Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2003,56,303-331
303
304 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
ity can be estimated by the correlations of the four core traits with the
CSES measure. If the measure is valid, it should display strong correla-
tions with the four core traits.
Another component of the nomological network is discriminant va-
lidity. As Campbell (1960) noted, discriminant validity is “the require-
ment that a test not correlate too highly with measures from which it is
supposed to differ” (p. 548). In the case of the CSES, discriminant va-
lidity could be evaluated by answering two critical questions: (a) despite
its relationship with Conscientiousness and Extraversion, is the CSES
distinct from these traits?; and (b) is the CSES unrelated to other per-
sonality traits of the Big Five that theoretically seem to be completely
distinct from core self-evaluations, such as Agreeableness and Open-
ness? Thus, we expect the CSES to display significant correlations with
Extraversion and Conscientiousness,and weak or nonsignificantcorrela-
tions with Agreeableness and Openness. Furthermore, the magnitude of
the correlations should be such that the CSES correlates more strongly
with the core traits than with Conscientiousness, Extraversion, or the
other Big Five traits.
Fourth, it is important to investigate the empirical validity of the
measure. In the case of the CSES, we felt two of the most focal crite-
ria in 1-0 psychology-job satisfaction and job performance-were ap-
propriate criterion variables to investigate. In addition, we explored an
important criterion in applied psychology more generally-life satisfac-
tion or subjective well being (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999). We
also examined whether CSES displays incremental validity in predicting
these three applied criteria (job satisfaction, job performance, life sat-
isfaction), when controlling for (a) the Big Five traits and (b) a factor
comprised of each of the four core traits.
A fifth component of O U i validation efforts was to turn our atten-
tion to content validity (Schwab, 1980). Recognizing the importance of
covering the broad domain of core self-evaluations in our measure, we
imposed a requirement that the final scale include items reflecting the
content of the core self-evaluations constructs. That is, the final scale
must be true to our earlier definition of core self-evaluations and assess
the source of the overlap among the four core traits. In summaq, we
establish a series of necessary conditions to support the validity of the
CSES. These conditions are that the CSES:
1. Is a reliable measure as assessed by (a) internal consistency,(b)test-
retest reliability, and (c) intersource (self-significant other) agreement.
2. Assesses a single dimensional construct.
3. Includes items that represent the construct of core self-evaluations,
namely the source of the commonality among the four core traits.
4. Displays strong correlations with the four core traits: (a) self-esteem,
310 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
Method
Samples
Measures
Results
The purpose of this stage of the study was to explore the preliminary
necessary conditions to establish the construct validity of the CSES. Sev-
eral indicators of construct validity, such as the reliability of the scale,
its distributional properties, and its factor structure, were investigated.
‘Though selection of the CSES items was inspired by an understanding of the four
individual core traits, and knowledge of existing measures, the items did not strictly belong
to the measures. Indeed, many of the items could be argued to sample multiple trait
domains. For example, the item ‘‘I often feel helpless“ might be argued to reflect any
of the four core traits. Given that the motivation was to capture the commonality among
the individual traits, this was seen as an appropriate,and even desirable, situation.
TIMOTHY A. JUDGE ET AL. 315
TABLE 1
The Core Self Evaluations Scale (CSES)
~~
Instructions: Below are several statements about you with which you may agree or
disagree. Using the response scale below, indicate your agreement or disagreement
with each item by placing the appropriate number on the line preceding that item.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree
1. -I am confident I get the success I deserve in life.
2. -Sometimes I feel depressed. ( r )
3. - When I try, I generally succeed.
4. - Sometimes when I fail I feel worthless. ( r )
5. - I complete tasks successfully.
6. - Sometimes, I do not feel in control of my work. ( r )
7. -Overall, I am satisfied with myself.
8. - I am filled with doubts about my competence. (r)
9. -1 determine what will happen in my life.
10. - I do not feel in control of my success in my career. (r)
11. - I am capable of coping with most of my problems.
12.-There are times when things look pretty bleak and hopeless to me. (r)
r = reverse-scored. This measure is nonproprietary (free) and may be used with-
out permission.
TABLE 2
Distributional Properties and Reliability Estimates of the
Core Serf-EvaluationsScale (CSES)
Distributional DroDerties and reliabilitv estimates
Internal
consistency 'kst-retest Intersource
Mean (SD) reliability reliability reliability
Sample 1 3.83 (.48) .85
Sample 2 4.03 (58) .83
Sample 3 .81
Time 1 3.83 (S7) .85
Time 2 3.95 (S9) .87
Sample 4 .43
Self 3.78 (50) .83
Other 3.85 (.47) .81
Notes: Other = significant other. Internal consistency estimates are coefficient
alpha (a) reliability estimates. 'kst-retest estimates are correlations at Time 1 and
Time 2. intersource estimate is the correlation between self and significant other
reports as estimated by the Intraclass Correlation (ICC1).
different from one another. Across the six measurements, all coefficient
alpha reliability estimates were above .80 with an average reliability of
.84.Across the samples, the average item-total correlations ranged from
.48 to .55 with a mean of S O . Examination of the interitem correlation
matrices in the six measurements revealed that all of the items were
positively intercorrelated (once the negatively worded items had been
reverse scored). The alphas, item-total correlations, and interitem cor-
relations all suggest a high level of internal consistency. Test-retest re-
liability was 31, which shows good stability (test-retest reliability). The
ICC value showed reasonable interrater reliability. Indeed, the value
(ICC = .43)is exactly the same as the average self-peer ICC reported
by Costa and McCrae (1992, Table 8) for the NEO PI-R. Together, these
results show that the CSES is reliable and, thus, meets one necessary
condition for the construct validity of the measure.
Confirmatory factor analysis, conducted using LISREL 8 (Joreskog
& Sorbom, 1996),was used to test the underlying structure of the scale.
We tested three competing nested models using a variance-covariance
matrix as input into the program. Because all specific core traits were
implicitly represented in the scale, in these alternative models we loaded
the 12 items on one of four specific factors we thought the item best (but
not necessarily only) indicated (i.e., self-efficacyoriented items on a self-
efficacy factor, self-esteem oriented items on a self-esteem factor, and so
on). Thus, the alternative nested models consisted of four core factors.
Because the CSES was created to tap the underlying core self-evaluation
construct and not necessarily the distinct traits, the hypothesized model
was that the 12 CSES items load on one higher order factor. This model
was created by fixing all six relationships among the four factors to one.
In the first alternative model, the four factors were allowed to freely cor-
relate and, because all six pairwise correlations were freed, this model
became a four-factor model where the four constructs are hypothesized
to be distinct.
Because previous research as well as the results of this study shows
lower correlations between core self-evaluation and locus of control, in
the second alternative model we tested whether the assumed locus of
control items should be a part of the unitary scale. Therefore, we fixed
all the relationships between the self-esteem, self-efficacy,and Neuroti-
cism factors to one, but freed the relationship between the locus of con-
trol factor and the other three factors. As such, this model became a
two-factor model were self-esteem, self-efficacy, and Neuroticism are
treated as part of a common second-order factor, whereas locus of con-
trol is treated as a separate factor. Because the CSES items were as-
sessed on six different occasions across four samples (Time 1 and Time 2
in Sample 3 and self and significantother in Sample 4),six separate tests
TIMOTHY A. JUDGE ET AL. 317
of these alternative models of the factor structure of the CSES were pos-
sible. In order to test the fit of these models, we report the following fit
statistics: chi-square (x2)with correspondingdegrees of freedom, Root-
Mean-Square Residual (RMSR), Root-Mean-Square Error of Approx-
imation (RMSEA), Goodness of Fit index (GFI), Comperative Fit In-
dex (IFI), and Relative Fit Index (RFI). In each alternative model, we
also investigated the power of the test to reject the model if it was a mis-
specified model using LISPOWER. The fit statistics for the single-factor
model are reported in 'Itrble 3.
The average x 2 of a single-factor model across the samples was 97.51
with 48 degrees of freedom (x2/df = 2.03). The averages of the other
fit statistics across the samples were: RMSR = .06; RMSEA = .08;
GFI = .92; CFI = .92; RFI = .79. The power of the test to identify mis-
specified models ranged from .75 to 1.00. These fit statistics represented
a good fit of the hypothesized model to the data across all samples. The
power analysis results suggest that it is likely (average probability = .94)
that the fit statistics would have led to a rejection of the hypothesized
model if it were indeed false.
'Itrble 3 shows that the fit statistics of the two alternative models
across the six sampleswere very similar to the more parsimonious single-
factor model. The difference in chi-square tests show the four-factor
model was not significantly different from the more parsimonious single-
factor model in any of the samples. When a multiple factor model shows
similar fit to a single-factor model, the more parsimonious single-factor
model is preferable (Bollen, 1989). In addition, in five out of the sixsam-
ples, the two-factor model (separating out the locus-oriented items) was
not significantly different from the hypothesized single-factor model.
Thus, the overall results suggest that it is appropriate to view the CSES
items as indicating a unidimensional factor.
w
+
W
320 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
We tested the empirical validity of the CSE scale using three criteria
(i.e., job satisfaction, job performance, life satisfaction) that have been
suggested in past research to be related to the core self-evaluation con-
struct (Erez & Judge, 2001; Judge & Bono, 2001b; Judge et al., 2000;
Judge, Locke, et al., 1998). The correlations between the CSES and the
criterion variables in all the samples are reported in the bottom three
3The statistical formula (Cohen & Cohen [1983], p. 145) for testing the significance of
the change in the Ra is the following:
(R$ -RZ,)/ K F
F=
( I - R ~ ) / ( T X - K ~ --K1)F
Where: R$ = R2 of the full model; R i = Ra of the reduced model; K F = number
of explanatory variables in the full model; K~ = number of explanatory variables in
the reduced model. Due to the nature of the formula, the same A R values ~ can have
differential levels of significance depending on the other parameters in the formula.
w
TABLE 5
UsefklnessAnalyses of CSES Compared to Core Serf-EvvaruotiOnrFactor and Five-FactorModel
Sample 1 Samde 2 Sample 3 Samde 4
Job Job Job Job Life Life Life
satisfaction performance satisfaction performance satisfaction satisfaction satisfaction
1. CSE factor (1) .46'* .18* .43** .18* .49** .45** .59*
2. CSES (1) .01* .05 * .07** .05* .06** .03** .01
1. CSES (1) .42** .23** .49** .24** .54** .48** .55 * * $
2. CSE factor (1) .05* .oo .oo .oo .01 .oo .05* E
1. Four core traits (4) .47'* .%** .44** .20 .54** .55** .61** 0
2. CSES (1) .01 .04* .06** .05* .04** .oo .01
1. CSES (1)
2. Four core traits (4)
.42**
.06**
.23**
.07
.49** .24** .54** .44** .55**
B
r
.01 .01 .04* .11** .07** z
1. FFM (3[1,3lJ[541) .49** .18* .46** .29** .56** .49** .60**
2. CSES (1) .02** .11** .08** .03 .04** .04** .02*
29
1. CSES (1) .44** a** .49** .24** .54** so** .54**
2. FFM (3[1,315[2,41) .07** .04 .05* .09 .a** .03* .08**
Notes: The number of variables entered into the regression on each step is provided in parentheses. CSE factor = Core self-evaluations factor.
CSES = Core Self-EvaluationsScale. For Samples 1 and 3 [1,3],five-factormodel (FFM) consists of Neuroticism, Extraversion,and Conscientiousness.
For Samples 2 and 4 [2,4],all five Big Five traits were used. Table entries are multiple correlations (Multiple R). Life satisfaction in Sample 3 is at
Time 2.
Numbers in second stage are change in multiple correlations (AR). IP < .05 **p < .01.Differences in significance between similar incremental
(R2)values are due to differences in degrees of freedom or the sue of the variance explained in the full model (see Cohen & &hen (19831,p. 145).
TIMOTHY A. JUDGE ET AL. 323
show that in four of the seven equations, some information was lost
using the CSES instead of the four core traits (because the core traits
added significant variance beyond the CSES). However, in an equal
number of regressions, information was also lost if the four traits and
not the CSES were used (because the CSES added significant variance
beyond the four core traits). Thus, this analysis indicates that the CSES
performs as well as the four traits, and this of course does not consider
the advantages provided by the single CSES variable versus four traits
optimally weighted into a regression.
Finally, we also tested the incremental validity of the CSES beyond
the contribution of the five-factor model. We should note that in several
of the samples, Agreeableness and Openness were not measured. How-
ever, this should not be a problem because, as shown in Table 4,these two
traits correlate weakly with the CSES. The Big Five traits were entered
as a block to the usefulness analysis, either in the first or the second stage
of the analysis in the same manner as described above. These results are
presented in Table 5 and show that the CSES significantly contributed to
six of the seven criteria beyond the contribution of the five-factor model.
By the same token, the five-factor model contributed beyond the CSES
in most cases as well. This suggests that each-the single CSES scale as
well as the entire five-factor framework-add something unique. These
values represent incremental validities and would be even more impres-
sive if they were corrected for the biasing effects of measurement er-
ror. Considering these analyses as a whole, our findings indicate that
the CSES contributed to the prediction of job and life satisfaction, and
job performance, after controlling for a factor comprised of measures of
the original core traits as well as the five-factormodel traits and, in some
cases, beyond the contribution of the original four traits.
Discussion
ple, the self- and peer reports for the CSES were correlated 7- = .43, a
level of convergence similar to that typically obtained in research with
established Big Five measures (Barbaranelli & Caprara, 2000; McCrae
& Costa, 1987; Mount, Barrick, & Strauss, 1994). Results also suggested
that the 12 CSES items loaded on a single dimensional construct.
Beyond reliability, several pieces of evidence support the validity of
the CSES. First, it displayed convergent validity as evidence by its cor-
relations with the four core traits. Second, it was significantly corre-
lated with two of the focal criteria in industrial-organizational psychol-
ogy-job satisfaction and job performance-in two independent sam-
ples. The CSES was significantlycorrelated with life satisfaction in three
other samples. Third, in general, the CSES performed as well as an opti-
mal weighting of the four core traits and displayed incremental validity in
predicting these criteria controlling for the core self-evaluations factor
as well as the traits from the five-factormodel. We should note that these
latter tests are quite rigorous as they pit a single 1Zitem measure against
four individual traits in one analysis (the four core self-evaluations mea-
sures) and the five-factor model traits in another analysis. We acknowl-
edge that the entire five-factor model was not assessed in a couple of
studies, though we seriously doubt this would influence the results as the
excluded traits (Agreeableness and Openness) are those that correlate
the least strongly with the CSES.
Why does the CSES generally predict the criteria better than, and
even controlling for, the four individual core traits? After all, if the
four core traits and the CSES measure the same construct-core self-
evaluations-then why would the CSES predict better than the individ-
ual core traits? One explanation is that the CSES measures more than
core self-evaluations. However, we have shown that the CSES does not
appear to reflect Conscientiousness or Extraversion any more than do
typical measures of the individual core traits. So, if the CSES does mea-
sure additional traits, those traits would have to lie outside of the five-
factor framework. A more likely explanation is that the CSES more di-
rectly predicts criteria because it more directly measures the core self-
evaluations construct. The CSES items were intended to tap the inter-
sections among the core traits and it stands to reason that the CSES,
therefore, measures this common core more directly, and with less er-
ror, than the individual core traits. In short, the CSES measures the
commonality among the core traits, rather than the specific-factorvari-
ance attributable to the core traits themselves.
Despite substantial support for the validity of the CSES, there were
several areas of concern, one of which involves its relatively strong cor-
relation with Conscientiousness. Across the four samples, on average,
the CSES correlated .44 with Conscientiousness. One might interpret
TIMOTHY A. JUDGE ET AL. 325
these results as evidence that the CSES reflects, at least in part, Con-
scientiousness. On the other hand, the correlation between the CSES
and Conscientiousness is weaker (.07, on average) than the relationship
of a composite of the four core traits with Conscientiousness. Thus, the
CSES does not appear to reflect Conscientiousnessany more than do the
four individual core self-evaluations traits. Furthermore, though little
discussed in the literature, Emotional Stability tends to correlate moder-
ately stronglywith Conscientiousness(Judge & Bono, 2001a). For exam-
ple, Neuroticism and Conscientiousness are correlated T = -.53 in the
NEO normative database (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Thus, though the
CSES does covary with Conscientiousness, this relationship is consider-
ably weaker than the correlations of the CSES with the individual core
traits, and is no higher than the Conscientiousness-Neuroticism corre-
lation more generally.
Another interesting aspect of the results is the moderate correlation
between locus of control and the CSES. This has been an issue in the
literature on core self-evaluations. For example, Judge et al. (2001b)
reported a .62 factor loading of locus of control on the latent core self-
evaluations, a value substantially lower than the average loading of the
other three core traits (.90). Some of the explanation for the weaker
association of locus of control is due to the lower reliability of locus
of control. As Lefcourt (1981) has noted, measures of locus of control
are notoriously unreliable. Indeed, when one corrects locus of control
for unreliability in the present study, the average correlation with the
CSES increases from .35 to S O . Nevertheless, locus of control, even
when corrected for attenuation, is the core trait that correlates the weak-
est with the core self-evaluations in general and the CSES in particu-
lar. One might even argue that locus of control assesses Conscientious-
ness as much as it does core self-evaluations. On the one hand, across
the studies, locus of control correlated slightly more highly with Con-
scientiousness (average T =.30) than it did with the other three core
traits (average T = .27). On the other hand, the correlation of locus
of control with the CSES was somewhat higher (average T = .35) than
the average correlation with Conscientiousness. Yet another compli-
cating factor is that the locus-CSES correlation was no higher than the
CSES-Conscientiousness or CSES-Extraversion correlations. Though
these issues seemingly have more to do with the nature of core self-
evaluations vis-8-vis its relation with locus of control than with the va-
lidity of the CSES per se, whether locus of control belongs in core self-
evaluations theory is an issue worthy of further research. Perhaps little is
lost in dropping locus of control from the core self-evaluationstaxonomy
(and, by extension, perhaps locus evinces more incremental validity).
Finally, it is conceivable that work-based measures of locus of control
326 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
Limitations
REFERENCES
Abouserie R. (1994). Sources and levels of stress in relation to locus of control and self-
esteem in university students. Educational Psychology, 14,323-330.
Barbaranelli C , Caprara GV.(2000). Measuring the Big Five in self-report and other rat-
ings: A multitrait-multimethod study. European Journal of Psychological Assess-
ment, 1 6 , 3 1 4 3 .
Barrick MR, Mount MK. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job perfor-
mance: A meta-analysis. PERSONNELPSYCHOLOGY, 44,l-25.
Baumeister RE (1997). Identity, self-concept, and self-esteem: The self lost and found. In
Hogan R, Johnson JA, Brigs S (Eds.), Handbook ofpersonalitypsychofogy(pp. 681-
710). San Diego, C A Academic Press.
TIMOTHY A. JUDGE ET AL. 329
Benet-Martinez V, John OP. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups:
Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75,729-750.
Bhagat RS, Chassie MB. (1978). The role of self-esteem and locus of control in the
differential prediction of performance, program satisfaction, and life satisfaction
in an educational organization. Journal of Vocational Behavior; 13,317-326.
Blascovich J, Tomaka J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In Robinson JP, Shaver PR,
Wrightsman LS (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes
(Vol. 1, pp. 115-160). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bollen K, Lennox R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equa-
tion perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110,305-314.
Bollen KA. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York Wiley.
Brayfield AH, Rothe HE (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal ofApplied Psychol-
ogy, 35,307-311.
Brooke PP, Russell DW, Price JL. (1988). Discriminant validation of measures of job
satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 73,139-145.
Campbell DT (1960). Recommendationsfor APA test standards regarding construct, trait,
or discriminant validity. American Psychologist, 15,546-553.
Campbell JD, Trapnell PD, Heine SJ, Katz IM, Lavallee LF, Lehman DR. (1996). Self-
concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,141-156.
Chen G, Gully SM, Eden D. (2001). Validation of a new generalized self-efficacy scale.
Organizational Research Methods, 4,62-83.
&hen J, Cohen P.(1983). Applied multiple regressionlcorrelation analysisfor the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Conley JJ. (1984). The hierarchy of consistency: A review and model of longitudinal
findings on adult individual differences in intelligence, personality and self-opinion.
Personality and Individual Differences, 5,11-25.
Costa PT Jr, McCrae R. (1992). NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFIprofessional manual. Odessa,
F L Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological
Bulletin, 52,281-302.
Darlington RB. (1990). Regression and linear modek. New York McGraw-Hill.
Diener E, Emmons R4,Larsen RJ, Griffin S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 49,71-75.
Diener E, Suh EM, Lucas RE, Smith HL. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades
of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125,276-302.
Erez A, Judge TA. (2001). Relationshipof core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation,
and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,1270-1279.
Eysenck HJ. (1990). Biological dimensions of personality. In Pervin LA (Ed.), Handbook
ofpersonality: Theory and research (pp. 244-276). New York Guilford Press.
Eysenck HJ, Eysenck SBG. (1968). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. San Diego,
C A Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
Goldberg LR. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measur-
ing the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In Mervielde I, Deary IJ,
De F N F~,Ostendorf F (Eds.), Personaliypsychology in Europe (Vol. 7 ,pp. 7-28).
Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Gray-Little B, Williams VSL, Hancock TD. (1997). An item response theory analysis of
the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personaliv and Social PychorogY Bulletin, 23,
443451.
330 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
Harter S. (1990). Causes, correlates, and the functional role of global self-worth: A life
span perspective. In Sternberg RJ, Kolligan J Jr (Eds.), Competence considered
(pp. 67-97). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Hesketh B. (1984). Attribution theory and unemployment: Kelley’s covariation model,
self-esteem, and locus of control. Journal of Vocational Behavioc 24,94109.
Hogan RT Roberts BN! (2001). Introduction: Personality and industrial and organiza-
tional psychology. In Roberts BW, Hogan R (Eds.), Personalitypsychology in the
workplace (pp. 3-16). Washington, D C American Psychological Association.
Hojat M. (1983). Comparison of transitory and chronic loners on selected personality
variables. British Journal of Psycholoa, 74, 199-202.
Homer KL. (1996). Locus of control, Neuroticism, and stressors: Combined influences
on reported physical illness. Personality and Individual Differences, 21,195-204.
Jackson PR, Wall TD, Martin R, Davids K. (1993). New measures of job control, cognitive
demand, and production responsibility. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 78,753-762.
Joreskog K, Sorbom D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific
Software International.
Judge TA, Bono JE. (2001a). A rose by any other name.. .Are self-esteem,generalized self-
efficacy, Neuroticism, and locus of control indicators of a common construct? In
Roberts BW, Hogan R (Eds.), Personalitypsychology in the workplace (pp. 93-118).
Washington, D C American Psychological Association.
Judge TA, Bono JE. (2001b). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits-self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy,locus of control, and Emotional Stability-with job satis-
faction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
80-92.
Judge TA, Bono JE, Locke EA. (2000). Personality and job satisfaction: The mediating
role of job characteristics. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 85,237-249.
Judge TA,Erez A, Bono JE. (1998). The power of being positive: The relationship between
positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11,167-187.
Judge TA, Locke EA, Durham CC. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A
core evaluations approach. Research in Oqanirational Behavioc 19, 151-188.
Judge TA, Locke EA, Durham CC, Kluger AN. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and
life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Pvchology, 83,
17-34.
Judge TA, Thoresen CJ, Pucik V, Welbourne TM. (1999). Managerial coping with orga-
nizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,
107-122.
Kishor N. (1981). The effect of self-esteem and locus of control in career decision making
of adolescents in Fiji. Journal of VocationalBehaviot 19,227-232.
Law KS, Wong CS, Mobley WH. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional con-
structs. Academy of Management Review, 23,741-755.
Lefcourt HM. (1991). Locus of control. In Robinson JF’, Shaver PR, Wrightsman LS (Eds.),
Measures ofpersonakty andsociaIpsychologica1 attitudes (Vol. 1, pp. 413-499). San
Diego, C A Academic Press.
LePine JA, Van Dyne L. (1998). Predicting voice behavior in work groups. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83,853-868.
Levenson H. (1981). Differentiating among internality, powerful others, and chance. In
Lefcourt HM (Ed.), Research with the locus of confro1 construct (pp. 15-63). New
York Academic Press.
Locke EA,McClear K,Knight D. (1996). Self-esteem and work. International Review of
IndustriallOrganizational Pychology, I I , 1-32.
McCrae RR, Costa F T Jr. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model across instruments
and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,81-90.
TIMOTHY A. JUDGE ET AL. 331
McHenry JJ, Hough LM, Toquam JL, Hanson MA. (1990). Project A validity results: The
relationship between predictor and criterion domains. PERSONNELPSYCHOLOGY, 43,
335-354.
Motowidlo SJ, Van Scotter JR. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be distin-
quished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,475480.
Mount MK, Barrick MR, Strauss JP. (1994). Validity of observer ratings of the Big Five
personality factors. Journal of Applied Psycholop, 79,272-280.
Pedhazur EJ, Schmelkin LP. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated
approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pierce JL, Gardner DG, Cummings LL, Dunham RB. (1989). Organization-based self-
esteem: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 32,622-648.
Rosenberg M. (1965). Sociey and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Rotter JB. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of rein-
forcement. Psychological Monographs, 80 (1, Whole No. 609).
Roy MA, Neale MC, Kendler KS. (1995). The genetic epidemiology of self-esteem. British
Journal of Psychiae, 166,813-820.
Schwab DP. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior. Research in Organiza-
tional Behavior; 2 , 3 4 3 .
Spector PE. (1988). Development of the Work Locus of Control Scale. Journal of Occu-
pational Psycholop, 61,335-340.
Tiggemann M, Winefield AH. (1984). The effects of unemployment on the mood, self-
esteem, locus of control, and depressive affect of school-leavers. Journal of Occu-
pational Psychology. 57,3342.
Vermunt R, van Knippenberg D, van Knippenberg B, Blaauw E. (2001). Self-esteem and
outcome fairness: Differential importance of procedural and outcome considera-
tions. Journal ofApplied Psycholop, 86,621-628.
Viswesvaran C, Ones DS, Schmidt FL. (1996). Comparative analysis of the reliability of
job performance ratings. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 81,557-574.
Watson D. (2000). Mood and temperament. New York: Guilford.