1 TELL THEM SOMETHING GOOD: TH E WELL-BEING AND BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES OF DISCLOSING PO SITIVE NEWS TO COWORKERS By CHARLICE HURST A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORID A IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010
2 2010 Charlice Hurst
3 To Malcolm & Seycha
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I incurred debts to many people in the cour se of pursuing this goal. My mother has been my fri end, my cheering section, my rock, and my inspiration. This document might not have been completed without her sacrifices over a lifetime, but especially over the past six years. I am grateful for her unwavering belief and for the example of her intellect and determination. My fathers brilliance and unswerving dedication to education are beacons toward which I hav e always aspired, and I appreciate his constant support and concern. I am also fo rtunate to have a spouse, Kevin, who would not let me quit, who always let me rant, and made sacrifices of his own in order for me to realize this dream. I am furthermore, deeply grateful for the mentorship of my adviser, Dr. Timothy A. Judge. He has given me the gifts of his insight, his experience, and his compassion. I thank my other comm ittee members-Dr. Am ir Erez, Dr. John Kammeyer-Mueller, and Dr. James Algina-for t heir help in reaching this milestone. I owe many thanks, as well, to Mitzi Calvert fo r responding to my many queries and requests, to The PhD Project for its financial and mo ral support, and to Dr. Beth Livingston for being the best friend a girl could have. I send a final note of gratitude to fellow doctoral students Marie Halvorsen-Ganepola and Je nnifer Knippen and to former faculty member Dr. Gwendolyn Lee for their trem endous support and encouragement over this crucial final year.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDG MENTS .................................................................................................. 4LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 7LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 8ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... 9 CHA PTER 1 INTRODUC TION .................................................................................................... 10Positive News Discl osure and We ll-Being .............................................................. 10Positive News Disclosure and Organi zational Citizensh ip Behavior ...................... 14Core Self-Evaluatio ns and WellBeing .................................................................... 15Core Self-Evaluations and Orga nizational Citizenship Behavior ............................. 17Perceived Responsiv eness and WellBeing ........................................................... 18Perceived Responsiveness and Organizati onal Citizenship Behavior .................... 20Perceived Responsivene ss as Medi ator ................................................................. 212 METHOD ................................................................................................................ 27Sample and Procedur e ........................................................................................... 27Measur es ................................................................................................................ 27Initial Su rvey ..................................................................................................... 29Daily Su rvey ..................................................................................................... 29Data Anal ysis .......................................................................................................... 323 RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 34Perceived Responsiveness ..................................................................................... 34Positive Affect ......................................................................................................... 34Job Satisf acti on ...................................................................................................... 35Coworker Sati sfaction ............................................................................................. 36Organizational Citizen ship Beha vior ....................................................................... 374 DISCUSSI ON ......................................................................................................... 49Theoretical Im plicati ons .......................................................................................... 49Practical Imp lications .............................................................................................. 52Limitations and Futu re Research ............................................................................ 52
6 APPENDIX A MODELS ................................................................................................................. 56B SURVEYS ............................................................................................................... 58REFERENC ES .............................................................................................................. 64BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................ 71
7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Intercorrelations bet ween study va riables .......................................................... 393-2 Parameter estimates and variance co mponents of null models for level-1 variables ............................................................................................................. 403-3 Hierarchical linear modeling result s predicting perceived responsiveness ......... 413-4 Hierarchical linear modeling results predicting pos itive a ffect ............................ 423-5 Hierarchical linear modeling resu lts predicting job satisfaction ........................... 433-6 Hierarchical linear modeling result s predicting cowork er satisfaction ................. 443-7 Hierarchical linear modeling result s predicting organizational citizenship behavio r .............................................................................................................. 453-8 Summary of study fi ndings ................................................................................. 47
8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 Conceptual model of the relationships among core self-evaluations positive news disclosure, perceived responsiveness, well-being, & organizational citizenshi p behavior ............................................................................................ 263-1 Moderation of relationship between perceived responsiveness & organizational citi zenship behavior ..................................................................... 46
9 Abstract of Dissertation Pr esented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulf illment of the Requirements for t he Degree of Doctor of Philosophy TELL THEM SOMETHING GOOD: TH E WELL-BEING AND BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES OF DISCLOSING PO SITIVE NEWS TO COWORKERS By Charlice Hurst May 2010 Chair: Timothy A. Judge Major: Business Administration An experience-sampling study of 131 full-time employed individuals examined the effects of core self-evaluations (CSE) and positive news disclosure on positive affect, job satisfaction, coworker sa tisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB)helping behaviors directed at coworkers or t he organization. Within-individuals, positive news disclosure was positively associated with all three well-being outcomes. In each case, this effect was fully mediated by perc eptions of coworkers responsiveness to the disclosure. Positive news disclosure was not linked to OCB, but perceived responsiveness was. Between-individuals, C SE was positively related to well-being and OCB, and this relationship was mediated by average perceived responsiveness. While CSE did not moderate t he relationship of perceived resp onsiveness with well-being, it did moderate the relationship of perceived responsiveness with OCB such that the relationship was stronger among people with low CSE than those with high CSE.
10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Just by virtue of time spent, many of the positive events in people s lives are likely to take place at work. Moreover, work is the locus of significant investments of effort, the focus of some of our highest aspirations, and arguably the focal aspect of identity for many (Hulin, 2001). Conseq uently, many of the more important accomplishments and fortuitous events that people experience ar e in the realm of work and career. Finally, people shar e positive events occurring in their personal lives at work. Weddings, births, vacationsall are common topics of conversation in workplaces. It is possible that these conversations have implications for well-being and behavior at work. Although an enormous amount of research has been focused on how people can recover from adversity, there is much less on how people sustain positive momentum in their lives. In the organizational literature in particu lar, there is ample research on how support from coworkers c an reduce strain during periods of stress (Viswesvaran, Sanchez, & Fisher, 1999). Ye t, we know little about how people can leverage their social connections at work to derive greater benefit from the positive events in their lives. Indeed, it might be t hat the support received during interactions surrounding positive news disclosures prov ides resources for rockier moments. Langston (1994) coined the term capita lizing to denote the ways in which people seek to extend or amp lify the benefits of positive events. In his study of the effects of capitalizing on daily well-being, one of the more co mmon forms of capitalizing consisted of expressive responses, which included disclosing the event to others. He found that expressive responding was positiv ely related to daily life satisfaction and positive affect. Later research on positive news disclosure also found that it was
11 positively associated with daily well-being as well as with the quality of intimate relationships (Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004). In this paper, I explore whether posit ive news disclosure can also fuel constructive job attitudes and work behaviors Specifically, I examine the influence of capitalizing via disclosure of positive news to coworkers on daily reports of positive affect, satisfaction with coworkers, job sa tisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. Also, because self-views tend to in fluence expectations of and reactions to interpersonal interactions (Dandeneau & Baldwin, 2004; Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995; Gyurak & Ayduk, 2007), I examine the role of core self-evaluations (CSE; Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997). Thus, I investi gate both the within-i ndividual effects of positive news disclosure on attitudinal and behavioral outcomes at work and the influence of between-individual differences on that process. This research makes several contributions. First, it examines not only the effects of capitalizing on well-being, but on behavior as well. Second, it addresses the effects of individual differences on capitalizing outcomes. Relevant to the real m of organizational research, this inquiry sheds light on the effect s of discrete social interactions on day-today well-being and behavior. Finally, although research on CSE has burgeoned in recent years, some gaps rema in. Its relationship with job sati sfaction is well-established, but less is known about how it relates to affe ct at work or to a ttitudes toward work relationships. Moreover, there has been little investigation of t he effect of CSE on helping behavior. Thus, this research threads together disparate st reams of research, demonstrating how a stable dispositionCSE-and a variable behavior-positive news disclosure-converge to influence everyday work experience.
12 In the proposed model (Figure 1-1), disclosure of positive news to coworkers and perceptions of coworkers responses to di sclosures are related to within-individual positive affect at the end of t he day, job and coworker satisf action at the end of the day, and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) performed during the work day. Perceived responsiveness mediates betw een positive news disclosure and the outcomes of interest. Betweenindividuals, CSE influences average end-of-day positive affect and job and coworker satisfaction, as well as OCB during the work day. Average perceived responsiveness mediates the effe ct of CSE. Finally, CSE moderates the within-individual relationship between per ceived responsiveness and each of the outcomes. That is, people with high CSE re act more favorably when they receive enthusiastic responses to their positive new s than do people with low CSE. In the next section, I offer formal hypotheses for the relationships depicted by this model. Positive News Disclosure and Well-Being Langston (1994) sugg ested that simply t he act of telling others about a positive event is pleasant and, thus, should enhance well -being. He submitted, furthermore, that disclosure should improve memory for the even t, making it more accessible as a source of well-being at a later time. Indeed, Gabl e et al. (2004) found that disclosure of the most positive event of the day was associated with enhanced memory of the event that was shared. It was also linked to daily, withi n-individual variation in positive affect and life satisfaction (Gable et al., 2004). Given its relationship with life satisfaction, it is likely that pos itive news disclosure is related to coworker and job satisfaction as well. Ratings of life satisfaction are based on evaluations of various aspects of an indi viduals life and relative weightings of the importance of those domains (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). Capitalizing in
13 a certain domain, such as work, might also influence satisfaction in that domain. If one is capitalizing, specifically, by disclosing positive news to coworkers, then the attitudinal effects of disclosure could extend to coworkers and to the job itself. Research on the sharing of autobiographic al narratives frames conversational disclosure of life events as an engine for the pursuit of interpersonal goals such as social validation of identity, efficacy, and self-worth; re-e vocation of the affective dimensions of pleasurable experiences; and for entertainment and impression management (Baumeister & Newman, 1994; Pas upathi, 2001). Thus, it is an approachoriented social behavior (i.e., Gable, 2006; Elliot, Gable, & Mapes, 2006) that extends an opportunity for the discloser to meet needs for pleasant so cial interaction and identity management. Gable (2006) and Elli ot et al. (2006) demonstrat ed that approach-oriented social goals were associated with posit ive social outcomes, including greater satisfaction with social bonds. Therefore, on e might expect that an approach-oriented social behavior directed toward coworkers, such as positive news disclosure, would lead to greater satisfaction with coworkers because of the needs it may meet for the discloser. Enhanced satisfaction with coworkers might extend to feelings about the job as well. Relationships with coworkers are an impor tant facet of many jobs (e.g., Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). Even where people are not r equired to complete tasks together on an extensive basis, their coworkers are a par t of their work envir onment, their primary social outlet for much of the day. Thus, positive news disclosure, by engendering satisfying interactions with coworkers, can cast a more positive hue over the job in general.
14 H1: Within-individuals, disclosure of posit ive news to coworkers is positively associated with (a) positive affect, (b) job sa tisfaction, and (c) coworker satisfaction at the end of the work day. Positive News Disclosure and Orga nizational Citize nship Behaviors Positive news disclosure might also have behavioral consequences. Affective Events Theory suggests that mood states ar ising from work events influence episodic performance (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). If so, the positive affe ct that follows positive news disclosure might make the discloser more disposed to engaging in OCB (Organ, 1997). In general, positive affect increases cooperative, helpful behavior (Carnevale & Isen, 1986; Dovidio, Gaert ner, Isen, & Lowrance, 1995; Isen, 1970; Isen & Levin, 1972), and findings in work contexts are suggestive of an influence of positive affect on such behaviors within organizations (Bachrach & Jex, 2000; George, 1991; Ilies, Scott, & Judge, 2006; Lee & Allen, 2002; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983) Ilies, Scott, and Judge. (2006)-in the only study that has examined the effect of mo mentary positive affect on daily, within-individual variati on in OCB-found that positive affect at work influenced OCB that day. Note that I am not propos ing a mediation effect of positive affect in the relationship between OCB and interpersonal c apitalization. The measure of positive affect used in this study was taken at t he end of the day, and I did not view it as appropriate to use that as a predictor of citizenship behaviors performed earlier in the day. Thus, while I believe that positive affect is the likely mechanism for the effect of interpersonal capitalization on OCB, I do not ex plicitly examine that link in the present paper.
15 H2: Within-individuals, disclosure of positive news to coworkers is positively related to performance of organizational citizenship behaviors that day. Core Self-Evaluations and Well-Being Core self-evaluatio ns (CSE), originally c onceptualized as a latent trait indicated by four lower-order traits (self-esteem, emotional stability, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy), refe rs to an individuals global sense of self-worth and competence. Basic self-views carry over in to perceptions and behavioral choices which, ultimately, influence subjective experience. For instance, the oft-repeated finding that CSE is linked to job satisfaction is explained by evidence that it affects both perceptions of and actual job characteristics, in additi on to influencing the types of goals people set (for a review, see Judge & Hurst, 2007a; Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke, 2005; Judge, Heller, & Klinger, 2008; Judge & Hurst, 2008). This link between CSE and job satisfaction has been found both between indi viduals (Judge & Hurst, 2007a) and within individuals over long periods (Judge& Hurst, 2008). These findings lead to the expectation here that CSE will be positively associated with average daily levels of job satisfaction. Surprisingly, there has been no research published on the re lationship between CSE and positive affect; however, Judge, Erez, and Bono (1999) suggested that CSE should affect emotion tendencies. While their focus was on negative emot ion, implicit in their discussion of CSE was the idea that peopl e with high CSE are more positive. Their sanguine perceptions of themselves generaliz e to their environment, leading them to more often experience positive moods. Thus, CSE should have a positive influence on positive affect.
16 People with high CSE might also view thei r interactions with coworkers in a more positive light, which could influence their sa tisfaction with coworkers. Although CSE has not been specifically linked to coworker satisfaction, there is evidence that people with high CSE have higher-quality work relations hips than people with low CSE. KammeyerMueller and Judge (2008) found that CSE had a moderately positive meta-analytic relationship with mentor satisfaction ( =.24). Also, two studies have found that expatriate employees levels of CSE were positively related to their social ties with host country nationals (Chiu, Wu, Zhuang, Hsu, 2009; Johnson, Kristof-Brown, van Vianen, de Pater, & Klein, 2003) Individually, the core traits are also a ssociated with interpersonal processes and the quality of relationships in non-work domai ns. Low self-esteem is strongly linked to fears of exclusion and rejection (Dandeneau & Baldwin, 2004; Leary et al., 1995; Gyurak & Ayduk, 2007) and to deep feelings of insecurity in close relationships (Murray, Griffin, Rose, & Bellavia, 2006; Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1997; Murray, Holmes, Griffin, Bellavia, & Rose, 2001; Murray, Holmes, MacDonald, & Ellsworth, 1998). Meanwhile, satisfaction with relationships of various types is negatively related to neuroticism (Karney & Bradbur y, 1997; Kurtz & Sherker, 2003; Lopes, Salovey, & Strauss, 2003; White, Hendri ck, & Hendrick, 2004) and positiv ely related to self-esteem (Lopez & Rice, 2006) and internal locus of control (Camp & Ganong, 1997). Neuroticism is also positively associated with interperso nal stress and conflict (Bolger & Schilling, 1991; Bolger & Zuckerman, 1995; Gunthert, Cohen, & Armeli, 1999). The consistency of these findings across the individual core tr aits suggests that their common core (CSE) may broadly explain individual differences in the quality of work relationships. Thus,
17 because they feel more competent and conf ident of being accepted in interpersonal interactions, people with high CSE might feel mo re positively about their relationships. H3: Between-individuals, core self-eva luations are positiv ely associated with average levels of (a) positive affect, (b) job satisfaction, and (c) coworker satisfaction at the end of the day. Core Self-Evaluations and Organi zational Citizenship Behaviors Organizational citizens hip behaviors are extra-role behaviors aimed at enhancing the organization or helping in dividuals within the organiza tion (Organ, 1997). CSE has been associated with job performance in pr evious research (Judge & Hurst, 2007a; Kacmar, Collins, Harris, & Judge, 2009) but never, specifically, with citizenship behaviors. However, each of the core traits has been linked to organizational citizenship (Barbuto & Bubenhagen, 2006; DAmato & Zilj stra, 2008; Hoffi-Hofstetter & Mannheim, 1999; Kaplan, Bradly, Luchman, & Hay nes, 2009), and the well-established link between CSE and job satisfaction would suggest that CSE is relat ed to the performance of helping behaviors as well. Ample research has tied job satisfaction to OCB (Bateman & Organ, 1983; Ilies, Fulmer, Spitzmuller, & Johnson, 2009; Ilies et al., 2006). Bateman and Organ, the first to examine that relationship, argued t hat people who attribute their satisfaction with their job to the organization will want to reciprocate, and performing extra-role behaviors is one way to do so. Thus, if people with high CSE are more satisfied with their jobs, they mi ght be expected to perform more OCBs. Another reason that CSE might motivate citizenship behaviors is that people with high CSE could feel more able to perform su ch behaviors. By nature, as extra-role behaviors, OCB requires performance beyond that which is required for the job. People who are uncertain about thei r competence and lack a sense of control over their work
18 might feel more than sufficiently challenged by the demands of their regular work role. On the other hand, people who tend to feel competent and in control might judge themselves to be capable of performing thei r assigned tasks and assuming additional undertakings as well. H4: Between-individuals, core self-evaluations are positiv ely associated with average levels of organizatio nal citizenship behaviors performed during the work day. Perceived Responsiveness and Well-Being As noted earlier, people tend be motivated in their sharing of autobiographic al information (Baumeister & Newman, 1994; Pasupathi, 2001), and a targets response to self-disclosure may indicate to the discloser whether their purpose for sharing has been achieved. This may explain findings that the targets response to a positive event disclosure affects relationship outcomes of interpersonal capitalization (Gable et al., 2004; Gable, Gonzaga, & Strachman, 2006). The respons e may indicate to the discloser whether a valued goal has been met, thus influencing satisfaction with the relationship that enabled (or obs tructed) goal fulfillment. Gable et al. (2004) described four possibl e types of responses to positive news disclosure. Active-constructive responses consist of verbal and non-verbal behaviors that convey genuine enthusiasm, such as asking probing questions. Passiveconstructive responses are perceived as supportive, albeit subdued. Passivedestructive responses convey disinterest while active-destructive responses entail purposely pointing out t he negative aspects or implications of the positive news. Only active-constructive responses are positiv ely associated with relationship outcomes (Gable et al., 2004). Surprisingly, passive-c onstructive responses did not yield even neutral or weak positive outcomes in prior res earch. They were as detrimental as active-
19 destructive and passive-destructive responses. Apparently, people need to see enthusiasm in order to feel warmed by respons es to their disclosures of positive news. Enthusiastic (i.e., active-constructive) responses to ones good news validate important aspects of the se lf and convey that the reci pient feels connected enough to the discloser to experience the latters happiness as his or her own (Gable et al., 2006). In Gable et al. (2004, 2006), the studies in which per ceived responsiveness was included as a predictor were restricted to romantic partners and, in fact, perceived responsiveness has been theorized primarily as a determinant of quality in intimate relationships (e.g., Maisel, Gable, & Stra chman, 2008; Murray, Holmes, & Collins, 2006; Reis, Clark, & Holmes, 2004). Yet, there is ev idence that perceptions of an interaction partners responsiveness to ones goals and needs affects the quality of other types of relationships as well. For instance, in one study (Reis, Clark, Gray, Tsai, Brown, Stewart, Underwood, 2008), pati ents perceptions of their physicians responsiveness positively influenced patient satisfaction and subjective health. Also, one of the few studies to examine responsiveness in a work context found that s ubordinates ratings of supervisors consideration and initiating struct ure were positively related to perceptions of the supervisors communication re sponsiveness (Penley & Hawkins, 1985). Not only have higher levels of perce ived responsiveness to positive news disclosures been positively associated with qualit y of romantic relationships, they have also been shown to intensify positive affect a nd life satisfaction, above the effects of the importance of the origi nal event and of disclosure of the event (Gable et al., 2004). In keeping with Gable et al., Pasupathi (2003) found that listeners responsiveness to positive news disclosures encouraged further elaboration from the teller and resulted,
20 finally, in increases in positive emotion from experience to di sclosure. Thus, the discursive elements of the interaction can di rectly influence affect. Furthermore, activeconstructive responses contribute to the general congeniality of the work environment while the other three types of responses detra ct from it, influencing the disclosers job satisfaction. H5: Within individuals, perceived responsiveness to disclosures of positive news to coworkers is positively associated with (a) positive affect, (b) j ob satisfaction, and (c) coworker satisfaction at t he end of the work day. H6: Between individuals, average perceived responsiveness to disclosures of positive news to coworkers is positively a ssociated with average le vels of (a) positive affect, (b) job satisfaction, and (c) coworker satisfaction at the end of the work day. Perceived Responsiveness and Organi zational Citizenship Behaviors Receiv ing enthusiastic responses to posit ive news disclosures could also push people to higher levels of citizenship behaviors An active-constructive response is an expression of support for the disclosers pers pective and well-being. As Chiaburu and Harrison (2008) asserted, coworker support should lead to organizational citizenship behaviors directed toward individual cowo rkers and the organization. Interactions stemming from positive news disclosures are social exchanges in which the response is an intangible good that is valued by the recipi ent. Receipt of such a good activates the norm of reciprocity (Blau, 1964), which is a powerful motivator in human relationships. In the workplace, both discloser and target s (coworkers) are situated within a broader social group. The more coworkers who ar e told of a positive event and who provide warm responses, the greater will be the disclosers sense of reciprocal obligation to the work group. Because the work group is ident ified with the organizati on, that sense of
21 obligation might generalize to the organization. Thus, enthusiastic responses should lead to a desire to reciprocate both to the individuals who gave the responses and to the broader organization of wh ich they are a part. H7: Within individuals, perceived responsive ness is positively associated with daily organizational citizenship behaviors. H8: Between individuals, average perceived responsiveness is positively associated with average levels of or ganizational citizenship behaviors. Perceived Responsiveness as Mediator The effect of positive event disclosure is lik ely entirely mediated by perceived responsiveness. It is difficult to im agine that people would experience any uplift following positive news disclosures that do not seem to have been well-received. Indeed, an attentive listener is an essential ingredient for reaping benefits from the sharing of memories (Pasupathi, 2003; Pa supathi, Stallworth, & Murdoch, 1998; Pasupathi & Rich, 2005). In the case of positive news disclosure, as Gable et al. (2004, 2006) have found, the response needs to not only be attentiv e, but encouraging. Indeed, enthusiastic responses show that th e listener cares enough for the discloser to share in his or her happiness (Gable et al., 2004). Passive responses, whether constructive or destructive, might convey a la ck of interest in the disclosers well-being while active-destructive responses communicate a concerted attempt to harm. Thus, for positive news disclosure to positively influence well-being or beha vior, it must be followed by responses that are both attentive and agreeable. H9: Between individuals, core self-eva luations are positiv ely associated with average levels of perceived responsiven ess to positive news disclosures.
22 H10: Between-individuals, averaged perceived responsiveness partially mediates the relationship between core se lf-evaluations and (a) positive affect, (b) job satisfaction and (c) coworker satisfaction at the end of the work day. H11: Between individuals, average perceiv ed responsiveness mediates between core self-evaluations and organizational citizenship behaviors performed during the work day. Murray et al. (2006) pointed out that re sponsiveness signals a partners regard and trustworthiness. It demonstr ates that the other person se es valued traits in ones self Yet, Murray et al. argued, people with lo w self-esteem-a characteristic of people with low CSE-have a tendency not to count on their partners regard. Trusting a relationship partner is a risky proposition, one that can lead to rejection and pain. For those primed to expect rejection, as are people with low self-esteem (Dandeneau & Baldwin, 2004), the risk seems even more acut e. One way they may protect themselves is to adopt pessimistic interpretations of other peoples responses, erring on the side of the cautious belief that their interaction partner does not value them On the other hand, people with positive self-views believe themselves to possess traits worth valuing and, therefore, have little difficulty having confidence in messages that others value them. In fact, Silvera and Neilands (2004) found that people with high self-esteem tended to interpret even meaningless feedback as favor able while those with low self-esteem did not. As a result, perceived responsiveness c ould be one reason for the influence of CSE on work-related well-being and OCB. H12: Within individuals, disclosure of positive news to coworkers is positively associated with perceived responsiveness.
23 H13: Within individuals, perceived responsiveness mediates the relationship between positive news disclosures to co workers and (a) positive affect, (b) job satisfaction, and (c) coworker satisfaction at the end of the work day. H14: Within individuals, perceived responsiveness mediates between daily positive news disclosure to coworkers and organizational citizenship behaviors performed during the work day. Core Self-Evaluations as Moderato r of Pe rceived Responsiveness According to self-verification theor y (Swann & Read, 1981a; Swann & Read, 1981b), people seek to maintain stable self-vie ws by seeking feedback from others that verifies their beliefs about themselves. As noted earlier, disclosur e of autobiographical information tends to serve as a vehicle fo r the affirmation of identity (Baumeister & Newman, 1994; Pasupathi, 1993). In telling ot hers about life events, people are looking for social validation of what these ev ents communicate about them. For people with high CSEs, positive events serve as the basis for validating that they are individuals worthy of good fortune and success. They eval uate positive events as typical of them and, therefore, important and seek to bask in the afterglow conferred by other peoples enthusiastic responses to their disclosures. On the other hand, positive events may create inner conflict for people with low CSEs, who struggle to reconcile this positive occurrence with beliefs that they are not deserving, lucky, or capable. Indeed, people with low self-esteem tend to react anxiously or with hostility to positive feedback (Marecek & Mettee, 1972; Murray, Holmes MacDonald, & Ellsworth, 1998; Wood, Heimpel, Newby-Clark, & Ross, 2005) and to downplay positive events (Wood, Heimpel, & Michela, 2003).
24 Because of this need for self-verification, people with low CSE might benefit less from positive news disclosure, even when they perceive others to have responded enthusiastically to their positive news. In telling others about positive events in their lives, low CSE individuals could be seeking to verify their doubts about their own worth and ability even as they are also aiming for so me celebration. If, as Seta and Donaldson (1999) found, people with low self-esteem ar e particularly motivated to self-verify following success, active-constructive feedback is not likely to help in that pursuit. This could explain why people with negative se lf-views tend to discount compliments, attributing the cause to the situation rather than their own effort s or talents (Gagne, Khan, Lydon, & To, 2008). Also, people wi th high self-esteem react with greater enthusiasm to success feedback than those with low self-esteem, even when the success is attributable to luck (Marecek & Mettee, 1972). In addition to the need to self-verify, the insecurity and fearfulness about relationships that follow people with low se lf-worth (Baldwin, Patrick, & Keelan,1999; Baldwin & Sinclair, 1996; Baldwin, Ba ccus, & Fitzsimmons 2004; Dandeneau & Baldwin, 2004; Leary et al., 1995; Murray et al., 2006; Murray et al., 1997; Murray et al., 2001; Murray et al., 1998) might make them less appreciative of enthusiastic responses. People with low self-esteem tend to believe im plicitly that their acceptance by others is contingent on their successes (Baldwin et al., 2004; Baldwin & Sinclair, 1996); yet, success still does not breed in them a sense of security about others feelings toward them. Perhaps, as Murray et al. (1998) noted, highlighting a personal strength just makes salient, for people with low self-esteem the belief that the other persons acceptance of them is condi tional. Fears of being cond itionally acce pted might be
25 especially prominent at work since work is a domain where, in general, one is regularly evaluated, formally and informally, on the basis of ones performance. If people with low CSEs are ambivalent about the positive event and are uncertain about whether the people they have told value them intrinsically then low CSEs could dampen the positive well-being and behavioral outcomes of even enthusiastic responses. H15: Core self-evaluations moderate the within-individual relationship between perceived responsiveness and (a) positive affe ct, (b) job satisfac tion, (c) coworker satisfaction, and (d) organizational citizenship behaviors at the end of the day such that the association is more positiv e for high CSES than low CSEs.
26 Figure 1-1. Conceptual Model of the Re lationships among CSE, Positive News Disclosure, Perceived Responsiveness, Well-Being, & OCB Positive Affect Job Satisfaction Coworker Satisfaction Organizational Citizenship Positive News Disclosure Core SelfEvaluations Perceived Responsiveness
27 CHAPTER 2 METHOD Sample and Procedure The sample consisted of 131 individuals who resided throughout the United States. Participants worked in a range of o ccupations including janitorial serv ices, information technology management, trucking, teaching, and social services. On average, participants had been with their current organization 63 months and in their current job for 52 months. The mean number of people employed by their organizations was 2,911. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 64 years old. The average age was 36. Sixty-nine percent of the sample was fe male. Sixty-five percent was Caucasian, 25.2% African American, 5.7% Hispanic, and 3.8% Asian American or Pacific Islander. Participants were recruited during two waves of data collection. In both instances, most were recruited via postings to East Coast city websites of a popular classified ad service. A sma ll number of participants were also recruited by sending information about the study to acquaintances and asking them to pass it on to others who might be interested. The classified ad alerted pot ential participants to the oppor tunity to participate in a research study for payment of up to $50 and provided a link to a website that gave more information about requirements for parti cipation. On this website, participants were informed that they were eligible if they : (1) were 18 years or older, (2) worked at least 30 hours/week, (3) worked at least 5 days/week, (4) had standard work hours that typically began and ended between 7 am and 6 pm, (5) interacted with two or more coworkers (not including supervisors) on a daily basis, and (6) had access to a
28 computer on which they could complete a short survey once a day for five days between 4 pm and 8 pm. The web page also informed participants t hat they would need to provide their name, address, and social security number in order for the university to issue a check as payment for their participation. Partici pants who met the eligibility requirements and were willing to provide the necessary paym ent information or to waive payment were directed to enter their name and e-mail info rmation and informed that the researchers would contact them within 48 hours. I then e-mailed potentia l participants instructions along with a 3-digit participant identification number (PIN) and a link to the first survey in the study, which began wit h a consent form that participants read and signed electronically before proceeding. After co mpleting the initial survey, participants received a confirmation e-mail with information about the next phase of the study. I began placing recruitment ads for the fi rst study on a Wednesday morning and, for the second, on a Monday morning. In eac h case, on the following Sunday morning, I deleted the ad. Interested respondents who had completed the first survey by the following Monday morning were eligible to c ontinue to the next phase, which consisted of five brief daily surveys to be completed ne ar or shortly after the end of the work day within the next seven business days. Participants who did not fill out five surveys within the seven-day period were offered prorated compensation. I sent daily e-mail reminders that contained a link to the daily survey. I told participants that, although I preferred that they fill out surveys between 3 pm and 8 pm of the day in question, I would accept surveys for a given day that were completed no later than 8 am the following day. Participants completed a total of 698 usable daily surveys.
29 To deter participants from filling out all of the daily surveys at one time, I informed them that we would check ti me stamps and internet protoc ol addresses. Checking time stamps also enabled us to eliminate surv ey responses completed outside of the requested windows. I checked time stam ps each day. There were only a few participants who filled out more than one survey within the daily window or filled out the survey earlier or later than requested. In t hose cases, I contacted the participant and told them those surveys would not be count ed. Accordingly, I deleted those surveys from the data set. Measures All survey measures c an be found in Appendix B. Initial Survey Core Self-Evaluation s. Core self-evaluations were measured using the 12-item Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES) dev eloped by Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen (2003). Using a 5-point Likert-type scale anc hored by the 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree, participants indica ted the extent to which t hey agreed or disagreed that each statement was descriptive of them. Samp le items included When I try, I generally succeed, Sometimes I feel depressed, and Overall, I am satisfied with myself. Reliability of this scale was = .85 Daily Survey Most important negative/positive event or issue. Following the protocol used by Gable et al. (2004), I asked participants to Briefly describe the most important problem or stressful event or issue of the day. With regard to positive events, they were asked to Briefly describe the most positive ev ent or issue of the day. For both positive and negative events, I specified that the ev ent or issue could be something that
30 happened today, something that happened in the past that affected you today, or something that you anticipate happening in the future. Event importance. Participants were asked to ra te the importanc e of the event on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = very slightly or not at all to 5 = extremely. Because this was a single-item measur e, I computed the intraclass correlation coefficient, the within-person consistency over time in that item, which wa s ICC(1) = .96. Positive news disclosures. Participants were asked how many coworkers they had told about the positive ev ent that they had described. Perceived responsiveness to capitalization attempts. Gable et al. (2004) developed the Perceived Responsiveness to Capitalization Attempts (PRCA) measure, which has four subscales of three item s each measuring the four categories of response. For an experience-sampling study on the effects of re sponsiveness, they used a single item from each subscale in order to decrease participants response burden. Following their example, I used one statement for each type of response. Participants rated how true, on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = not at all true to 5 = extremely true, each statement was of their coworkers re sponses, in general, to their disclosure of the most positiv e event of their day. The it ems for each type of response were Reacted enthusiastically, Said little, but I knew they were happy for me, Found a problem with it, Seemed disinterested. Consistent with Gable et al., I derived my measure of perceived responsiveness by s ubtracting the mean of the scores on the passive-constructive, active-destructive, and passive-destructive items from the score on the active-constructive item.
31 Positive/negative affect. To measure affect, I used the general dimension scales from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Expanded Form (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). On a 5-point scale r anging from 1 = not at a ll to 5 = extremely, particpants rated to what extent they were feeling each of the 20 emotions on the list, including alert, guilty, p roud, and enthusiastic. Average reliability for the positive affect scale and for the negative affect scale was = .96. Satisfaction with relati onships with coworkers. I used a modified version of the Relationship Assessment Scale (Hendr ick, Dicke, & Hendrick, 1988) and four coworker items from Spectors (1994) Job Satisfaction Survey. Participants rated how true each of seven statements wa s for them at that moment on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = not at all true to 5 = extremel y true. The items fr om the Relationship Assessment Scale were In general, I am sa tisfied with my relationships with my coworkers today, I wish I didnt work with my coworkers, My re lationships with my coworkers met my expectations today. Ite ms from the Spector scale included I enjoyed my coworkers today and Today, I like the people I work with. Average reliability for this scale was = .88. Job Satisfaction. To measure daily job satisfac tion, I used a two-item measure taken from a daily diary study by Oishi, Diener, Choi, Kim-P rieto, and Choi (2007). The first item, rated according to a 7-point sca le ranging from 1=terrible to 7=excellent, asked How was today at work? The second item, rated according to a 7-point scale with anchors 1= totally dissatisfied to 7 = tota lly satisfied, asked How satisfied are you with your job today? Responses to t hese two items were averaged. The average reliability for this scale was = .83.
32 Organizational Citizenship Behavior. OCB was only included in daily surveys for the second wave of data collection. I used 13 items from Lee and Allens 16-item (2002) measure. I excluded thr ee items because they did not seem particularly relevant to a day-to-day context (e.g., Went out of your way to make newer employees feel welcome in the group). Remaining items included, Willingly gave your time to help others who had work-related problems today, Punctual to work, meetings, and other work-related engagements today, and Offered ideas to improve the functioning of the organization today. Average reli ability for this scale was = .89. Data Analysis Because the data were nested (i.e., da ys within persons), I used Hierarchical Linear Modeling 6 (HLM6; Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2004) for data analysis. HLM 6 deletes all Level 2 cases that have any mi ssing variables. Thus, the final sa mple, for data analysis purposes, consisted of 131 observa tions at Level 2 and 633 at Level 1. There were 355 daily reports of OCB, so analyses involving OCB consist of 355 Level 1 observations and 111 Level 2 observations. In order to remove the effects of betweenpersons variance at Level 1, the Level 1 predictors were centered around each participants mean rating for each predictor ov er the course of t he study. The Level 2 variable, core self-evaluations, was cent ered around the sample mean for analysis of moderation effects. All of the models used to analyze the dat a can be found in Appendix A. In order to assess the mediational hypotheses, bas ed on the Baron and Kenny (1986) method, I needed to establish that daily positive new s disclosure predicted within-individual variance in perceived responsiveness and that CSE predicted between-individual variance in perceived responsiveness. Thus I estimated an equation in which daily
33 positive news disclosure was a Level 1 pr edictor of perceived responsiveness while CSE was a Level 2 predictor of the intercept. Consistent with Gable et al. (2004), I also controlled, at Level 1, for the importance of the most po sitive and the most negative event of the day (Model A1). I estimated separate equations for each of the hypothesized outcomes. In each equation, I entered daily number of disclosures of positive news to coworkers as a Level 1 predictor of the outcome. I entered CSE as a Level 2 predictor of the intercept, which represents the within-person average for t he given outcome. Thus, positive news disclosure, at Level 1, predi cted within-individual variance in each outcome while CSE, at Level 2, predicted between-in dividual variance (e.g., Model A2). Again, I controlled for positive and negative ev ent importance. Next, I added daily perceived responsiveness at Level 1 and average perceived responsiveness to Level 2 to the first se t of equations and based conclusions about mediation on whether the p-values for CSE, at Level 2, and positive news disclosure, at Level 1, decreased (Model A3). Finally, I te sted the interaction hypothesis (H15) by adding CSE as a Level 2 predictor of the slope of the relationship between daily perceived responsiveness and eac h outcome (Model A4).
34 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS Table 3-1 displays correlations am ong t he study variables. Between-individual correlations (based on aggregated Level 1 score s) are above the diagonal while withinindividual correlations are below the diago nal (and thus do not properly represent multilevel relationships). The between-indivi dual correlations are based on aggregated Level 1 scores while within-individual correlations are standardized regression coefficients from HLM models with only one independent variable. For instance, the correlation between perceived responsiveness and number of positive news disclosures is the standardized coefficient for an equation with perceived responsiveness as the dependent variable and positive ne ws disclosure as the sole independent variable. Before testing the study hypotheses, I examined whether there was sufficient within-individual variance in the experience-sampled outcome variables to justify analyzing within-person relationships. To ma ke this determination, I estimated null models for each of the Level 1 outcome vari ables (Table 3-2). At least one-third of variance in all of the within-person variables is within-individual Most notably, about 70% of the variance in numbers of disclosures of positive news to coworkers is withinindividual. It appears that people vary consi derably on a daily basis in the number of people at work whom they te ll about positive events. Perceived Responsiveness Because of its centrality to all of the other analyses, I report the results of the analysis of effects of positive news disclosure and CSE on perceived responsiveness first. As shown in Table 3-3, daily number of positive news disclosures to coworkers was positively associated with perceived responsiveness ( = .29, p < .01). Collectively,
35 the Level 1 variables predicted 9% of the variance in within-individual perceived responsiveness. Also, CSE, the Level 2 pr edictor of the intercept, was positively associated with average perceived responsiveness ( = .45, p < .01) and predicted 18% of the variance in between-individual perceived responsiveness. Thus, H9 and H12 were supported. Positive Affect Results for the equation predicting positive affect at the end of the day, can be found in Table 3-4. In this equation, negative affect at the end of the day was also controlled. Supporting H1a, t he number of coworkers to w hom the most positive event of the day was disclos ed was pos itively associated with daily end-of-day positive affect ( =.14, p < .01). Likewise, in support of H3a, CSE was a positive and significant predictor of average positive affect at the end of the work day ( =.37, p<.01). This equation explained 6% of the variance at Lev el 1 and 18% of variance at Level 2. Next, within-individual perceived re sponsiveness was added as a Level 1 predictor and average perceived responsiveness as a Level 2 predictor. At Level 1, within-individual perceived responsiveness wa s a positive and significant predictor of positive affect at the end of the day ( =.22, p<.05), supporting H5a. Moreover, positive news disclosure lost statistical signific ance entirely following entry of perceived responsiveness, indicating full mediation an d supporting H10a. At Level 2, average perceived responsiveness was positively related to average positive affect ( =.38, p<.01). The coefficient and p-value for CSE dec reased, and the Sobel test for mediation (p<.05) indicated a significant indirect ef fect of CSE through perceived responsiveness ( =.20, p<.05), supporting H6a and H13a. Overa ll, an additional 11% of variance at
36 Level 1 and 16% of variance at Level 2 wa s explained by the inclusion of perceived responsiveness. Finally, CSE was added to the model as a predictor of the slope of the relationship between within-individual perce ived responsiveness and positive affect. In this analysis and the three that follow, the interaction wa s not in the model when mediation was assessed. The coefficient fo r the cross-level interaction between CSE and within-individual perceived responsivene ss was not statistically significant. H15a was not supported. Job Satisfaction Results for the second set of equations, pr edicting job satisfac tion at the end of the day, can be found in Table 35. The re lationship between positive news disclosures and job satisfaction was significant ( = .14, p<.01), providin g support for H1b. As expected, CSE was positively associated with average job satisfaction ( = .36, p<.01), supporting H3b. While only 4.5% of variance at Level 1 was explained by this equation, CSE explained 21% of Level 2 variance in job satisfaction. Within individuals, perceived respons iveness positively and significantly predicted job satisfaction ( = .32, p<.01), as did average perceived responsiveness ( = .37, p<.01), so H5b and H6b were suppor ted. Again, positive news disclosures completely lost statistical significance when within-individual per ceived responsiveness was included in the model, supporting full m ediation (H10b). While the p-value for CSE remained unchanged, the Sobel test provided ev idence for a partial indirect effect of CSE through average perceived responsiveness ( =.26, p<.01). H13b was supported. Last, the cross-level interaction between CSE and Level 1 perceived responsiveness was not significant, failing to support H 15b. With the addition of perceived
37 responsiveness at Level 2, the model pr edicted 14% of Level 1 variance in job satisfaction and 48% of Level 2 variance in job satisfaction. Coworker Satisfaction Regarding within-indiv idual co worker satisfaction (Table 3-6), positive news disclosure was a positive predictor ( = .07, p<.05). Meanwhile, CSE was positively associated with average co worker satisfaction ( = .15, p<.01). Thus, H1c and H3c were supported; however, the variance expl ained at Level 1 was negligible and at Level 2 was rather small relative to the other we ll-being dependent variable s (8%). In the next step, Level 1 perceived responsiveness was positively related to within-individual coworker satisfaction ( = .24, p<.01) and average perceived responsiveness was positively associated with aver age coworker satisfaction ( = .29, p<.01), supporting H5c and H6c. Once more, the p-value for positive news disclosur e decreased below the standard for statistical significance when responsiveness was added, supporting full mediation (H10c). The p-value for CSE al so decreased (p=.05), and the Sobel test indicated a partial indirect effect of CSE on average coworker satisfaction through average perceived responsiveness ( =.06, p<.05). H13c was supported. Including perceived responsiveness increased Level 1 variance explained by only 3%, but the proportion of Level 2 variance explained incr eased to 46%. As with the other well-being outcomes, the cross-level interaction between CSE and withinindividual perceived responsiveness was added to the equation a fter mediation was assessed and was not significant, so H15c was not supported. Organizational Citizenship Behavior In the final set of equations (Table 3-7), posi tive news disclosure did not significantly predict OCB, daily perceived responsiveness did ( =.10, p<.05). Thus, H7
38 was supported, but H2 and H11 were not.. In support of H4 and H8, CSE and average perceived responsiveness were positive and significant predictors of OCB ( = .21, p<.05; = .24, p<.05, respectively). Furthermore, the p-value for CSE became insignificant when average perceived responsiveness was added, indicating full mediation ( =.09, p<.05) in support of H14. Final ly, the cross-level interaction between CSE and within-individual perceived respons iveness was statistically significant (=-.10, p<.05). As shown in Figure 3-1, the form of this interact ion is not as hypothesized. There was actually a stronger relations hip between perceived responsiveness and OCB among people with low CSE than among those with high CSE. Thus, H15 was supported only partially supported. The model explains 4% of Level 1 variance and 15% of Level 2 variance in OCB.
39 Table 3-1. Intercorrelations between study variables Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Core selfevaluations 3.52 0.61 1.00 .09** .33** 33** .32** .36* .24** .43** .31** 2. Negative event importance 4.03 1.03 .06 1.00 .41** .03** .23** .12 .11 .02* -.01 3. Positive event importance 4.49 0.73 .70** .09* 1.00 .30 ** .37** .50** .30** .39** .43** 4. Positive news disclosures 1.82 3.33 .22* -.03 .24* 1.00 .27** .39** .30* .39* .43** 5. Perceived Responsiveness 1.59 1.12 .38** .05 .27** .24* 1.00 .39** .37** .45** .32** 6. Positive affect 2.96 1.11 .39** .02 .20** 17** .44** 1.00 .42** .56** .59** 7. Coworker satisfaction 3.98 0.77 .17** .00 .05 .07 .40** .23** 1.00 .70** .41** 8. Job satisfaction 5.04 1.19 .38** -.05 .16** .14* .43** .59** .37** 1.00 .45** 9. Organizational citizenship 2.81 .82 .24* .09 -.03 .07 .12** .16** .04 .34* 1.00 Note. Between-individual correlations are above the diagonal. Within-individual correlation s are below the diagonal. *p<.01. **p<.05. p<.10.
40 Table 3-2. Parameter estimates and vari ance components of null models for level-1 variables Variable Intercept ( 00) Withinindividual variance ( 2) Betweenindividual variance ( 00) % variance withinindividual Positive news disclosures 1.82** 7.06 2.99 70.25 Perceived responsiveness 1.57** 1.51 .73 67.41 Positive affect 2.99** .46 .73 38.33 Coworker satisfaction 3.99** .33 .24 57.89 Job satisfaction 5.06** .93 .48 65.96 Organizational citizenship 2.80** .23 .46 33.33 Note. *p<.01. **p<.05. p<.10.
41 Table 3-3. Hierarchical linear modeling results predicting perceived responsiveness Variable B SE T Level 1 Intercept -1.01 .46 -2.21 1.55 Negative event im portance .03 .07 .37 .03 Positive event im portance .39 .09 4.15** .30 Positive news disclosures .11 .03 2.70** .29 Level 2 Core self-evaluations .73 .13 4.34** .45 Note. *p<.01. **p<.05. p<.10.
42 Table 3-4. Hierarchical linear modeling results predicting positive affect Variable BSEt Level 1 Intercept .87 41 2.13* 2.96 Negative event importance -.01 .04 -.14 .00 Positive event importanc e .25 .05 4.68** .19 Positive news disclosures .04 .01 3.07** .14 Level 2 Core self-evaluatio ns .59 .12 5.06** .37 With Perceived Responsiveness Level 1 Intercept 1.33 .41 3.24** 3.07 Negative event importanc e .01 .04 .37 .01 Positive event Im portance .22 .07 3.00** .17 Positive news disclosur es .01 .01 1.01 .04 Perceived responsivenes s .15 .04 3.52* .22 Level 2 Core self-evaluations .32 .13 2.42* .20 Perceived responsivenes s .24 .09 2.82** .44 Cross-level Interaction CSE x Perceived respons iveness -.03 .05 -.62 -.08 Note. **p<.01. *p<.05. p<.10.
43 Table 3-5. Hierarchical linear modeli ng results predicting job satisfaction Variable B SE t Level 1 Intercept 2.89 .36 7.99** 5.04 Negative event impor tance -.06 .05 -1.15 -.06 Positive event im portance .24 .07 3.40** .18 Positive news disclosures .03 .02 1.77 .11 Level 2 Core self-eval uations .61 .10 5.99** .38 With Perceived Responsiveness Level 1 Intercept 2.88 .35 8.27** 5.12 Negative event impor tance -.06 .06 -1.04 -.08 Positive event im portance .20 .08 2.59** .18 Positive news discl osures .01 .01 .45 .04 Perceived responsiveness .19 .06 3.07** .27 Level 2 Core self-eval uations .53 .11 4.74** .33 Perceived responsiveness .23 .07 3.16** .27 Cross-level interaction CSE x Perceived responsiven ess -.01 .09 -.07 .14 Note. **p<.01, *p<.05, p<.10.
44 Table 3-6. Hierarchical linear modeling results predicting coworker satisfaction Variable B SE t Level 1 Intercept 3.07 .27 11.18** 3.98 Negative event im portance .00 .03 .10 .00 Positive event importance .07 .04 1.78 .05 Positive news disclosures .02 .01 1.71 .06 Level 2 Core self-evaluations .26 .08 3.32** .16 With Perceived Responsiveness Level 1 Intercept 3.13 .26 11.90** 4.01 Negative event import ance .00 .03 -.12 .00 Positive event import ance .02 .05 .45 .04 Positive news disclos ures -.01 .01 -.69 .01 Perceived responsiveness .16 .04 4.48** .18 Level 2 Core self-evaluat ions .16 .08 2.00* .10 Perceived responsiveness .19 .05 3.69** .23 Cross-level Interaction CSE x Perceived responsiven ess .02 .06 .30 .08 Note. **p<.01, *p<.05, p<.10.
45 Table 3-7. Hierarchical linear modeling re sults predicting organizational citizenship behavior Variable B SE t Level 1 Intercept 1.56 .54 2.86** 2.83 Negative event impor tance .08 .06 1.44 .09 Positive event im portance -.03 .04 -.84 -.03 Positive news discl osures .02 .01 1.44 .06 Level 2 Core self-eval uations .36 .16 2.27* .22 With Perceived Responsiveness Level 1 Intercept 1.82 .55 3.34** 2.86 Negative event im portance .06 .06 1.12 .06 Positive Event Importance -.02 .04 -.57 -.02 Positive news di sclosures .02 .01 1.24 .06 Perceived responsiveness .20 .09 -.36* -.02 Level 2 Core self-evaluat ions .20 .17 1.21 .13 Perceived responsiveness .35 .16 2.14* .24 Cross-level Interaction CSE x Perceived responsiven ess -.10 .05 -2.20* -.13 Note. **p<.01, *p<.05, p<.10.
46 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 LowHigh high CSE low CSE Figure 3-1. Moderation of relationship between perceived responsiveness and OCB Organizational Citizenship Perceived Responsiveness
47 Table 3-8. Summary of study findings Hypothesis Finding H1 Within-individuals, di sclosure of positive news to coworkers is positively associated with (a) positive affect, (b ) job satisfaction, and (c) coworker satisfaction at the end of the work day. Supported H2 Within-individuals, di sclosure of positive news to coworkers is positively related to performance of organizational citizenship behaviors that day. Not supported H3 Between-individuals, core self-evaluations are positively associated with average levels of (a) positive affect, (b) job satisfaction, and (c) coworker satisfaction at the end of the day. Supported H4 Between-individuals, core self-evaluations are positively associated with average levels of organizational citizenship behaviors performed during the work day. Supported H5 Within individuals, perceived responsiveness to disclosures of positive news to coworkers is positively associated with (a) positive affect, (b) job satisfaction, and (c) coworker satisfaction at the end of the work day. Supported H6 Between individuals, average perceived responsiveness to disclosures of positive news to coworkers is positively associated with average levels of (a) positive affect, (b) job satisfaction, and (c) coworker satisfaction at the end of the work day. Supported H7 Within individuals, perceived responsiveness is positively associated with daily organizational citizenship behaviors. Supported H8 Between individuals, average perceived responsiveness is positively associated with average levels of organi zational citizenship behaviors. Supported H9 Between individuals, core self-evaluations are positively associated with average levels of perceived responsiveness to positive news disclosures. Supported
48 Table 3-8. Continued Hypothesis Finding H10 Between-individuals, averaged perceived responsiveness partially mediates the relationship between core self-evaluations and (a) positive affect, (b) job satisfaction and (c) coworker satisfaction at the end of the work day. Supported H11 Between individuals, average perceived responsiveness mediates between core self-evaluations and organizational citizenship behaviors performed during the work day. Supported H12 Within individuals, disclosure of positive news to coworkers is positively associated with perceived responsiveness. Supported H13 Within individuals, perceived responsiveness mediates the relation ship between positive news disclosures to coworkers and (a) positive affect, (b) j ob satisfaction, and (c) coworker satisfaction at the end of the work day. Supported H14 Within individuals, perceived responsiveness mediates between daily positive news disclosure to coworkers and organizational citizenship behaviors performed during the work day. Not supported H15 Core self-evaluations moderate the withinindividual relationship between perceived responsiveness and (a) positive affect, (b) job satisfaction, (c) coworker satisfaction, and (d) organizational citizenship behaviors at the end of the day such that the association is more po sitive for high CSES than low CSEs. Not supported
49 CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION Kahn (2007) named personal support as one of the basic ways in which pe ople can meet each others relational needs and bu ild positive relationships at work. Like most others who write of social support at work, he was referring to support during periods of stress. Yet, the re sults of this study suggest that people also need support for the positive aspects of their lives as well. These findings demonstrate numerous parallels with evidence on the effects of pos itive news disclosure in non-work contexts. As in other contexts, disclosure of positive news at work was asso ciated with well-being. It was related positively to positive affect and job and coworker satisfaction at the end of the day, beyond the effect of the importance of the original positive event. Moreover, the effects of disclosure were, in each case, fully mediated by perceived responsiveness. I extended the research on positive news disc losure by also examining whether it would affect individuals perfo rmance of citizenship behavior s at work. Intraindividually, daily engagement in OCB did not rise wit h positive news disclosures; however, daily perceived responsiveness and average perceived responsiveness were both positively associated with OCB. Thus, di sclosure alone has no impact on citizenship behavior, but people who feel that their coworkers res pond enthusiastically to their good news do tend to behave more altruistically. CSE had the predicted positive relations hips with positive affect, coworker satisfaction, and job satisfaction. Furthermo re, its effect on eac h of the well-being outcomes was partially mediated by perceived responsiveness while its effect on OCB was fully mediated by perceived responsivene ss, providing further evidence supporting the theoretical assertion that CSE influenc es well-being because of its influence on the
50 way that people perceive the world (Judge et al., 1997). CSE does not, however, appear to influence the well-being effects of perceived responsiveness. It does moderate the relationship bet ween daily perceived responsiveness and OCB, but not in the expected way. Contrary to my argument t hat people with high CSE would react more favorably to enthusiastic responses, the relations hip between perceived responsiveness and OCB was actually stronger among peo ple with low CSE. Although this was unexpected, it is not inexplicable. Behavioral plasticity theor y (Brockner, 1988) posits that the actions of people with low self-esteem are more contingent upon external influences than those of people with high self-esteem. Because they are less sure of themselves, people with low self-esteem look to the social environment for behavioral cues. Thus, OCB performance might be more subject to the norms of social exchange among people with low CSE. Receiving an enthusiastic respons e to their positive news communicates to people with low CSE that they are valued or ganizational members, making them more willing to contribute. Meanw hile, people with high CSE do not need this reassurancethey already feel valued-leaving their performance of OCB le ss dependent on social feedback. Theoretical Implications Interest in interpersonal relationships at work has burgeoned in recent years (e.g., Dutton & Ragins, 2007). One stream of scholarship has zoomed in on how people build positive relationships and the implicatio ns of those relationships. There has been far more conceptual than empirical work in this area. Ther e is a growing literature on intraindividual changes in job attitudes and behaviors, but little research on the role of discrete social interactions, particularly am ong coworkers. Yet, as Dutton and Heaphy
51 (2003) noted, When people are at work, connec tions with others compose the fabric of daily life (p. 264). This study sheds light on the significance of at least one type of connection-a type that may be very common. It joins research on the within-individual effects of interpersonal justice (Judge, Sc ott, & Ilies, 2006) and em otional labor (Bono, Foldes, Vinson, & Muros, 2007; Judge, Fl uegge-Woolf, & Hurst, 2008) in building knowledge on the implications of daily interpersonal interactions. This study, furthermore, demonstrates a role for responsiveness in non-intimate relationships. Responsiveness very likely plays a key role in the results of many different types of workplace interact ions. Indeed Losada and Heaphy (2004) used mathematical modeling to dem onstrate how positive responses by one team member to another during meetings affected the teams emotional space. Thus, the construct of responsiveness seems to deserve more attention than theories of workplace relationships have allotted to it until now. This is true even of the lit erature on coworkers social support during periods of stress. Prior research has found mixed resu lts for social support, but Maisel and Gable (2009) found that responsiven ess differentiates between gestures of social support following negative disclosures that reduc e negative outcomes for the discloser and those that do not. Thus, it seems that responsiveness is an important behavioral component of social support, whether the di sclosure is positive or negative. Indeed, Beehr, Jex, Stacy, & Murray (2000) found t hat a measure of coworker support that captured the positivity of respondents co mmunications with coworkers exhibited a stronger negative relationship with strain t han a common, general measure of support
52 received at times of stress. As they noted, more specificity about what constitutes coworker support might lead to a better understanding of its functions. Practical Implications Watercooler conversation-the light discussi on that takes place next to cubicles or around the conference table at the beginning of meetings-i s commonly considered to be a waste of time. This research offers a different angle on such conversations It suggests that the non-task-related conversa tions in which people engage at work are meaningful ingredients in day-to-day well-bei ng. This does not come as a complete surprise. Bono et al. (2007) reported on a daily experience-sampling study in which interactions with coworkers and supervisors were related to health care workers emotional states and stress during the work day. But they did not have participants report on the nature of those interactions. This study, however, helps to deepen our understanding of the specific types of in teractions that influence well-being and performance. Positive news disclosures can set off interactions that are potentially fruitful. Yet, they must be met with responsiveness. This implie s that employees need not only to be encouraged to shar e positive news but also to receive each others news with visible enthusiasm. There is a danger that such encouragement could engender a sense of contrived positivity. People could resent being given specific instructions for interacting. Yet, it might be sufficient to make people aware of how their interactions mi ght affect their own and their coworkers well-being. Also, managers might consider how jobs and organizations could be designed to encour age positive interactions among people. Grant (2007) advanced the idea of relational architecture, defined as the structural properties of work that shape employees opportunities to connect and interact with
53 other people (p. 396). Although Gr ant was interested in the use of job design to move people to make a prosocial impa ct in the lives of their beneficiaries (e.g., nurses and their patients), the definition of relational ar chitecture is sufficiently broad to include ways in which jobs might be designed to infl uence the ways that coworkers interact. Limitations and Future Research As with all research, this study has it s limitations. One is same-source data. Ideally, the measure of CSE would have come fr om a signific ant other, but my efforts to collect significant other repor ts did not meet with much su ccess. I may address this with additional data collection. Nevertheless, ce ntering the Level 1 variables around their group means removes between-individual vari ance in those variables and allays the potential for biased estimates arising from sa me-source variance in the intraindividual analyses. Second, although I argued that positive affect is the mechanism by which positive news disclosure affects OCB, I could not test this asserti on. Indeed, this study does not shed much light on the immediate affectiv e consequences of positive news disclosure interactions and whether those emotional reactions serve as the engine for effects on behavior at work or job attitudes. The findi ngs here lend credence to the assertion by Gable et al. (2004) that positive news disclosur e leads to upward spirals in well-being. This is based on Fredricksons broaden-and-build theory (1998) in which positive emotions broaden peoples thoug ht-action repertoires, build ing social, intellectual, emotional, and physical resources. But, to truly test Fredricksons theory, one would need to investigate whether the outcomes of positive news disclosure stem from positive affect. This study provides evidence t hat it might. Indeed, if it is associated with positive affect later in the day, that is probably due to positive affect engendered during
54 the disclosure interactions. Future research might address this by collecting reports of affect more proximal to positiv e news disclosure interactions. Another direction for future research could be to examine whether CSE affects whether people even attempt to disclose positive news. One prior study that looked at the dispositional determinants of savoring (Bryant, 1989), which is conceptually very similar to capitalizing, found t hat two of the core traits-sel f-esteem and locus of controlare positively and one-neuroticism-is negatively related to savoring positive events by, among other things, sharing them with ot hers. People with high CSE might be more trusting that their news will be received enthusiastically. They might also attach more importance to positive events than people with low CSE. Positive events probably seem less consistent with the self-conceptions of people with low CSE than those of people with high CSE. People should, it seems, attach greater importance to those events that align more closely with how they see them selves (Wood et al., 2003). And it is these events-the seemingly import ant ones-that people should be likely to share. Finally, researchers might look at the re lationship consequences of positive news disclosure. This study provides evidence that it makes people happier with their coworker relationships. But does it enhance coworkers feelings about the relationship as well? People who often disclose positiv e news might be seen as self-centered or braggardly. Prior research has demonstrated that people viewed as narcissistic, though they might view their own performance well, are not viewed favorably by others (Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006). Perhaps one factor that affects whet her positive news disclosure is viewed as narcissistic is the extent to which communication of positive news is twoway, rather than one individual sharing goo d news frequently while others share very
55 little. This might also point to the import ance of examining the extent to which selfdisclosure is the norm for a wo rk group. Future research mi ght investigate this using a social network approach, looking at the amo unt of positive news disclosure occurring in a group and whether it is linked to i ndividual, dyadic, or group outcomes. Conclusion Capitalizing on positiv e events has receiv ed only modest research attention in general and virtually none in the organizational literature. Yet this study suggest that, in the quest to discern the determinants of individual well-being and performance at work, the ways in which people seek to extract gr eater good from positive life events is worth more than a passing glance. Because of it s interpersonal focus, positive news disclosure seems to hold particular promise. Th rough the exchange that it elicits, it may serve as a building block for many of the interpersonal c onstructs that are commonly recognized as vital to the functioning of i ndividuals and work units; constructs such as leader satisfaction, trust, and cohesion. At least as notable as the findings regarding the impact of positive news disclosure are those pointing to the influence of CSE on constructs to which it has not previously been linked: cowo rker satisfaction, positiv e affect, and organizational citizenship behaviors. It is clear that CSE plays a role in the capitalizing process, that it shades the way people perceive their cowork ers responses to their positive news disclosures and, in an unexpected way, affe cts the way that perceived responsiveness influences daily citizenship behaviors.
56 APPENDIX A MODELS Model A1: Effects of CSE and Positive Ne ws Disclosur e on Responsiveness Level1: Yij= 0j + 1disclosure + 2positive event importance + 3negative event importance + Rij Level 2: 0j = 00 + 01CSE + U0j 1 = 10 + U1j 2 = 20 + U2j 3 = 30 + U3j Model A2: Effects of CSE and Positive News Disclosure on Well-Being/OCB Level 1: Yij= 0j + 1disclosure + 2positive event importance + 3negative event importance + Rij Level 2: 0j = 00 + 01CSE + U0j 1 = 10 + U0j 2 = 20 + 21CSE + U0j 3 = 30 + U0j
57 Model A3: Effect of perceived responsive ness as a mediator at Levels 1 and 2 Level 1: Yij = 0j + 1disclosure + 2responsiveness + 3positive event importance + 4negative event importance + Rij Level 2: 0j = 00 + 01CSE + 02Perceived Responsiveness + U0j 1 = 10 + U0j 2 = 20 + U0j 3 = 30 + U0j 4 = 40 + U0j Model A4: Examining cross-leve l moderation effects of CSE Level 1: Yij = 0j + 1disclosure + 2responsiveness + 3positive event importance + 4negative event importance + Rij Level 2: 0j = 00 + 01CSE + 02Perceived Responsiveness + U0j 1 = 10 + U0j 2 = 20 + 21CSE + U0j 3 = 30 + U0j 4 = 40 + U0j
58 APPENDIX B SURVEYS Core Self-Evaluations Scale (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003) 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 an X in the appropriate column. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree I am confident I get the success I deserve in life Sometimes I feel depressed. When I try, I generally succeed. Sometimes when I fail, I feel worthless. I complete tasks successfully. Sometimes, I do not feel in control of my work. Overall, I am satisfied with myself. I am filled with doubts about my competence. I determine what will happen in my life. I do not feel in control of my success in my career. I am capable of coping with most of my problems. There are times when things look pretty bleak and hopeless to me.
59 Positive Event Describe the most positive event or iss ue of the day. It may be something that happened today, something that happened in the past that affected you today, or something that you anticipate happening in the future. Perceived Responses to Capi talization Attempts Scale (Modified version; Gable, Reis, Impett, & Asher, 2004) Take a moment to consider how your co workers responded in general when you told them about the positive event you described Indicate the extent to which each statement is true of your coworkers responses. 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all true Slightly true Somew hat true Quite a bit true Extremely true Active-Constructive 1. Reacted enthusiastically. Passive-Constructive 2. Said little, but I knew they were happy for me. Active-Destructive 3. Found a problem with it. Passive-Destructive 4. Seemed disinterested.
60 Positive Affect Negative Affect Scale (PANAS) Instructions : This scale consists of a number of words and phrases that describe different feelings and emotions you might feel right now. Read each item and then indicate to what extent you feel this way now Use the following scale to record your answers. 1 2 3 4 5 Very slightly Or not at all A little Moderately Quite a bit Extremely 1. _____ Active 11. _____Afraid 2. _____ Alert 12. _____Attentive 3. _____ Distressed 13. _____Inspired 4. _____ Scared 14. _____Determined 5. _____ Strong 15. _____Nervous 6. _____ Excited 16. _____Irritable 7. _____ Guilty 17. _____Interested 8. _____ Hostile 18. _____Proud 9. _____ Enthusiastic 19. _____Jittery 10. _____ Ashamed 20. _____Upset
61 Relationship Assessment Scale (Modified from Hendrick, 1988) Please indicate how true the following statem ents are about your rela tionships with your coworkers today. 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree In general, I am satisfied with my relationships with my coworkers today. I wish I didnt work with my coworkers. My relationships with my coworkers met my expectations today. Coworker Satisfaction Scale (Spector, 1985) 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree Today, I like the people I work with. There was too much bickering and fighting at work today. I enjoyed my coworkers today. I found I had to work harder at my job today because of the incompetence of the people I work with.
62 Job Satisfaction (Modified from Oishi, Diener, C hoi, Kim-Prieto, & Choi, 2007) How was today at work? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Terrible Very bad Pretty bad Okay Pretty good Very good Excellent How satisfied are you with your job today? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Totally dissatisfied Mostly dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Somewhat satisfied Mostly satisfied Totally satisfied
63 Organizational Citizenship Behavior Using the scale below, please indicate how much you did each of the following things today: 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all or never Very little Some Quite a bit or quite often A great deal 1. Was punctual to work, meeti ngs, and other work-related engagements 2. Volunteered for things that were not required. 3. Willingly gave your time to help others who have work-related problems. 4. Showed genuine concern and courtesy toward coworkers. 5. Encouraged coworkers. 6. Gave up time to help others who had non-work problems. 7. Assisted others with their duties. 8. Shared personal property with others to help them work. 9. Kept up with the developm ents of the organization. 10. Defended the organization when ot her employees criticized it. 11. Offered ideas to improve the functioning of the organization. 12. Expressed loyalty toward the organization. 13. Took action to protect the organization from potential problems. 14. Demonstrated concern about the image of the organization.
64 REFERENCES Baldwin, M.W., Baccus, J.R., & F itzsimmons G.M. (2004). Self-esteem and the dual processing of interper sonal contingencies. Self and Identity, 3 81-93. Baldwin, M., Patrick, J., & Keel an, R. (1999). Interpersonal ex pectations as a function of self-esteem and sex. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships 16, 822. Baldwin, M. W., & Sinclair, L. (1996). Se lf-esteem and 'if .then' contingencies of interpersonal acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 1130-1141. Bachrach, D.G. & Jex, S.M. (2000). Or ganizational citizenship and mood: An experimental test of perceived job breadth. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 641-663. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 1173-1182. Baumeister, R.F. & Newman, L.S. (1994) How stories make sense of personal experiences: Motives that s hape autobiographical narratives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 676-690. Blau, Peter M. Exchange and Power in Social Life New York: John Wiley, 1964. Bolger, N., & Schilling, E. A. (1991). Personality and the probl ems of everyday life: The role of neuroticism in exposure an d reactivity to daily stressors Journal of Personality, 59, 355-386. Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for stud ying personality in the stress process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 890-902. Bono, J., Foldes, H., Vinson, G., & Muros, J. (2007). Workplace emotions: The role of supervision and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 92, 1357-1367. Brockner, J. (1988). Self-esteem at work. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Bryant, F. (1989, December). A four-factor model of perceived control: Avoiding, coping, obtaining, and savoring. Journal of Personality 57, 773-797. Cacioppo, J.T. & Gardner W.L. (1999). Emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 191-214. Camp, P.L. & Ganong, L.H. (1997). Locus of control and marital satisfaction in longterm marriages. Families in Society, 78 624-631.
65 Carnevale, P.J. & Isen, A.M. (1986). The in fluence of positive affect and visual access on the discovery of integrative so lutions in bilateral negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 1-13. Chiu, Y., Wu, M., Zhuang, W., & Hsu, Y. (2009). Influences on expatriate social networks in China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 20, 790-809. Damato, A. & Ziljstra, F.R. H. (2008). Climate and individual factors as antecedents of organizational outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17, 33-54. Dandeneau, S., & Baldwin, M. (2004). The inhi bition of socially rejecting information among people with high versus low self-sst eem: The role of attentional bias and the effects of bias reduction training. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology 23 584-602. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Lars en, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985) The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75. Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.L ., Isen, A.M., & Lowrance, R. (1995). Group representations and intergroup bias: Positive a ffect, similarity, and group size. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 856-865. Dutton, J.E. & Heaphy, E.D. (2003). The power of high-qualit y connections. In K.S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton, & R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 263-278). San Francisco, CA : Berrett-Koehler. Gable, S.L., Gonzaga, G.C., & Strachman, A. (2006). Will you be there for me when things go right? Supportive responses to positive event disclosures. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 91 904-917. Gable, S.L., Reis, H.T., & E lliot, A.J. (2000) Behavioral ac tivation and inhibition in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 1135-1149. Gable, S.L., Reis, H.T., Impett, E.A., & As her, E.R. (2004). What do you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interpersonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87 228-245. Gagn, F., Khan, A., Lydon, J., & To, M. (2008). When fl attery gets you nowhere: Discounting positive feedback as a relationship maintenance strategy. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 40, 59-68. George, J.M. (1991). St ate or trait: Effects of positiv e mood on prosocial behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 299-307.
66 Grant, A. (2007). Relational job design a nd the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review 32, 393-417. Grant, A., & Sonnentag, S. ( 2009). Doing good buffers against feeling bad: Prosocial impact compensates for negative task and self-evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, in press. Gunthert, K.C., Cohen, L.H., & Ar meli, S. (1999). The role of neuroticism in daily stress and coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1087-1100. Gyurak, A., & Ayduk, (2007). Defensive physiological reac tions to rejection: The effect of self-esteem and attent ional control on startle responses. Psychological Science 18 886-892. Hendrick, S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The relationship assessment scale. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships 15, 137-141. Hoffi-Hofstetter, H., & Mannheim, B. (1999). Managers' coping resources, perceived organizational patterns, and responses during organizational recovery from decline. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 665-685. Hulin, C. L. (2001). Lessons from I/O psychology In F. D. Drasgow & J. M. Brett (Eds), Psychology of work: Theoretically based empirical research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ilies, R., Scott, B. A., & Judge, T. A. (2006). A multileve l analysis of the effects of positive personal traits, positive experi enced states and their interactions on intraindividual patterns of citizenship behavior at work. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 561-575. Isen, A. (1970). Success, failure attention, and reaction to others: The warm glow of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 15, 294-301. Isen, A., & Levin, P. (1972). Effect of feeling good on help ing: Cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 21, 384-388. Johnson, E.C., Kristof-Brown, A.L., van Vianen, A.E.M., de Pater, I. E., & Klein, M.R. (2003). Expatriate social ties: Persona lity antecedents and consequences for adjustment. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 277-288. 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., Erez, A., & Bono, J. (1998). The power of being positive: The relation between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11, 167.
67 Judge, T., Erez, A., Bono, J., & Thoresen, C. (2003). The co re self-evaluations scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology 56, 303-331. Judge, T., 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. ( 2007a). The benefits and possible costs of positive core selfevaluations: A review and agenda for future research. In D. Nelson & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Positive organizational behavior (pp. 159-174). London, UK: Sage Publications. Judge, T., & Hurst, C. (2007b). Capitalizing on one's advantages: Role of core selfevaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 1212-1227. Judge, T.A. & Hurst, C. (2008). How the rich (and happy) get ri cher (and happier): Relationship of core self-evaluations to trajectories in attaining work success Journal of Applied Psychology 93, 849-863. Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in Organiza tional Behavior, 19, 151-188. 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. Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D. & Judge, T.A. ( 2008). A quantitative revi ew of mentoring research: Test of a model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 269-283. Karney, B.R. & Bradbury, T.N. (1997). Neur oticism, marital interaction, and the trajectory of marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 72 1975-1092. Kurtz, J.E. & Sherker, J.L. (2003). Relationship quality, trait similarity, and self-other agreement on personality ratings in college roommates. Journal of Personality, 71, 21-48. Langston,C.A. (1994). C apitalizing on and coping with da ily-life events: Expressive responses to positive events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1112-1125. Lee, K. & Allen, N.J. (2002). Organizati onal citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 131-142. Leary, M.R., Tambor, E.S., Terdal, S.K., & Downs, D.L. (1995) Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: T he sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68 518-530.
68 Lopez, F.G. & Rice, K.G. (2006) Preliminary development and validation of a measure of relationship authenticity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 362-371. Lopes, P., Salovey, P., & Str aus, R. (2003). Emotional inte lligence, personality, and the perceived quality of soci al relationships. Personality and Individual Differences 35, 641-658. Losada, M., & Heaphy, E. (2004). The role of positivity and connectivity in the performance of business teams. American Behavioral Scientist 47, 740-765. Maisel, N., & Gable, S. ( 2009). The paradox of received so cial support: The importance of responsiveness. Psychological Science, 20, 928-932. Maisel, N., Gable, S., & Stra chman, A. (2008). Responsive behaviors in good times and in bad. Personal Relationships 15, 317-338. Marecek & Mettee (1972). Avoidance of cont inued success as a function of self-esteem, level of esteem certainty, and responsibility for success. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 22 98-107. Murray, S.L., Griffin, D.W., Rose, P., & Bellavia, G. (2006). For better or worse? Selfesteem and the contingencies of acceptance in marriage. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 867-880. Murray, S., Holmes, J., & Collins, N. (2006) Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin 132 (5), 641-666. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (2000). Self -esteem and the quest for felt security: How perceived regard regulates attachment processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 478-498. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Griffin, D. W., Bellavia, G., & Rose, P. (2001). The mismeasure of love: How self-doubt contaminates relationship beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27 423-436. Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G. MacDonald, G., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1998). Through the looking glass darkly? when self-doubts turn into relationship insecurities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 1459-1480. Oishi, S., Choi, D., Diener, E., Kim-Prieto, C., & Choi, I. (2007). The dynamics of daily events and well-being across cu ltures: When less is more. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 93 685-698. Organ, D.W. (1997). Organizatio nal citizenship behavior: Its construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10, 85-97.
69 Penley, L., & Hawkins, B. (1985). St udying interpersonal communication in organizations: A leadership application. Academy of Management Journal 28 309-326. Raudenbush, S.W., Bryk, A.S, & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM 6 for Windows [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientif ic Software International, Inc. Reis, H., Clark, M., & Holmes, J. (2004) Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of intimacy and closeness. Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201-225). Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Reis, H., Clark, M., Pereira Gray, D., Tsai, F., Brown, J., Stewar t, M., et al. (2008). Measuring responsiveness in the therapeutic relationship: A patient perspective. Basic & Applied Social Psychology 30, 339-348. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Societ y and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Seta, J., Donaldson, S., & Seta, C. (1999). Self-relevance as a moderator of selfenhancement and self-verification. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 442462. Silvera, D.H. & Neilands, T. (2004). Interpreting the uninterpr etable: The effect of selfesteem on the interpretati on of meaningless feedback. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 45, 61-66. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653. Spector, P. E. (1985). Measur ement of human service staff sa tisfaction: Development of the Job Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 693-713. Swann, W., & Read, S. (1981a). Acquiring self -knowledge: The search for feedback that fits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41, 1119-1128. Swann, W. B., Jr., & Read, S. J. (1981b). Se lf-verification processes: How we sustain our self-conceptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17 3512. Tellegen, A. & Watson, D. ( 1999). On the dimensional and hi erarchical structure of affect. Psychological Science, 10 297-303. Watson, D. (1988). The vicissitudes of mood measurement: Effects of varying descriptors, time frames, and response formats on measures of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 128-141.
70 Watson, D. & Clark, L.A., Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negativ e affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 1063-1-70. Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. ( 1999). Issues in dimensional st ructure of affect--Effects of descriptors, measurement error, and response formats: Comment on Russell and Carroll (1999). Psychological Bulletin, 125 601-610. Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tell egen, A. (1999). The tw o general activation systems of affect: Structural finding s, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 76 820838. Weiss, H.M. & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affect ive events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1-74. White, J.K., Hendrick, S.S., & Hendrick, C. (2004). Big five personality variables and relationship constructs. Personality & Individual Differences, 37 1519-1530. Wood, J.V., Heimpel, S.A., & Michela, J. L. (2003). Savoring versus dampening: Selfesteem differences in regulating positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 566-580. Wood, J., Heimpel, S., Newbyclark, I., & Ross, M. (2005) Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory: Self-esteem differenc es in the experience and anticipation of success. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 89 764-780.
71 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Originally from Columbia, South Caro lina, Charlice Hurst graduated cum laude with a Bac helor of Arts degr ee in anthropology from Harvard University and completed an International Master of Business Administration in economics at the University of South Carolinas Moore School of Busine ss. She earned a doctorate in business administration with a concentration in organizational behavior from the University of Florida in spring of 2010. Charlice has accepted a position as Assist ant Professor at the University of Western Ontarios Richard Ivey School of Business.