to predict rater and ratee outcomes. Therefore,
researchers should consider how CSE may interact with situational factors that are known to
be relevant to the performance appraisal process. For example, there is evidence that
individuals high in CSE are sensitive to positive stimuli and insensitive to negative stimuli
(Ferris et al., 2011). This suggests that, as a whole, high-CSE employees are likely to
perceive appraisal system characteristics in a more favorable way and should, therefore,
demonstrate more positive reactions to performance appraisals (e.g., satisfaction with the
performance appraisal system, perceptions of justice, lower discomfort with performance
appraisal). The opposite is true for employees with low CSE. Moreover, high-CSE
individuals are more likely to perceive contextual conditions as opportunities that have the
potential to lead to positive outcomes. For example, high-CSE employees may be more
likely to view high-quality feedback environments (i.e., environments that support and
encourage the solicitation and use of feedback; Steelman, Levy, & Snell, 2004) as presenting
opportunities to acquire feedback that can be used to improve performance. The approach/
avoidance motivation framework presented earlier suggests that high-CSE individuals will
be more likely to exploit these opportunities to improve performance. Therefore, to improve
116 Journal of Management / January 2012

the practical utility of CSE, we call for research that focuses on understanding the role that
CSE plays in performance appraisal processes and contexts.

Core Evaluations of the World and Other People

Finally, in juxtaposing the current state of the CSE literature with the program of research
originally laid out by Judge et al. (1997), it is readily apparent that researchers have primarily
focused on core self-evaluations. However, CSE was initially discussed alongside core
world evaluations (CWE) and core other evaluations (COE). Yet, in contrast to research on
CSE, virtually no research has focused on CWE or COE. Similar to how CSE refers to core
evaluations of oneself, CWE and COE refer to core evaluations individuals hold about the
world in general (e.g., as benevolent and just vs. malevolent and dangerous) and about other
people more specifically (e.g., as trusting or cynical). Clearly there is overlap among the
categories in that COE is a facet of CWE. Consistent with this idea, the sole study that
examined CWE and COE collapsed them into an external core evaluations measure,
consisting of measures tapping into belief in a just world, belief in a benevolent world, and
trust in others (Judge, Locke, et al., 1998). Thus, perhaps researchers ought to focus less on
differences between CWE and COE and more on what might be called core external
evaluations (CEE).
One thing CSE has undoubtedly contributed to the literature is a greater awareness of how
different self-evaluations, previously considered separate and in isolation, are interrelated.
We see untapped potential in using the concept of CEE to similarly examine the
interrelatedness of perceptions of the world and of other people. For example, to what extent
do cynicism, rejection sensitivity, and hostile attribution bias represent general tendencies to
view the world negatively? Are general tendencies to trust others and be optimistic similarly
indicators of an underlying trait? Would the use of a broader CEE construct better predict
outcomes than the use of more narrow conceptualizations, similar to how CSE is posited to
better predict outcomes than its component traits are? These questions flow naturally from
a CEE perspective, yet our review of the literature suggests that they have been overlooked
in favor of CSE. As such, the full implications of Judge et al.s (1997) original work have
yet to be realized, and this seems to represent a fairly large research area waiting to be
addressed. Examining CEE not only would contribute to our understanding of evaluations
of others but also would serve to validate the core evaluations approach originally proposed
by Packer (1985) and Judge et al. (1997).
Consistent with our recommendations concerning the structural validity of CSE, research
on CEE must be guided by strong theory and empirical methods. From a theoretical
perspective, adopting an approach/avoidance view of CEE may help identify relevant traits
that reflect sensitivities toward positive or negative information (or both) about the external
environment. From an empirical perspective, work on CEE must address the same issues
that face CSE researchers (e.g., developing testable inclusion criteria, ruling out CMV). The
fruit of this labor, however, has the potential to contribute to the literature on external
evaluations in the same way that CSE has contributed to the literature on self-evaluations.
Chang et al. / Core Self-Evaluation 117

Conclusion

As our review suggests, CSE has had a large impact on organizational research, with a
rapidly developing nomological network that includes a variety of outcomes, moderators,
and mediators. The work on CSEs discriminant, incremental, and predictive validity
suggests that CSE has the potential to be an influential conceptualization of how we view
ourselves. At the same time, our review has highlighted concerns with respect to the
structural validity and measurement of the CSE construct, as well as the need for a theoretical
paradigm to account for the multitude of existing CSE studies and to provide new directions
for future CSE research. Thus, while CSE research has made important strides to date,
research must take a step back to address these fundamental questions about the nature of
the construct. In raising these issues, we hope that our review serves to highlight both the
promise of CSE research and the areas in need of further development. To this end, we
encourage more theoretical and empirical research in order to advance our understanding of
core evaluations as a whole.

Note

1. We do not mean to suggest that examining situational or state-specific self-evaluations is inappropriate;


research on the consequences associated with discrepancies between ones global or trait self-views and ones
momentary self-views is an active field of investigation (Ferris, Spence, Brown, & Heller, in press; Kernis, 2003),
for example. Rather, we are arguing against terming such constructs state or domain-specific CSE. This
argument closely parallels similar concerns seen in the self-esteem literature, where Brown and Marshall (2006)
suggest using terms such as feelings of self-worth and self-evaluations to refer to what is more commonly
called state self-esteem and domain-specific self-esteem.

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.


Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. 1987. The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior.
Social Justice Research, 1: 177-198.
*Almeda, M., Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., & Haggard, D. L. 2010. Psychological health effects of supervisory
pressure to behave unethically. Paper presented at the 25th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
Almost, J., Doran, D. M., Hall, L. M., & Laschinger, H. K. S. 2010. Antecedents and consequences of intra-group
conflict among nurses. Journal of Nursing Management, 18: 981-992.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended
two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103: 411-423.
Arthur, W., Jr., Bennett, W., Jr., & Huffcutt, A. I. 2001. Conducting meta-analysis using SAS. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ashford, S. J., & Tsui, A. S. 1991. Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness: The role of active feedback
seeking. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 251-280.
*Avery, D. R. 2003. Personality as a predictor of the value of voice. Journal of Psychology, 137: 435-446.
*Azalea, A., Omar, F., & Mastor, K. A. 2009. The role of individual differences in job satisfaction among
Indonesians and Malaysians. European Journal of Social Sciences, 10: 496-511.
118 Journal of Management / January 2012

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. 1990. Assessing method variance in multitraitmultimethod matrices: The case of self-
reported affect and perceptions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 547-560.
Baker, M. K., Kennedy, D. J., Bohle, P. L., Campbell, D., Wiltshire, J. H., & Singh, M. A. F. 2011. Core self-
evaluation as a predictor of strength training adoption in older adults. Maturitas, 68: 88-93.
Barrett, G. V., Miguel, R. F., Tan, J. A., & Hurd, J. M. 2001. Emotional intelligence: The Madison Avenue
approach to science and professional practice. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
*Bauer, J., Cho, E., Johnson, R. E., & Silverman, S. B. 2008. Acting superior but actually inferior? Relationships
of arrogance with motivation and cognitive ability. Paper presented at the 2008 Southern Management
Association Meeting, St. Pete Beach, Florida.
*Best, R. G., Stapleton, L. M., & Downey, R. G. 2005. Core self-evaluations and job burnout: The test of alternative
models. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10: 441-451.
*Bhave, D. P. 2008. The invisible eye? Perceptions, use, and outcomes of electronic performance monitoring.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
*Bipp, T. 2010. What do people want from their jobs? The Big Five, core self-evaluations and work motivation.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18: 28-39.
*Blair, C. A. 2008. A dispositional model of leader development: The role of core self-evaluation, narcissism, and
goal orientation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
*Blair, C., Meriac, J., & Morris, M. L. 2007. Work stress: A sketch of the dispositional causes of work stress. Paper
presented at the 67th Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.
*Blau, G. 2007. Partially testing a process model for understanding victim responses to an anticipated worksite
closure. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71: 401-428.
*Blume, B. D., Baldwin, T. T., & Rubin, R. S. 2005. Forced ranking: Who is attracted to it? A study of performance
management system preference. Paper presented at the 65th Academy of Management Annual Meeting,
Honolulu, HI.
Bollen, K. A., & Ting, K.-F. 2000. A tetrad test for causal indicators. Psychological Methods, 5: 3-22.
*Bono, J. E., & Colbert, A. E. 2005. Understanding responses to multi-source feedback: The role of core self-
evaluations. Personnel Psychology, 58: 171-203.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. 2003. Core self-evaluations: A review of the trait and its role in job satisfaction and
performance. European Journal of Personality, 17: 5-18.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., & Rothstein, H. 2007. Meta-analysis: Fixed effect versus random effects. Englewood,
NJ: Biostat.
*Bowling, N. 2005. Dispositional approach to satisfaction with social facets of work: The role of dispositional
cynicism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Central Michigan University.
*Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. 2006. Situation strength and the dispositional approach to job satisfaction. Poster
presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX.
*Bowling, N. A., Wang, Q., Tang, H. Y., & Kennedy, K. D. 2010. A comparison of general and work-specific
measures of core self-evaluations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76: 559-566.
*Bowling, N. A., Watson, C. P., & Beehr, T. A. 2004. Situational and dispositional factors in job and life
satisfaction. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Chicago, IL.
*Boyar, S. L., & Mosley, D. C., Jr. 2007. The relationship between core self-evaluations and work and family
satisfaction: The mediating role of work-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71:
265-281.
*Boyd, S., Ensari, N., Hoffman, C. C., & Newman, D. A. 2007. Core self-evaluations moderating the job stress
burnout relationship. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, New York, NY.
*Brown, D. J., Ferris, D. L., Heller, D., & Keeping, L. M. 2007. Antecedents and consequences of the frequency
of upward and downward social comparisons at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 102: 59-75.
Brown, J. D., & Marshall, M. A. 2006. The three faces of self-esteem. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Self-esteem issues and
answers: A sourcebook of current perspectives: 4-9. New York: Psychology Press.
Chang et al. / Core Self-Evaluation 119

*Brown, S. C. 2010. Technology acceptance and organizational change: An integration of theory. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Auburn University.
Buckley, M. R., Cote, J. A., & Comstock, S. M. 1990. Measurement errors in the behavioral sciences: The case of
personality/attitude research. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50: 447-474.
Cain, C. K., & LeDoux, J. E. 2008. Emotional processing and motivation: In search of brain mechanisms. In
A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation: 17-34. New York: Psychology Press.
*Campana, K. L., & Bono, J. E. 2007. Negative work events, mood, and motivation: The role of core self-
evaluations. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, New York, NY.
Campbell, J. P. 1990. Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology.
In M. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.):
687-731. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Carver, C. S., Avivi, Y. E., & Laurenceau, J.-P. 2008. Approach, avoidance, and emotional experiences. In A. J. Elliot
(Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation: 385-397. New York: Psychology Press.
Carver, C. S., Sutton, S. K., & Scheier, M. F. 2000. Action, emotion, and personality: Emerging conceptual
integration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26: 741-751.
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. 1994. Behavioral inhibition, behavioural activation, and affective responses to
impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67:
319-333.
Cattell, R. B. 1965. The scientific analysis of personality. Baltimore, MD: Penguin.
*Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Ahmetoglu, G., & Furnham, A. 2008. Little more than personality: Dispositional
determinants of test anxiety (the Big Five, core self-evaluations, and self-assessed intelligence). Learning and
Individual Differences, 18: 258-263.
*Chang, C.-H., Johnson, R. E., & Matias, M. 2008. What role does leader identity play in leadermember
exchange? Paper presented at the 68th Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA.
*Chase, W. S., II. 2009. Trait mindfulness, overall adjustment, and physical well-being perceptions of college
students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Marywood University.
Chen, G. in press. Evaluating the core: Critical assessment of core self-evaluations theory. Journal of Organizational
Behavior. DOI: 10.1002/job.761.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. 2001. Validation of a new generalized self-efficacy scale. Organizational
Research Methods, 4: 62-83.
Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., & Drasgow, F. 2011. Individual differences: Their measurement and validity. In S.
Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Vol. 2. Selecting and developing
members for the organization: 117-151. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
*Chiu, Y. P., Wu. M., Zhuang, W. L., & Hsu, Y. Y. 2009. Influences on expatriate social networks in China.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20: 790-809.
*Cho, E., Johnson, R. E., Rodopman, O. B., & Tolentino, A. L. 2009. Measuring trait affectivity using an implicit
measure. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference,
New Orleans, LA.
*Chu, T.-M. 2007. Individual traits, strain, and job satisfaction in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova
Southeastern University.
*Clark, O. L., & Muzyro, K. 2009. Welfare-to-work transition and psychological distress. Paper presented at the
24th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
*Coder, L. 2007. Understanding voluntary turnover: Comparing factors of employer change and career change in
a sample of professional workers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas.
*Collins, B. J. 2008. One size does not fit all: Nurturing or neglecting the nature of an individuals core self-
evaluation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama.
Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440 (1982).
Cortina, J. M. 2003. Apples and oranges (and pears, oh my!): The search for moderators in meta-analysis.
Organizational Research Methods, 6: 415-439.
Crampton, S. M., & Wagner, J. A., III 1994. Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research: An
investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 67-76.
120 Journal of Management / January 2012

*Crawford, A., Hubbard, S. S., ONeill, M., & Guarino, A. 2009. Mediating effects: A study of the work
environment and personality in the quick-service restaurant setting. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Management, 16: 24-31.
*Creed, P. A., Lehmann, K., & Hood, M. 2009. The relationship between core self-evaluations, employment
commitment, and well-being in the unemployed. Personality and Individual Differences, 47: 310-315.
*Dasborough, M., Harvey, P., & Stillman, P. 2007. Follower undermining of leaders in the workplace. Paper
presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York,
NY.
*Debicki, B. J., Barnett, T. R., Pearson, A. W., & Pearson, R. A. 2008. Core self-evaluations and academic
performance: The mediating effects of goal orientation. Paper presented at the 68th Academy of Management
Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 2000. The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination
of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11: 227-268.
*Djurdjevic, E., Rosen, C. C., & Johnson, R. E. 2010. Enhancing the prediction of core self-evaluation by
considering trait interactions. In A.-G. Albrecht & D. S. Ones (Chairs), New insights into core self-evaluations
at work. Paper presented at the 70th Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
*Dormann, C., Fay, D., Zapf, D., & Frese, M. 2006. A state-trait analysis of job satisfaction: On the effect of core
self-evaluations. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55: 27-51.
Doty, W. H., & Glick, W. H. 1998. Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results?
Organizational Research Methods, 1: 374-406.
Douglas, E. F., McDaniel, M. A., & Snell, A. F. 1996. The validity of non-cognitive measures decays when
applicants fake. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Management, Cincinnati, OH.
Duffy, M. K., Shaw, J. D., Scott, K. D., & Tepper, B. J. 2006. The moderating roles of self-esteem and neuroticism
in the relationship between group and individual undermining. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 1066-1077.
Edwards, J. R. 2001. Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An integrative analytical
framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4: 144-192.
Elliot, A. J. 1999. Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34: 169-189.
Elliot, A. J., & Covington, M. V. 2001. Approach and avoidance motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 13:
73-92.
Elliot, A. J., Gable, S. L., & Mapes, R. R. 2006. Approach and avoidance motivation in the social domain.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32: 378-391.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. 2001. A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80: 501-519.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. 2002. Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance
temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82: 804-818.
Erez, A., Bloom, M. C., & Wells, M. T. 1996. Using random rather than fixed effects models in meta-analysis:
Implications for situational specificity and validity generalization. Personnel Psychology, 49: 275-306.
*Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. 2001. Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation, and performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1270-1279.
*Erol, H. T., & Sumer, H. C. 2009. The power of pleasant affective state at work. Paper presented at the 24th Annual
Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
Eysenck, H. J. 1990. Biological dimensions of personality. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory
and research: 244-276. New York: Guilford.
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. 1999. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor
analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4: 272-299.
*Fang, R. 2010. Peer influence on undermining behaviors in the workplace: A social network perspective.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Ferguson, M. J., & Bargh, J. A. 2008. Evaluative readiness: the motivational nature of automatic evaluation. In
A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation: 289-306. New York: Psychology Press.
*Ferris, D. L. 2008. Core self-evaluations and the hierarchical model of approach/avoidance motivation. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. 2009. Organizational supports and workplace deviance: The mediating role
of organizationally-based self-esteem. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108: 279-286.
Chang et al. / Core Self-Evaluation 121

Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., Lian, H., & Keeping, L. M. 2009. When does self-esteem relate to deviant behavior?
The role of contingencies of self-worth. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 1345-1353.
Ferris, D. L., Lian, H., Brown, D. J., Pang, F. X. J., & Keeping, L. M. 2010. Self-esteem level and job performance:
The moderating role of self-esteem contingencies. Personnel Psychology, 63: 561-593.
*Ferris, D. L., Rosen, C. C., Johnson, R. E., Brown, D. J., Risavy, S., & Heller, D. 2011. Approach or avoidance
(or both?): Integrating core self-evaluations within an approach/avoidance framework. Personnel Psychology,
64: 137-161.
Ferris, D. L., Spence, J. R., Brown, D. J., & Heller, D. in press. Interpersonal justice and workplace deviance: The
role of esteem threat. Journal of Management. DOI: 10.1177/0149206310372259.
Franke, G. R., Preacher, K. J., & Rigdon, E. E. 2008. Proportional structural effects of formative indicators. Journal
of Business Research, 61: 1229-1237.
Gable, S. L. 2006. Approach and avoidance social motives and goals. Journal of Personality, 74: 175-222.
Gagn, M., & Deci, E. L. 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 26: 331-362.
*Garca, M. F., & Triana, M. C. 2011. Social coping as a response to perceived discrimination. Paper accepted for
presentation at the 26th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago,
IL.
*Garcia, M. F., Triana, M. D. C., Peters, A. N., & Sanchez, M. 2009. Self-enhancement in a job search context.
International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 17: 290-299.
*Gardner, D. G., & Pierce, J. L. 2010. The Core Self-Evaluation Scale: Further construct validation evidence.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70: 291-304.
*Gbadamosi, G. 2006. Predictors and correlates of Charlatan behavior in a non-western context. Journal of Global
Business and Technology, 2: 23-32.
*Grant, A., & Sonnentag, S. 2010. Doing good buffers against feeling bad: Prosocial impact compensates for
negative task and self-evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111: 13-22.
*Grant, A., & Wrzesniewski, A. 2010. I dont want to let you down . . . or will I? Core self-evaluations, other-
orientation, anticipated guilt and gratitude, and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 108-121.
*Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. 2008. Proactive personality, core self-evaluations, and self-determination
theory. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
San Francisco, CA.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hall, S. M., & Brannick, M. T. 2002. Comparison of two random-effects methods of meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87: 377-389.
*Harris, K. J., Harvey, P., & Kacmar, K. M. 2009. Do social stressors impact everyone equally? An examination
of the moderating impact of core self-evaluations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24: 153-164.
*Heilmann, T., & Jonas, K. 2010. Validation of a German-language core self-evaluations scale. Social Behavior
and Personality, 38: 209-226.
Heller, D., Ferris, D. L., Brown, D. J., & Watson, D. 2009. The influence of work personality on job satisfaction:
Incremental validity and mediation effects. Journal of Personality, 77: 1051-1084.
*Heller, D., Judge, T. A., & Watson, D. 2002. The confounding role of personality and trait affectivity in the
relationship between job and life satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 815-835.
Heller, D., Komar, J., & Lee, W. B. 2007. The dynamics of personality states, goals, and well-being. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33: 898-910.
Heller, D., Perunovic, W. Q. E., & Reichman, D. 2009. The future of person-situation integration in the interface
between traits and goals: A bottom-up framework. Journal of Research in Personality, 43: 171-178.
Higgins, E. T. 2006. Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychological Review, 113: 439-460.
Hinkin, T. R. 1995. A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management,
21: 967-988.
Hobfoll, S. 2001. The influence of culture, community, and the nest-self in the stress process: Advancing
conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, An International Review, 50: 337-421.
*Holt, D. T., & Jung, H.-H. 2008. Development of a Korean version of a core self-evaluations scale. Psychological
Reports, 103: 415-425.
122 Journal of Management / January 2012

Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Ployhart, R. E. 2001. Determinants, detection, and amelioration of adverse impact
in personnel selection procedures: Issues, evidence, and lessons learned. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 9: 152-194.
*Hu, C., Wu, T.-Y., & Lai, J.-H. 2007. Developing front-line leaders as the key to a robust leadership. Paper
presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York,
NY.
*Huang, G. 2007. Workplace self-concept: A new conceptualization of self-concept in organizations. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, China.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. 2004. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
*Hurst, C., & Judge, T. A. 2010. Tell them something good: The outcomes of disclosing positive news to coworkers.
Paper presented at the 70th Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Montreal, QC.
Ilies, R., De Pater, I., & Judge, T. 2007. Differential affective reactions to negative and positive feedback, and the
role of self-esteem. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22: 590-609.
*Imus, A. L. 2006. Preferential selection in the academic domain: A stigma-based model of antecedents and
outcomes. Unpublished masters thesis, Michigan State University.
*Ispas, D., & Ilies, A. 2008. Negative emotions, core self-evaluations and counterproductive work behaviors. Paper
presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San
Francisco, CA.
*Johnson, E. C., Kristof-Brown, A. L., Van Vianen, A. E. M., De Pater, I. E., & Klein, M. R. 2003. Expatriate social
ties: Personality antecedents and consequences for adjustment. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 11: 277-288.
*Johnson, R. D., Marakas, G. M., & Palmer, J. W. 2006. Differential social attributions toward computing
technology: An empirical investigation. International Journal of HumanComputer Studies, 64: 446-460.
*Johnson, R. E., Chang, C.-H., & Rosen, C. C. 2006. Linking justice to motivation: The effects of justice on self-
concept, regulatory focus, and affect. Paper presented at the 66th Academy of Management Annual Meeting,
Atlanta, GA.
Johnson, R. E., Chang, C.-H., & Yang, L. 2010. Commitment and motivation at work: The relevance of employee
identity and regulatory focus. Academy of Management Review, 35: 226-245.
Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Chang, C.-H. 2011. To aggregate or not to aggregate: Steps for developing and
validating higher-order multidimensional constructs. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26: 241-248.
Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., Chang, C.-H., Djurdjevic, E., & Taing, M. U. in press. Recommendations for
improving the construct clarity of higher-order multidimensional constructs. Human Resource Management
Review.
*Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Djurdjevic, E. 2011. Assessing the impact of common method variance on higher-
order multidimensional constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 744-761.
*Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. 2006. Getting to the core of core self-evaluations: A critical review.
Paper presented at the 21st Annual Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, Dallas,
TX.
Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Levy, P. E. 2008. Getting to the core of core self-evaluations: A review and
recommendations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29: 391-413.
*Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., Toumbeva, T., & Djurdjevic, E. 2010a. Controlling for common method variance
using statistical remedies. Paper presented at the 25th Annual Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology Conference, Atlanta, Georgia.
*Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., Toumbeva, T., & Djurdjevic, E. 2010b. Does CSE mean core self-evaluations
or common source effects? Paper presented at the 25th Annual Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology Conference, Atlanta, Georgia.
*Joo, B.-K., Jeung, C.-W., & Yoon, H. J. 2010. Investigating the influences of core self-evaluations, job autonomy,
and intrinsic motivation on in-role job performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21: 353-371.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. 2001a. A rose by any other name. . . Are neuroticism, self-esteem, locus of control, and
generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common construct? In B. W. Roberts, & R. T. Hogan (Eds.),
Personality and psychology in the workplace: 93-118. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Chang et al. / Core Self-Evaluation 123

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. 2001b. Relationship of core self-evaluation traitsself-esteem, generalized self-
efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stabilitywith job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 80-92.
*Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. 2005. Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The
role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 257-268.
*Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., & Locke, E. A. 2000. Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating role of job
characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 237-249.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. 1998. The power of being positive: The relationship between positive self-
concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11: 167-187.
*Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. 2002. Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of
control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83: 693-710.
*Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. 2003. The core self-evaluations scale: Development of a
measure. Personnel Psychology, 56: 303-331.
*Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Klinger, R. 2008. The dispositional sources of job satisfaction: A comparative test.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57: 361-372
*Judge, T. A., & Hurst, C. 2007. Capitalizing on ones advantages: Role of core self-evaluations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92: 1212-1227.
*Judge, T. A., & Hurst, C. 2008. How the rich (and happy) get richer (and happier): Relationship of core self-
evaluations to trajectories in attaining work success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 849-863.
*Judge, T. A., Hurst, C., & Simon, L. N. 2009. Does it pay to be smart, attractive, or confident (or all three)?
Relationships among general mental ability, physical attractiveness, core self-evaluations, and income. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 94: 742-755.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. 1997. The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations
approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19: 151-188.
*Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. 1998. Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction:
The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 17-34.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. 1999. Managerial coping with organizational change:
A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 107-122.
*Judge, T. A., Van Vianen, A. E. M., & De Pater, I. E. 2004. Emotional stability, core self-evaluations, and job
outcomes: A review of the evidence and an agenda for future research. Human Performance, 17: 325-346.
Jussim, L., Yen, H. J., & Aiello, J. R. 1995. Self-consistency, self-enhancement, and accuracy in reactions to
feedback. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31: 322-356.
*Kacmar, K. M., Collins, B. J., Harris, K. J., & Judge, T. A. 2009. Core self-evaluations and job performance: The
role of the perceived work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 1572-1580.
*Kamer, B., & Annen, H. 2010. The role of core self-evaluations in predicting performance appraisal reactions.
Swiss Journal of Psychology, 69: 95-104.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Judge, T. A. 2008. A quantitative review of mentoring research: Test of a model.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73: 269-283.
*Kammeyer-Mueller J. D., Judge, T. A., & Scott, B. A. 2009. The role of core self-evaluations in the coping
process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 177-195.
*Kao, Y. T. 2009. Burnout in college student volunteers: A cross-level study. College Student Journal, 43:
872-878.
*Kasi, V. 2007. Escalation of commitment in information technology projects: A goal setting theory perspective.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University.
Kernis, M. H. 2003. Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14: 1-26.
*Kim, K., Oh, I.-S., & Chiaburu, D. S. 2010. The effects of core self-evaluation on learning motivation and
performance. Paper presented at the 70th Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada.
*Kim, T.-Y., Liden, R. C., Bian, L., & Kim, S.-P. 2010. The interplay between follower core self-evaluation and
leadership. Paper presented at the 25th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
124 Journal of Management / January 2012

Kish-Gephart, J., J., Harrison, D. A., & Trevin, L. K. 2010. Bad apples, bad cases, and bad barrels: Meta-analytic
evidence about sources of unethical decisions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 1-31.
*Kittinger, J. D., Walker, A. G., Cope, J. G., & Wuensch, K. L. 2009. The relationship between core self-
evaluations and affective commitment. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 11: 68-92.
*Kluemper, D. H. 2008. Trait emotional intelligence: The impact of core self-evaluations and social desirability.
Personality and Individual Differences, 44: 1402-1412.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. 1998. Feedback interventions: Toward the understanding of a double-edged sword.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7: 67-72.
*Kroeker, J. M. 2008. The relationship between core self-evaluation traits and work family conflict. Unpublished
masters thesis, Emporia State University.
*Laschinger, H. K. S., & Finegan, J. 2008. Situational and dispositional predictors of nurse manager burnout: A
time-lagged analysis. Journal of Nursing Management, 16: 601-607.
*Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., & Wilk, P. 2009. Context matters: The impact of unit leadership and
empowerment on nurses organizational commitment. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 39: 228-235.
*Lavelle, M. G. 2006. Supervisor effectiveness: A correlation study of supervisor self-assessment, and the
management observation of effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Capella University.
Law, K. S., & Wong, C. S. 1999. Multidimensional constructs in structural equation analysis: An illustration using
the job perception and job satisfaction constructs. Journal of Management, 25: 143-160.
Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Mobley, W. H. 1998. Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs. Academy of
Management Review, 23: 741-755.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Levy, P. E. 2010. Industrial/organizational psychology: Understanding the workplace (3rd ed.). New York: Worth
Publishers.
Levy, P. E., & Williams, J. R. 2004. The social context of performance appraisal: A review and framework for the
future. Journal of Management, 30: 881-905.
*Liu, S., Wang, M. Piccolo, R., Zhan, Y., & Shi, J. 2008. Core self-evaluation in China: Predicting job satisfaction
and job performance. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA.
Locke, E. A. 1976. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology: 1297-1349. Chicago: Rand McNally.
*Luria, G., & Torjman, A. 2009. Resources and coping with stressful events. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
30: 685-707.
*Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. 2007. Positive psychological capital: Measurement and
relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60: 541-572.
MacCallum, R. C., & Browne, M. W. 1993. The use of causal indicators in covariance structure models: Some
practical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 114: 533-541.
MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. 2005. The problem of measurement model misspecification in
behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90:
710-730.
*Maher, C., Yang, L., Zhang, X., Spector, P., Thorp, S., & Conkiln, M. 2008. Workplace incivility in Chinese
employees: The role of core self-evaluations. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. 1998. The cultural psychology of personality. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
29: 63-87.
*Masuda, A. D. 2005. Power motives and core self evaluation as correlates of managerial morality. Paper
presented at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles,
CA.
McCauley, C. D., Lombardo, M. M., & Usher, C. J. 1989. Diagnosing management development needs: An
instrument based on how managers develop. Journal of Management, 15: 389-403.
*McKinney, A. P. 2003. Goal orientation: Test of competing models. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University.
*Michael, G. S. 2008. The role of protective factors in the manifestation of burnout in community mental health
workers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Marywood University.
Chang et al. / Core Self-Evaluation 125

*Miller, B. K., & Nicols, K. M. 2010. University satisfaction for college students: A validity study of the CSES.
Paper presented at the 70th Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Miller, D. T., & Nelson, L. D. 2002. Seeing approach motivation in the avoidance behavior of others: Implications
for an understanding of pluralistic ignorance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83: 1066-1075.
*Mol, S. T., Born, M. P., Willemsen, M. E., van der Molen, H. T., & Derous, E. 2009. When selection ratios are
high: Predicting the expatriation willingness of prospective domestic entry-level job applicants. Human
Performance, 22: 1-22.
Moorman, R. H., & Podsakoff, P. M. 1992. A meta-analytic review and empirical test of the potential confounding
effects of social desirability response sets in organizational behaviour research. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 65: 131-149.
Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. 2001. Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing
model. Psychological Inquiry, 12: 177-196.
Mueller-Hanson, R., Heggestad, E. D., & Thornton, G. C., III. 2003. Faking and selection: Considering the use of
personality from a select-in and a select-out perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 348-355.
*Narayan, A. 2008. Role of assigned team goals in the relationship between individual difference factors and self-
set goals in a pre-team context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wright State University.
*Newman, D. A. 2004. Is job dissatisfaction contagious? Simultaneous effects of social networks, task
characteristics, and dispositions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.
Newness, K., & Viswesvaran, C. 2010. An analysis and reliability generalization for the Core Self-Evaluation
Scale (CSES). Paper presented at the 25th Annual Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Conference, Atlanta, GA.
*Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. 2010. Idiosyncratic deals and organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 76: 419-427.
*Nikolaou, I., & Judge, T. A. 2007. Fairness reactions to personnel selection techniques in Greece: The role of core
self-evaluations. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15: 206-219.
Orth, U., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Robins, R. W. 2010. Self-esteem development from young adulthood to old age:
A cohort-sequential longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98: 645-658.
*Oyler, J. D. Core self-evaluation and job satisfaction the role of organizational and community embeddedness.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Packer, E. 1985. Understanding the subconscious. Objectivist Forum, 6: 1-10 and 8-15.
Packer, E. 1985/1986. The art of introspection. Objectivist Forum, 6: 1-10 and 7: 1-8.
*Pajo, K., Guenole, N., Mallon, M., & Ward, R. 2005. The impact of core self-evaluations on perceptions of
support, commitment, and role-conflict. Paper presented at the 65th Academy of Management Conference,
Honolulu, HI.
*Park, H. I., Monnot, M. J., Jacob, A. C., & Wagner, S. H. 2011. Moderators of the relationship between personjob
fit and subjective well-being among Asian employees. International Journal of Stress Management, 18: 67-87.
*Piccolo, R. E., Judge, T. A., Takahashi, K, Watanabe, N., & Locke, E. A. 2005. Core self-evaluations in Japan:
Relative effects on job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and happiness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26:
965-984.
Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. 2004. Self-esteem within the work and organizational context: A review of the
organization-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management, 30: 591-622.
*Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. 2009. Relationships of personality and job characteristics with organization-based
self-esteem. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24: 392-409.
Pinder, C. C. 2008. Work motivation in organizational behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Psychology Press.
Platt, J. R. 1964. Strong inference. Science, 146: 347-353.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral
research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88:
879-903.
*Protolipac, D. S., Hauser, T. B., DeLyser, M. J., Erickson, A., & Seaton, T. 2010. Personality, school, and life
satisfaction: The mediational role of effort. Paper presented at the 25th Annual Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology Conference, Atlanta, GA.
*Protolipac, D. S., & Pikala, M. 2010. Personality and employee attitudes: Role of engagement and job
characteristics. Paper presented at the 25th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
126 Journal of Management / January 2012

Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon, R. 2004. HLM6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear
modeling. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
*Resick, C. J., Whitman, D. S., Weingarden, S. M., & Hiller, N. J. 2009. The bright-side and the dark-side of CEO
personality: Examining core self-evaluations, narcissism, transformational leadership, and strategic influence.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 1365-1381.
*Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. 2010. Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 53: 617-635.
Richardson, H. A., Simmering, M. J., & Sturman, M. C. 2009. A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc
statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method variance. Organizational Research
Methods, 12: 762-800.
Riolli, L., & Savicki, V. 2003. Optimism and coping as moderators of the relationship between work resources and
burnout in information services workers. International Journal of Stress Management, 3: 235-252.
Roberts, B. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. 2003. Work experiences and personality development in young
adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84: 582-593.
Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. 2006. Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across
the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132: 1-25.
Rode, J. C. 2004. Job satisfaction and life satisfaction revisited: A longitudinal test of an integrated model. Human
Relations, 57: 1205-1230.
*Ronen, E. 2008. Transfer of e-learning in the workplace: The effects of trainee characteristics and contextual
factors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Illinois Institute of Technology.
Rosen, C. C., Chang, C.-H., Djurdjevic, E., & Eatough, E. M. 2010. Occupational stressors and performance: An
updated review and recommendations. In P. L. Perrew & D. D. Ganster (Eds.), Research in occupational stress
and well-being. Vol. 8: New developments in theoretical and conceptual approaches to job stress: 1-60.
Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
Rosenberg, M. 1965. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rosenthal, R. 1991. Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
*Rosopa, P. J., & Schroeder, A. N. 2009. Core self-evaluations interact with cognitive ability to predict academic
achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 47: 1003-1006.
Rotter, J. B. 1966. Generalized expectancies of internal versus external control of reinforcements. Psychological
Monographs, 80: 1-28.
Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive
performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87: 66-80.
*Saboe, K., & Johnson, R. E. 2008. Implicit identities predict supervisor-rated work outcomes and relationships.
Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, San
Francisco, CA.
Sager, J. K., Strutton, H. D., & Johnson, D. A. 2006. Core self-evaluations and salespeople. Psychology and
Marketing, 23: 95-113.
*Salvaggio, A. N., Schneider, B., Nishii, L. H., Mayer, D. M., Ramesh, A., & Lyon, J. S. 2007. Manager
personality, manager service quality orientation, and service climate: Test of a model. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92: 1741-1750.
*Schinkel, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Anderson, N. 2004. The impact of selection encounters on applicants: An
experimental study into feedback effects after a negative selection decision. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 12: 197-205.
Schmitt, N. 2004. Beyond the Big Five: Increases in understanding and practical utility. Human Performance, 17:
349-359.
*Schwind, K. M., & Ilies, R. 2007. Core self-evaluations and psychological well-being: Further validation using
multiple methodologies and rating perspectives. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New York, NY.
*Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. 2009. The popularity contest at work: Who wins, why, and what do they receive?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 20-33.
*Scott, K. A., & Zweig, D. 2008. Dispositional predictors of organizational cynicism. Paper presented at the annual
conference of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Chang et al. / Core Self-Evaluation 127

*Sears, G. J., & Hackett, R. D. In press. The influence of role definition and affect in LMX: A process
perspective on the personalityLMX relationship. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.
DOI: 10.1348/096317910X492081.
*Sears, G. J., & Holmvall, C. M. 2010. The joint influence of supervisor and subordinate emotional intelligence on
leadermember exchange. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25: 593-605.
*Shamas, T. M. 2009. Influence of pre-test information on applicant perceptions: An attributional approach.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Alliant International University, San Diego.
*Shin, J., & Sohn, Y. 2008. Social comparison and job satisfaction: The mediating effect of justice perception.
Paper presented at the 68th Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA.
*Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., & Veiga, J. 2010. The impact of CEO core self-evaluation on the firms entrepreneurial
orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 31: 110-119.
*Siu, H., Laschinger, H. K., & Finegan, J. 2008. Nursing professional practice environments: Setting the stage for
constructive conflict resolution and work effectiveness. Journal of Nursing Administration, 38: 250-257.
*Sommer, S. A. 2008. The impact of leadership on team members affect, cognition, resilience, and performance:
A field quasi-experiment comparing crisis and non-crisis situations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Western Ontario, Canada.
*Spitzmuller, C. 2003. Investigating mediators of the core self-evaluationsjob satisfaction relationship.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University.
*Srivastava, A., Locke, E. A., Judge, T. A., & Adams, J. W. 2010. Core self-evaluations as causes of satisfaction:
The mediating role of seeking task complexity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77: 255-265
Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. 1985. Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approach to job attitudes. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 70: 469-480.
*Steele-Johnson, D., & Narayan, A. 2007. Goal orientations, core self-evaluations, and self-efficacy in a team
context. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, New York, NY.
Steelman, L. A., Levy, P. E., & Snell, A. F. 2004. The Feedback Environment Scale: Construct definition,
measurement, and validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64: 165-184.
*Stumpp, T., Hulsheger, U. T., Muck, P. M., & Maier, G. W. 2009. Expanding the link between core self-
evaluations and affective job attitudes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18: 142-166.
*Stumpp, T., Muck, P. M., Hulsheger, U. R., Judge, T. A., & Maier, G. W. 2010. Core self-evaluations in Germany:
Validation of a German measure and its relationships with career success. Applied Psychology: An International
Review, 59: 674-700.
Swann, W. B., Jr., Chang-Schneider, C., & McClarty, K. L. 2007. Do peoples self-views matter? Self-concept and
self-esteem in everyday life. American Psychologist, 62: 84-94.
*Swody, C. A. 2006. Workfamily enrichment: The role of work eustress in spillover of positive psychological
states. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.
*Taing, M. U., Johnson, R. E., & Jackson, E. M. 2010.On the nature of core self-evaluation: A formative or
reflective construct? Paper presented at the 70th Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Montreal, Quebec,
Canada.
Tan, J. A., & Hall, R. J. 2005. The effects of social desirability bias on applied measures of goal orientation.
Personality and Individual Differences, 38: 1891-1902.
*Tan, J. A., Johnson, R. E., Ferris, D. L., & Rosen, C. C. 2010. Interplay among core self-evaluation, motivation
orientations, and job performance. Paper presented at the 25th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
*Tasa, K., Sears, G. J., & Schat, A. C. H. 2011. Personality and teamwork behavior in context: The cross-level
moderating role of collective efficacy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32: 65-85.
*Taylor, C. W. 2004. The relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction: Finding the mediating
variables. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
*Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C., & Hua, W. 2009. Abusive supervision, intentions to
quit, and employees workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 109: 156-167.
*Thompson, C. N. 2008. Personal characteristics and the impact of transformational leadership behaviors on
follower outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama.
128 Journal of Management / January 2012

*Thompson, C. N. 2009. Impact of core self-evaluation on the effectiveness of transformational leadership. Paper
presented at the 24th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New
Orleans, LA.
*Triana, M. C. 2008. Are virtual teams more just? An investigation of how reducing social categorization can
increase female participation in male-dominated teams. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M
University.
*Tsaousis, I., Nikolaou, I., Serdaris, N., & Judge, T. A. 2007. Do the core self-evaluations moderate the relationship
between subjective well-being and physical and psychological health? Personality and Individual Differences,
42: 1441-1452.
*Tunstall, M. M., & Spitzmueller, C. 2007. CSE and job satisfaction: The mediating role of organizational justice.
Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
New York, NY.
*Wanberg, C. R., Glomb, T. M., Song, Z., & Sorensen, S. 2005. Job-search persistence during unemployment: A
10-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 411-430.
*Wang, L. 2008. Core self-evaluations and leader emergence in the self-managing teams. Paper presented at the
23rd Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Francisco, CA.
*Wang, Q., Burns, G. N., & Bowling, N. A. 2010. Core self-evaluations as moderators: A longitudinal study. Paper
presented at the 25th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
*Way, J., & Johnson, R. E. 2010. Assessing employees regulatory focus using implicit measurement techniques.
Paper presented at the 25th Annual Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference, Atlanta,
GA.
Whitener, E. M. 1990. Confusion of confidence intervals and credibility intervals in meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 75: 315-321.
Williams, L. J., Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. 1989. Lack of method variance in self-reported affect and perceptions
at work: Reality or artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 462-468.
Wood, D., & Roberts, B. W. 2006. Cross-sectional and longitudinal tests of the personality and role identity
structural model (PRISM). Journal of Personality, 74: 779-809.
*Wu, M., Zhuang, W. L., & Wen, S. L. 2009. Core self-evaluations in the military context: Relative effects on job
satisfaction and organizational commitment. Paper presented at the International Conference on Business and
Information, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
*Wu, T. Y., & Hu, C. 2009. Abusive supervision and employee emotional exhaustion: Dispositional antecedents
and boundaries. Group and Organization Management, 34: 143-169.
*Zhu, J., & Arvey, R. D. 2007. Affectivity, core self-evaluations and leadership role occupancy: A genetic perspective.
Paper presented at the 67th Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.

You might also like