Journal
of
Applied Psychology
2001,
Vol.
86, No. 1,
80-92
Copyright
2001
by the
American
Psychological
Association,
Inc.
0021-9010/01/S5.00
DOI:
10.1037//0021-9010.86.1.80
Relationship
of
Core Self-Evaluations
T r a i t s — S e l f - E s t e e m ,
Generalized
Self-Efficacy,
Locus
of
Control,
and
Emotional
Stability—With
Job
Satisfaction
and Job
Performance:
A
Meta-Analysis
Timothy
A.
Judge
and
Joyce
E.
Bono
University
of
Iowa
This article presents
meta-analytic
results
of the
relationship
of 4
traits—self-esteem,
generalized
self-efficacy,
locus
of
control,
and
emotional stability (low
neuroticism)—with
job
satisfaction
and job
performance.
With respect
to job
satisfaction,
the
estimated true score correlations were
.26 for
self-esteem,
.45 for
generalized self-efficacy,
.32 for
internal
locus
of
control,
and .24 for
emotional
stability. With respect
to job
performance,
the
correlations were
.26 for
self-esteem,
.23 for
generalized
self-efficacy,
.22 for
internal locus
of
control,
and
.19
for
emotional stability.
In
total,
the
results based
on
274
correlations suggest that these traits
are
among
the
best
dispositional
predictors
of j ob
satisfaction
and
job
performance.
T. A.
Judge,
E. A.
Locke,
and C. C.
Durham's (1997) theory
of
core self-
evaluations
is
used
as a
framework
for
discussing similarities between
the 4
traits
and
their relationshi ps
to
satisfaction
and
performance.
Recently, Judge, Locke,
and
Durham (1997) proposed
a
higher
order construct they termed core
self-evaluations
or,
more simply,
positive
self-concept.
According
to
Judge
et
al.
(1997), this
c o n -
struct
is a
broad dispositional trait that
is
indicated
by
four
more
specific
traits—self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy, locus
of
control,
and
emotional stability
(low
n e u r o t i c i s m ) .
The
core self-
evaluations
construct
was
originally proposed
as a
potential
ex-
planatory
variable
in the
dispositional
source
of job
satisfaction.
Subsequently, Judge
and
colleagues
also
have argued that
the
construct
should
be
related
to
work motivation
and,
ultimately,
to
job
performance (Judge, Erez,
&
Bono,
1998).
Investigations
of a
link between core self-evaluations
and job
performance, however,
are
lacking.
Despite
a
lack
of
studies linking
the
core self-evaluations factor
to
job
satisfaction
and,
especially,
to job
performance, three
of the
core traits (self-esteem, locus
of
control,
and
emotional stability)
appear
to be the
most widely studied personality traits
in
person-
ality
and
applied
psychology.
1
Yet,
wit h
the
exception
of
emo-
tional stability
and job
performance,
we
have
found
no
meta-
analyses
of the
relationship
between
any of
these
traits with
either
job
satisfaction
or job
performance.
2
Thus,
the
purpose
of the
present
study
is to
provide
a
quantitative review
of the
literature
that examines
the
relationship
of the
four
core
self-evaluation traits
with
job
satisfaction
and job
performance. This study determines
whether general relationships exist and,
if so,
what
the
magnitudes
of
these relationships
are.
In the
next section,
we
provide
a
brief
review
of the
four
traits
and
discuss
the
possible relationship
of
these traits with both
job
satisfaction
and job
performance.
Timothy
A.
Judge
and
Joyce
E.
Bono, Department
of
Management
and
Organizations, Henry
B.
Tippie College
of
Business, University
of
Iowa.
Correspondence concerning this article should
be
addressed
to
Timothy
A.
Judge, Department
of
Management
and
Organizations, Henry
B.
Tippie
College
of
Business, University
of
Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
52242.
Elec-
tronic mail
may be
sent
to
t i m - j u d g e @ u i o w a . e d u .
Core Self-Evaluation Traits
Judge
et al.
(1997) defined
core
self-evaluations
as
basic
c o n -
clusions
or
bottom-line evaluations that individuals hold about
themselves. They argued that
core
self-evaluations were assessed
by
traits that
met
three criteria:
(a)
evaluation-focus
(the
d e g r e e
to
which
a
trait involves evaluation,
as
opposed
to
description);
(b)
fundamentality
(in
Cattellian
[1965]
personality theory, f u n d a m e n -
tal
or
source traits
underlie
surface
traits);
and (c)
breadth
or
scope
(according
to
Allport
[1961],
cardinal traits
are
broader
in
scope
than
secondary traits). Judge
et
al.'s
(1997) review identified
four
traits that
met the
criteria. First, they considered self-esteem
to be
the
most fundamental manifestation
of
core self-evaluations
as it
represents
the
overall value that
one
places
on
oneself
as a
person.
Second, generalized
self-efficacy—one's
estimate
of
one's
funda-
mental
ability
to
cope, perform,
and be
successful—was
viewed
as
an
indicator
of
positive core evaluations. Third, internal locus
of
control
was
considered
a
manifestation
of
core evaluations because
internals believe they
can
control
a
broad array
of
factors
in
their
lives.
Fourth
and
finally,
emotional
stability
(low
neuroticism),
reflecting
the
tendency
to be
confident, secure,
and
steady,
was
argued
to be
indicative
of
core
self-evaluations because
it is a
broad trait
(one
of the
dimensions
of the
five-factor
model
of
1
In a
search
of the
PsycINFO
database,
1967-1999,
we
found
that
10,371 articles cited neuroticism
(or
emotional stability
or
emotional
adjustment),
10,084
articles cited self-esteem,
and
9,339
articles
cited locus
of
control.
By
comparison, 4,957 articles cited achievement motiva-
tion,
2,492
articles
cited
extraversion/introversion,
and
only
572
articles
contained
a
citation
to the five-factor
model
(or Big
Five).
A
search
for
other
individual
traits
revealed
no
others
with more than
2,500
citations.
2
Hough
(1992)
reported
an
average correlation
of .19
between locus
of
control
and job
performance,
a
report based
on
11
studies. However,
it did
not
appear that this
was
truly
a
meta-analytic estimate
(i.e.,
the
correlation
was not
corrected
for
measurement error, variability estimates were
not
reported).
80
CORE
SELF-EVALUATIONS
TRAITS
81
personality) that manifests one's view
of
one's emotional
stability.
3
Although
research
by
Judge
and
associates
has
provided evi-
dence that these
four
traits
are
sufficiently
related
to be
grouped
together
as a
higher order construct,
it is
beyond
the
scope
of
this
article
to
test
the
validity
of the
core
self-evaluations
construct.
Specifically,
we
used
Judge
et
al.'s
(1997)
theory
as
j u s t i f i c a t i o n
to
study
the
validity
of
self-esteem,
generalized
self-efficacy,
locus
of
control,
and
emotional stability,
but we do not
test Judge
et
al.'s
(1997) hypothesis that these traits indicate
a
higher order construct.
Rather,
in
this
meta-analytic
review
we
consider
the
specific
relationships
of
each
of the
four
traits
to job
satisfaction
and job
performance.
In the
sections that follow,
we
hypothesize relation-
ships
between
the
individual traits
and job
satisfaction
and job
performance.
Relation
of
Self-Esteem, Locus
of
Control, Neuroticism,
and
Generalized
Self-Efficacy
to Job
Satisfaction
Judge
et
al.
(1997) hypothesized that core self-evaluations
would
be
related
to j o b
satisfaction through both direct
and
indirect
means. Testing these predictions,
Judge,
Locke, Durham,
and
Kluger
(1998)
found
that
the
four
traits, treated
as a
single latent
construct, were significantly related
to job
satisfaction
in
three
independent samples.
This
study tends
to
support
the
hypothesis
that self-esteem, generalized
self-efficacy,
locus
of
control,
and
neuroticisim
are
each independently significantly correlated with
job
satisfaction. Somewhat curiously, given
the
volume
of
research
on
dispositions
and job
satisfaction,
we are
aware
of no
meta-
analysis
of the
relationship between
any of the
four
traits
and job
satisfaction. Although
the
relationships
of
these traits
to job
satis-
faction
has
been discussed
in
reviews
of the
literature with respect
to
self-esteem
(Tharenou,
1979),
locus
of
control
(Spector,
1982),
and
emotional stability
(Furnham
&
Zacherl,
1986),
the
exact
magnitude
of
these relationships,
and the
variability
in
these rela-
tionships
across studies,
has not
been established. Clearly,
a
quan-
titative review
is
needed.
Beyond
the
qualitative reviews
of the
empirical evidence, there
are
theoretical reasons
to
expect
a
positive relationship between
these traits
and job
satisfaction. Locke,
McClear,
and
Knight
(1996) noted,
"A
person with
a
high self-esteem will view
a
challenging
job as a
deserved
opportunity which
he can
master
and
benefit
from, whereas
a
person with
low
self-esteem
is
more likely
to
view
it as an
undeserved opportunity
or a
chance
to
fail"
(p.
21).
In
fact,
research suggests that individuals with high self-esteem
maintain
optimism
in the
face
of
failure, which makes
future
success (and thus
future
satisfaction) more likely (Dodgson
&
Wood, 1998). Another theoretical mechanism linking these traits
to
job
satisfaction
is
suggested
by
Korman's
(1970)
self-
consistency theory.
Korman's
theory predicts that individuals with
high self-esteem
choose
occupations consistent with their interests,
which
would lead
to
greater levels
of j o b
satisfaction.
As
Tharenou
(1979)
noted,
Korman's
hypothesis
has
been generally supported
with
respect
to
occupational choice. More generally, Korman's
theory predicts that high self-esteem individuals will engage
in a
broad array
of
behaviors
and
cognitions that reinforce their self-
concept. Similarly, Spector
(1982)
suggested that individuals with
an
internal locus
of
control should
be
more
job
satisfied because
they
are
less likely
to
stay
in a
dissatisfying
job and are
more likely
to
be
successful
in
organizations. With respect
to
neuroticism,
McCrae
and
Costa (1991) noted that neuroticism
is
related
to
lower well-being because individuals
who
score
high
on
neuroti-
cism
are
predisposed
to
experience negative
affects.
Negative
affect,
in
turn,
is
negatively related
to job
satisfaction (Brief, 1998;
Spector, 1997). Finally, Judge
et al.
(1997)
argued that generalized
self-efficacy
should
affect
job
satisfaction through
its
association
with
practical success
on the
job. Because individuals with high
self-efficacy
deal more effectively with difficulties
and
persist
in
the
face
of
failure (Gist
&
Mitchell, 1992), they
are
more likely
to
attain valued outcomes
and
thus derive satisfaction
from
their jobs.
As
a
result
of the
foregoing review,
H-la:
Self-esteem
is
positively
related
to job
satisfaction.
H-lb:
Generalized
self-efficacy
is
positively
related
to job
satis-
faction.
H-lc:
Internal
locus
of
control
is
positively
related
to job
satisfaction.
H-ld:
Emotional stability
is
positively
related
to job
satisfaction.
Relation
of
Self-Esteem,
Locus
of
Control, Neuroticism,
and
Generalized Self-Efficacy
to Job
Performance
Even more obscure than
the
relationship between
the
four
traits
and
job
satisfaction
are
these
traits'
relationship
to job
perfor-
mance.
In
fact,
this relationship
was not
even considered
by
Judge
et al.
(1997). Empirical data regarding
the
relationship between
several
of the
traits with
j o b
performance
are
inconsistent. With
the
exception
of the
literature
on
emotional stability, where three
meta-analyses
have been published
(Barrick
&
Mount, 1991;
Sal-
gado,
1997; Tett, Jackson,
&
Rothstein, 1991), reviews
of the
effect
of the
traits
on job
performance have been qualitative.
In
such
reviews,
results
typically were reported
in two
gross catego-
ries
(nonsignificant
and
positive significant). With respect
to
self-
esteem,
Tharenou's
(1979) qualitative review suggested inconsis-
tent
results
in
studies relating self-esteem
to job
performance, with
more
findings
suggesting
a
nonsignificant relationship than
a
pos-
itive,
significant relationship.
Brockner's
(1979) review suggested
more optimism regarding
the
correlation between self-esteem
and
job
performance, though
the
relationship appeared
to
hold only
in
certain
situations.
In
terms
of
locus
of
control,
Specter's
(1982)
narrative review seemed
to
support
the
conclusion
that
internals
perform
better than externals. Because
of the
small number
of
primary
studies measuring generalized
self-efficacy,
there have
been
no
published reviews
of the
relationship between generalized
self-efficacy
and job
performance. Although task-specific
and
generalized
self-efficacy
are
distinct constructs (Stajkovic
&
Luthans,
1998), evidence does suggest that state
or
task-specific
self-efficacy
is
related
to job
performance (Hysong
&
Quinones,
1997; Stajkovic
&
Luthans, 1998) which,
in
turn, suggests that
generalized
self-efficacy
may
also correlate with
job
performance.
Finally,
though
the
subject
of
three meta-analytic reviews,
the
literature
on the
relationship between emotional stability
and job
performance
is no
less inconsistent. Barrick
and
Mount (1991)
found
that
the
relationship between emotional stability
and job
3
Because
emotional
stability
and
neuroticism
are
simply
labels
for the
positive
and
negative
poles
of the
same
construct
(Mount
&
Barrick,
1995),
we
use
these
labels
interchangeably.
82
JUDGE
AND
BONO
performance
was
indistinguishable
f r o m
zero,
whereas
Tett
et
al.
(1991),
confining
their
analysis
to
confirmatory
studies (studies
where
authors
hypothesized
a
relationship
between
the
trait
and
job
performance),
found
that
emotional
stability
displayed
a
non -
zero
correlation
with
job
performance
( p
=
.22).
Explanations
for
the
differences
in
these
studies
can be
found
in two
more
recent
articles
by the
authors
(Ones,
Mount,
Barrick,
&
Hunter,
1994;
Tett,
Jackson,
Rothstein,
&
Reddon,
1994).
In a
meta-analysis
of
all
available studies
of
personality
and job
performance
in the
European
Economic
Community
(EEC),
Salgado
(1997)
found
a
positive,
nonzero relati onship
( p =
.19)
between e m o ti o n a l stabil-
ity
and job
performance.
Though
the
conclusions
of
qualitative
reviews
regarding
the
relationship
of the
four
traits
to
performance
are
inconsistent,
there
is
considerable theoretical
support
for
such
relationships.
S e v e r a l
theories
of
work
motivation
support
a
link between
the
core t r a i t s
and
job
performance. First, self-consistency
theory
(Korman,
1970)
hypothesizes
tha t
individuals
are
motivated
to
behave
in a
manner
consistent
with
their
self-image.
Thus,
the
theory predicts,
individuals
with
high
self-esteem
w i l l
perform
effectively
in
order
to
maintain
their positive
self-image.
Second, theories
of
learned
helplessness
support
a
link
between positive
self-evaluations
and
job
performance.
A c c o r d i n g
to the
model
of
learned helplessness,
when
faced
with
unfavorable
circumstances,
i n d i v i d u a l s
with
a
positive,
optimistic explanatory s t yl e
will
be
less likely
to
display
motivational
deficits
(i.e., lower
their
effort,
withdraw
from
task-
oriented
behaviors), whereas
those
with
a
pessimistic
explanatory
style
will
display symptoms
of
helplessness ( P e t e r s o n
&
Seligman,
1984).
Finally,
control
theory
(Lord
&
Manges,
1987) predicts
that
when
individuals
perform
below
their
expectations,
they
exert
additional
effort
to
obtain
the
performance
goal,
reduce
their
standard
level
(lower
their
aspirations),
or
withdraw
from
the
task
entirely.
Research
has
shown
that
when
individuals
with
an
inter-
nal
locus
of
control
are
faced
with
discrepancies
between
accept-
able
standards
of
performance
and
actual
performance,
they
tend
to
increase
their
efforts
to
match
their actual
performance
to the
standards
(Weiss
&
Sherman, 1973).
Conversely,
people
who
have
low
self-esteem
tend
to
either lower
their
standards
or
c o m p l e t e l y
withdraw
from
the
task
when
given
negative
feedback
(Brockner,
1988).
In
light
of
some (albeit inconsistent)
e v i d e n c e
suggesting
a
relationship
of the
four
traits
to job
performance
and
much
con-
ceptual
support
for
such
relationships,
w e
hypothesize,
H-2a: Self-esteem
is
positively related
to job
performance.
H-2b: Generalized self-efficacy
is
positively related
to job
per-
formance.
H-2c: Internal locus
of
control
is
positively related
to job
per-
formance.
H-2d: Emotional stability
is
positively related
to job
performance.
Method
Literature Search
In
an
attempt
to
locate
the
population
of
studies containing relationships
between self-esteem, locus
of
control,
neuroticism,
and
generalized
self-
efficacy
and job
satisfaction
and
between
the
four
traits
and job
perfor-
mance,
searches
for
studies that examined
the
relationship between each
of
the
traits
and
each
of the
criteria (job satisfaction
and job
performance)
were conducted. First,
a
search
was
made
of the
Psychlnfo
database
for the
years 1967
to
1997.
Studies that reported
a
relationship between
any of the
four
traits
and
either
job
satisfaction
or job
performance were included.
In
addition
to the
electronic search, manual searches were conducted
for the
past
40
years
(1957-1997)
of the two
journals containing
the
most corre-
lations
as
revealed
by the
electronic search
(Journal
of
Applied
Psychology
and
Personnel
Psychology).
Finally, using
the
results
of our
electronic
and
manual
searches,
we
identified authors
of
studies that reported
on the
relationships
of
interest during
the
past
10
years
(1987-1997).
Letters
requesting
data
from
in
press
or
unpublished manuscripts were sent
to
each
of
these authors. These combined
efforts
resulted
in the
identification
of
536
published studies
and 224
unpublished doctoral dissertations.
In
accordance with
our a
priori definition
of the
population
and
rela-
tionships
of
interest, several rules
for
study
inclusion were established.
First,
the
analysis
was
limited
to
those studies
in
which participants were
employed adults. Thus, those studies that used student, unemployed,
or
student
athlete subjects were excluded,
as
were studies
with
special pop-
ulations (e.g., psychiatric patients
or
vocational rehabilitation clients).
Second,
only
studies
that measured generalized
self-efficacy
(as
opposed
to
task-specific
or
state self-efficacy) were included.
Following
this
same
reasoning,
we
excluded studies
in
which locus
of
control
was
narrowly
defined
(e.g.,
the
degree
to
which
a
teacher
felt
he or she
could make
decisions
in the
classroom). However, studies
in
which core self-evaluation
measures were specific
to the
workplace
but not
narrow
in
scope (e.g.,
organizational-based self-esteem) were included.
We
also only included
those
studies that directly measured emotional stability (also known
as
emotional
adjustment
or
neuroticism), wh i ch excluded closely related traits
such
as
negative
affectivity.
Third,
we
included only those studies
in
which
the
criterion
was
either
job
performance
or
overall
job
satisfaction. Thus, studies that reported
on
the
relationship between
the
traits
and
performance
on a
task
in the
laboratory,
or in a
simulated organization, were
not
included.
We
also
excluded studies that included only
a
single facet
of
satisfaction
(e.g.,
satisfaction
with pay). However,
if a
study reported correlations between
one of the
traits
and two or
more facets
of job
satisfaction,
we
calculated
a
composite
correlation. Finally,
we
excluded those studies that
did not
report either
a
correlation between
one of the
traits
and
either
job
satis-
faction
or job
performance
or the
data necessary
to
calculate
such
a
correlation. Application
of
these inclusion rules
to
these studies resulted
in
135
studies
(169
correlations) that reported
a
relationship between
one of
the
traits
and job
satisfaction
and 81
studies (105 correlations) that reported
a
relationship between
one of the
traits
and job
performance.
Meta-Analysis
Procedures
In
conducting
the
meta-analysis,
we
followed
the
procedures
of
Hunter
and
Schmidt (1990). First,
we
calculated
a
sample-sized weighted mean
correlation
for
each
of the
four
traits with
the
relevant criterion (job
satisfaction
or job
performance). Second, correlations were individually
corrected
for
measurement error
in
both
the
predictor
and the
criterion.
Finally,
a
disattenuated
correlation
was
estimated
for
each
of the
traits with
both criteria.
In
the
case
of the
personality traits,
we
corrected
for
measurement error
using
reliabilities reported
in
each study.
For
those studies that
did not
report reliabilities,
we
used
an
average
of the
reliabilities
reported
in
other
studies
for
that particular measure (e.g., Rotter, 1966,
for
locus
of
control
and
Rosenberg, 1965,
for
self-esteem).
We
used similar procedures
for
measures
of job
satisfaction.
In the
case
of job
performance, however,
the
appropriate correction
for
measurement error
in
supervisory ratings
of
performance
is
that based
on
interrater
reliability
(Viswesvaran,
Ones,
&
Schmidt,
1996).
Therefore,
we
used
meta-analytic
estimates
(Viswesvaran
et
al.,
1996)
to
correct
for
unreliability
in the
measurement
of
supervisory
ratings
of job
performance.
In the
case
of
self-reports
and
objective
measures
of job
performance,
the
literature
is
less
clear about
the
appro-
CORE SELF-EVALUATIONS
TRAITS
83
priate
method
of
correcting
for
measurement
error.
Therefore,
for
this
study,
we
assumed perfect
reliability
in
self-reports. However, consistent
with
the findings of
Hunter, Schmidt,
and
Judiesch
(1990),
we
estimated
the
reliability
of
objective measures
of job
performance
on the
basis
of the
time
period
over
which
the
objective
measures
were
aggregated.
(This
procedure resulted
in
near perfect reliabilities
for
most objective measures
of
performance.)
In
addition
to
reporting estimates
of the
mean corrected correlations,
it
is
also important
in
meta-analysis
to
describe
the
variability
in the
corre-
lations.
Accordingly,
we
report
95%
confidence intervals
and 80%
credi-
bility intervals around
the
corrected
correlations
(p). Confidence intervals
provide
an
estimate
of the
variability
of the
estimated mean correlation;
a
95%
confidence
interval
excluding
zero
indicates
that
we can be 95%
confident
that
the
average
disattenuated
correlation
is
nonzero. Credibility
intervals provide
an
estimate
of the
variability
of
individual correlations
across studies;
an 80%
credibility interval excluding zero indicates that
10%
of the
individual correlations
are
equal
to or
less than zero
(10%
of
correlations would also
lie in the
high
end of the
distribution). Thus,
confidence
intervals estimate variability
in the
mean correlation, whereas
credibility intervals
estimate
variability
ia the
individual
.correlations
across
the
studies. Because these variability estimates tell
us
different
things
about
the
nature
of the
correlations, both
are
reported.
Results
Meta-Analytic
Findings
With
Respect
to Job
Satisfaction
Table
1
presents
the
results
of the
meta-analyses
examining
the
relationship
between each
of the
traits
and job
satisfaction.
As
hypothesized
(H-la-H-ld),
all
four
traits
had a
positive, nonzero
relationship
with
job
satisfaction.
Uncorrected
mean correlations
for
the
four
traits ranged
from
average
r = .20 for
emotional
stability
to
average
r = .38 for
generalized
self-efficacy.
Corrected
correlations were,
from
lowest
to
highest,
as
follows: emotional
stability,
p =
.24; self-esteem,
p —
.24; internal locus
of
control,
p
=
.32; generalized
self-efficacy,
p =
.45. Ninety-five percent
confidence intervals around
the
corrected correlations were rela-
tively
narrow
and
excluded zero
in all
cases. Further,
80%
credi-
bility
intervals excluded zero
for
each
of the
four
traits. H oweve r,
only
a
small percentage
of the
variance (ranging
from
9% for
generalized
self-efficacy
to 31% for
emotional stability)
in
study
correlations
was
accounted
for by
study
artifacts. Overall, these
results support
H-la-H-lb—there
is a
positive relationship
be-
tween
each
of the
four
traits
and j o b
satisfaction. Figure
1
provides
a
graphic illustration
of the
mean disattenuated correlation,
as
well
as
the
widths
of 95%
confidence intervals
and 80%
credibility
intervals.
Meta-Analytic
Findings
With
Respect
to Job
Performance
Results
of the job
performance meta-analyses (testing
H-2a-H-
2d)
are
presented
in
Table
2. As
with
job
satisfaction,
we
con-
ducted
a
separate
analysis
for
each
of the
four
traits.
Although
the
job
performance results were somewhat weaker than those
for job
satisfaction,
our
findings
support H-2a-H-2d.
For
each
of the
traits,
we
found
positive, nonzero average relationships with
job
performance.
In a
slightly
different
pattern t h a n
was
found
with
job
satisfaction,
uncorrected
mean correlations between
the
traits
and
job
performance range
from
average
r = . 1 4 for
internal locus
of
control
to
average
r = .19 for
generalized
self-efficacy.
Corrected
correlations,
from
lowest
to
highest, were
as
follows: emotional
stability,
p =
.19; internal locus
of
control,
p =
.22; generalized
self-efficacy,
p =
.23; self-esteem,
p =
.26.
Ninety-five
percent
confidence
intervals were relatively narrow
and
excluded zero
for
all
traits. However,
in the
case
of
self-esteem,
the 80%
credibility
interval
was
wide
and
included zero
(—.05
to
.57), indicating that
there
was
substantial variability
in the
individual correlations
across studies.
For
locus
of
control, generalized
self-efficacy,
and
emotional
stability,
the 80%
credibility intervals excluded zero.
Except
in the
case
of
self-esteem,
a
large portion
of the
variability
in
study
correlations between
the
specific traits
and job
perfor-
mance
was
explained
by
sampling error
and
unreliability
in
mea-
surement.
In
general, these
findings
lend support
to our
hypotheses
regarding
the
relationship between each
of the
traits
and job
performance
(H-2a-H-2d).
Figure
2
provides
a
graphic
display
and
comparison
of the
average disattenuated correlation,
and the 95%
confidence
interval
and 80%
credibility interval limits
for
each
of
the
four
traits.
Discussion
Given
their prevalence
in the
personality
and
industrial/organi-
zational psychology literatures,
it is
surprising that there
are no
prior
meta-analytic
reviews
of the
relationship
of
self-esteem
or
locus
of
control with
the two
central criteria
in
applied psychol-
ogy—job
satisfaction
and job
performance. Furthermore,
the
other
two
traits included
in
Judge, Locke,
and
colleagues' model
of
core
self-evaluations—generalized
self-efficacy
and
emotional stabil-
ity—have
either
not
been
subject
to
prior meta-analytic reviews
or
the
evidence
is
inconsistent. Results indicated that
all
four
of
these
traits
displayed positive, nonzero mean correlations
of
similar
magnitude
with
both
job
satisfaction
and j o b
performance. This,
of
course,
is a
primary
benefit
of
meta-analysis—to
help make sense
Table
1
Meta-Anafysis
of the
Relationship
Between
the
Core
Traits
and Job
Satisfaction
Core
trait
Self-esteem
Generalized
self-efficacy
Internal locus
of
control
Emotional
stability
k
56
12
80
21
N
20,819
12,903
18,491
7,658
Mean
r
.20
.38
.24
.20
SD
r
.10
.09
.12
.08
Mean
P
.26
.45
.32
.24
®>P
.11
.10
.16
.09
SE
Mp
.02
.03
.02
.03
95%
CI
.23,
.29
.39,
.51
.28,
.36
.19,
.29
80'
Jo
CV
.11,
.32,
.12,
.12,
.40
.58
.52
.36
Variance
explained
(%)
23
9
20
31
Note,
k =
number
of
correlations;
N =
total
sample size
for all
studies combined; Mean
r =
average uncorrected correlation;
SD
r
=
standard deviation
of
average uncorrected correlation; Mean
p =
average corrected correlation;
SD
p
=
standard deviation
of
corrected
correlation;
SE
Mf
=
standard error
of
corrected correlation;
95% CI =
lower
and
upper limits
of 95%
confidence interval;
80% CV =
lower
and
upper limits
of 80%
credibility interval.
84
JUDGE
AND
BONO
Mean
Correlations
a n d
95%
Confidence
Intervals
Mean
Correlations
and 80%
Credibility
Intervals
l.U
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1
« »
1
Self-
Generalized Locus
of
Emotional
l.U
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
A A
1
1
1 1
1
1
U.U
Self-
Generalized
Locus
of
Emotional
esteem
self-efficacy
control
stability
esteem
self-efficacy
control
.stability
Figure
1,
Mean
and
variability
estimates
of the
four
traits with
job
satisfaction. Solid boxes bisecting lines
denote mean corrected correlations. Solid circles depict endpoints
of 95%
confidence intervals
and 80%
credibility
intervals.
of
the
often
inconsistent conclusions
of
qualitative reviews.
In
this
analysis,
all
correlations between
the
four
traits
and j o b
satisfaction
were
positive. However,
in the
case
of the
traits
and job
perfor-
mance,
the
results
for
self-esteem were less clear.
The 95%
con-
fidence
interval
for the
relationship between self-esteem
and job
performance
was
narrow
and
excluded zero, indicating that
we can
be
confident that
the
mean correlation
is
nonzero. However,
the
80%
credibility interval
was
wide
and
included zero, indicating
that
more than slightly
10%
of the
individual studies reported
a
negative relationship between self-esteem
and job
performance.
Future
research
is
needed
to
determine
the
conditions that moder-
ate the
relationship between self-esteem
and job
performance
across studies. With this summary
in
mind,
in the
remainder
of the
discussion
we
turn
our
attention
to the
implications
of the
validity
of
the
four
traits
for job
satisfaction,
job
performance,
and
future
research.
Implications
for Job
Satisfaction
Since
the
publication
of two
influential studies
by
Staw
and
colleagues (Staw
&
Ross, 1985; Shaw, Bell,
&
Clausen, 1986),
the
dispositional
source
of job
satisfaction
has
become
an
important
research topic.
One of the
criticisms
of
this literature
is
that
it has
not
provided much clarity
in
terms
of
which traits would prove
most
fruitful
(Brief,
1998).
Results
of
this study,
by
showing
moderately strong correlations
of the
four
traits with
job
satisfac-
tion, suggest that these traits
may be the
principle dispositional
correlates
of
j o b
satisfaction. Furthermore,
in
addition
to a
nonzero
mean
true-score correlation between each
of the
four
traits
and job
satisfaction,
the 80%
credibility intervals
excluded
zero, indicating
that
all
four
traits display positive relations with
job
satisfaction.
Although
qualitative reviews have
reached
1
generally optimistic
conclusions
regarding
the
relationship between these traits
and job
satisfaction
(e.g., Judge
et
al.,
1997;
Specter,
1982, 1997;
Thare-
nou,
1979),
the
results
of
this
meta-analysis
validate these reviews.
From this base
of
support,
one
logical
extension
of
these
results
is to
test
process
models
that explain
how the
four
traits
are
related
to
job
satisfaction.
For
example, research indicates that
neuroti-
cism
is
related
to
diminished subjective well-being because neu-
rotic individuals
are
more likely
to
choose situations
in
which they
experience negative
affect
(Diener,
Larsen,
&
Emrnons,
1984;
Table
2
Meta-Anafysis
of the
Relationship Between
the
Core
Traits
and Job
Performance
Core trait
Self-esteem
Generalized
self-efficacy
Internal locus
of
control
Emotional stability
k
40
10
35
20
N
5,145
1,122
4,310
4,106
Mean
r
.18
.19
.14
.16
SD
r
.17
.10
.07
.06
Mean
P
.26
.23
.22
.19
SD
P
.24
.10
.11
.06
SE
Mp
.04
.05
.03
.03
95%
CI
.18,
.34
.13,
.33
.16,
.28
.14,
.24
80% CV
-.05,
.57
.10,
.36
.08,
.36
.11,
.27
Variance
explained
(%)
20
66
62
69
Note,
k =
number
of
correlations;
N =
total sample size
for all
studies
combined;
Mean
r =.
a v e r a g e
uncorrected
correlation;
SD
r
=
standard deviation
of
average uncorrected correlation; Mean
p =
average corrected
correlation;
SD
p
=
standard deviation
of
corrected correlation;
SE
Up
=
standard error
of
corrected correlation;
95% CI =
lower
and
upper limits
of 95%
confidence
interval;
80% CV =
lower
and
upper limits
of 80%
credibility
interval.