Judge, Bono & Locke, 2000 Personality & Job Satisfaction
Judge, Bono & Locke, 2000 Personality & Job Satisfaction
Judge, Bono & Locke, 2000 Personality & Job Satisfaction
Edwin A. Locke
University of Iowa
University of Maryland
This study tested a model of the relationship between core self-evaluations, intrinsic job characteristics,
and job satisfaction. Core self-evaluations was assumed to be a broad personality concept manifested in 4
specific traits: self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and low neuroticism. The model
hypothesized that both subjective (perceived) job characteristics and job complexity mediate the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction. Two studies were conducted to test the
model. Results from Study 1 supported the hypothesized model but also suggested that alternative models
fit the data well. Results from Study 2 revealed that core self-evaluations measured in childhood and in
early adulthood were linked to job satisfaction measured in middle adulthood. Furthermore, in Study 2
job complexity mediated part of the relationship between both assessments of core self-evaluations and
job satisfaction.
237
238
jobs that are more challenging, they simply view their jobs as more
challenging). Thus, it is critical to understanding the role of core
self-evaluations in job satisfaction to begin to sort out differences
in perceptions from differences in actual jobs held.
The purpose of this study was to advance our understanding of
the relationship between core self-evaluations, job characteristics,
and job satisfaction in several ways. First, we were interested in
whether core self-evaluations are linked to objective measures of
job complexitydo people with positive core evaluations actually
hold more complex jobs? Second, we investigated whether core
self-evaluations relate to perceptions of job characteristics once the
trait's relationship with objective job characteristics (complexity)
is controlled. Finally, we sought to replicate Judge et al. (1998) by
using a longitudinal design, which should provide greater confidence in the causal nature and temporal stability of the results. In
the following section of this article we develop a hypothesized
model of the relationships among core self-evaluations, perceived
job characteristics, job complexity, and job satisfaction.
Hypothesized Model
In an attempt to investigate the degree to which job characteristics are related to core self-evaluations and to satisfaction, we
hypothesized a structural model including both direct and indirect
relations of core self-evaluations and job characteristics with job
satisfaction. Figure 1 contains the hypothesized model. With the
exception of the indirect (mediated) relations, each hypothesized
relationship in the model is discussed below.
ence more objectively positive events in their lives, whereas negatively disposed individuals actually experience more negative
events (Magnus, Diener, Fujita, & Pavot, 1993). As Magnusson
(1990) noted, "An individual's view of himself or herself... with
respect to self-evaluation (overall approval and acceptance of
himself or herself), plays a central role in the process of interaction
with the environment" (p. 201). Thus, it can be argued that
individuals with positive core evaluations would be attracted to
challenging jobs because they see the potential for greater intrinsic
rewards, whereas individuals with a negative self-concept could be
expected to focus on the difficulty and potential for failure of
challenging work, thus avoiding it.
In addition, Bandura's theory of self-regulation also supports a
link between core self-evaluations and job complexity (although it
should be noted that Bandura is not a trait theorist). Bandura's
theory predicts that individuals' beliefs about their capabilities to
perform a task will influence their motivation to seek out or avoid
the task. As Bandura (1997) noted, "People avoid activities and
environments they believe exceed their capabilities, but they
readily undertake activities and pick social environments they
judge themselves capable of handling. The higher the perceived
self-efficacy, the more challenging the activities they select"
(p. 160). Thus, individuals with a positive self-concept should be
more willing to take on enriched jobs because they believe in their
ability to handle the challenges the job provides. Furthermore, one
might also view the link between core self-evaluations and job
challenge as the process by which individuals with positive selfconcepts gain control over their work environment, as has been
suggested with respect to self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) and locus
of control (Spector, 1982).
There are several other ways in which core self-evaluations may
be linked to job complexity. In a test of the impact of self-esteem
on goal difficulty, Levy and Baumgardner (1991) found that individuals high in self-esteem chose more difficult goals. These
findings were consistent with those of Hall and Foster (1977), who
found a relationship not only between self-esteem and goals but
also between self-esteem and task involvement (which was related
239
240
Method
Data and Procedure
Participants in Study 1 were randomly selected from all zip codes of a
midsized midwestem city. In an attempt to minimize the number of surveys
sent to households without working adults, we purchased a mailing list that
was limited to individuals between the ages of 24 and 58 (excluding most
college students and retirees), and with a household income of $20,000 or
more (so as to exclude those working part time). Surveys were mailed
to 1,981 men and women along with a cover letter assuring participants that
individual responses were confidential. Included in the mailing was a
second survey to be completed by a significant other. Significant others
were instructed to complete their surveys away from the focal person and
to return it directly to the researchers in a separate postage-paid envelope
that was included with the questionnaire. Questionnaires were numbered so
that significant-other responses could be matched with those of respondents. In return for their participation, respondents were offered the opportunity to enter their names into a drawing for $200.
Measures
Self-esteem. The first core evaluations trait discussed by Judge et al.
(1997) is self-esteem. Self-esteem was measured using Rosenberg's (1965)
10-item self-esteem scale, which includes items such as "I feel that I am a
person of worth, at least on an equal basis with others" and "At times I
think I am no good at all" (reverse scored). Scores for individual items,
which ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), were
summed to produce a single self-esteem score for each respondent. Significant others completed these same 10 self-esteem items.
Generalized self-efficacy.
As the second core evaluations trait discussed by Judge et al. (1997), generalized self-efficacy was measured using
seven items from a scale developed by Judge et al. (1998). Respondents
were asked to use a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) scale to
indicate their level of agreement with statements such as "I am strong
enough to overcome life's struggles" and "I often feel that there is nothing
that I can do well" (reverse scored). Each individual's scores on the seven
items were summed to form a single generalized self-efficacy score.
Significant others completed these same seven generalized self-efficacy
items.
Locus of control. To measure the locus-of-control component of core
self-evaluations, four items measuring internal locus of control were taken
from the Internality, Powerful Others, and Chance Scale (Levenson, 1981).
Individuals were asked to indicate their agreement with statements regarding the extent to which they have control over events in their lives, such as
"When I get what I want, it's usually because I am lucky" (reverse scored)
and "My life is determined by my own actions." As with the other core
self-evaluations measures, the scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree), with higher scores representing an internal locus of
control. Scores for each item were summed to produce a single locus-ofcontrol score for each respondent. For the significant-other survey, these
same four items were used.
Neuroticism. To measure the final component of core self-evaluations,
neuroticism, we used the 12-item Eysenck Personality Inventory (Eysenck
& Eysenck, 1968) Neuroticism scale. Individuals were asked to indicate
their agreement with statements concerning the degree to which they
experience feelings of irritability, nervousness, worry, embarrassment, or
guilt, such as "I am a nervous person" and "I am a worrier." The same 1-5
241
Results
Descriptive Statistics, Scale Reliabilities,
and Intercorrelations
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics, scale reliabilities, and
intercorrelations of study variables. To permit examination of
unconnected relations among the concepts in the model, also included in Table 1 are two composite core self-evaluations indices
(one for self-reports and one for significant-other reports) that
were equally weighted combinations of the four core traits and a
similar composite index for the two individual measures of job
satisfaction. As was the case with Judge et al. (1998), locus of
control displayed the lowest correlations with the other core traits
242
Table 1
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Self-esteem
Generalized self-efficacy
Locus of control
Neuroticism
Core self-evaluations composite
Self-esteem, SOR
Self-efficacy, SOR
Locus of control, SOR
Neuroticism, SOR
Core self-evaluations composite, SOR
Perceived job characteristics
Job complexity
Job satisfaction (Brayfield & Rothe,
1951)
Job satisfaction (Judge et al., 1994)
Job satisfaction composite
SD
41.52
29.49
14.95
27.14
0.00
41.35
29.41
15.51
26.17
0.00
70.77
5.13
25.88
6.29
4.21
2.51
8.59
3.27
6.06
4.39
2.43
8.38
3.15
11.81
2.11
6.89
87
77
46
-65
89
44
41
86
47
-60
88
41
40
0.00
0.00
2.67
1.92
43
43
32
33
10
70
-29
69
26
26
90
-79
-41
-38
84
47
45
86
80
27 -28
28 -29
40
41
24
24
11
12
13
14
15
86
96
91
86
16
41
70
15
29 -12
22
35
-33 -28 -12
50 -38 -62 -58 -22
90
43
63 -77 80
39
29 -44
48
88
88
36
36
39
21
13 -13 23 73
29 -27
26
20
16
13 -16
20
24
18 -02 -19 19 23 69"
40
12 -07 18 59 16 89
31
27 -27
39
22
17
20
19
11
12
-11 21 59
-09 19 62
16
17
84
96
Note. Coefficient alpha reliability estimates are on the diagonal. Decimals are omitted from correlations and reliabilities. N = 348. SOR = significantother reports, p .05 at r = .11. p < .01 at r = .14.
a
From Cain and Green (1983).
trol displayed lower factor loadings than the other core traits, and
locus of control contributed less to the core concept. Thus, it might
be asked whether locus of control is necessary to form the core
self-evaluations concept. As suggested by a reviewer, to test this
possibility we constrained the second-order loading involving locus of control to zero. If locus of control contributes little to the
core concept, the fit of the model will not be reduced. However,
estimation of this model revealed that constraining the locus-ofcontrol second-order loading to zero significantly reduced the fit of
the second-order model, Ax^l, N = 414) = 107.62, p < .01.
Constraining the second-order loadings of the other core traits to
zero reduced the fit of the model to an even greater degree. Thus,
within the confines of this measurement model, it appears that all
four traits are important elements of the core concept, though
future research should investigate the adequacy of locus of control
in identifying the core self-evaluations concept, which may also
require looking at the adequacy of locus-of-control measures.
243
Self-Esteem #1
Self-Esteem #2
Self-Esteem #3
Self-Efficacy #1
Self-Efficacy #2
Self-Efficacy #3
Neuroticism #1
Neuroticism #2
Neuroticism #3
Locus of Control #1
Locus of Control #2
Locus of Control #3
Figure 2. Second-order factor analysis resultsself-report data. First-order factor loadings were estimated
from first-order factor analysis. * p < .01.
.98, AGFI = .96, NFI = .98, NNFI = .99, IFI = .99, RFI = .97,
PNFI = .56.
LISREL estimates for the mixed data model, which relates
significant-other reports of the core evaluations to self-reports of
job characteristics, job complexity, and job satisfaction, are provided in the lower row of Figure 3. Results show that core
evaluations (as reported by significant others) had a significant
relationship to job complexity. However, the relationship between
core evaluations and perceptions of job characteristics was weaker
in this model, leading to the inference that some of the relationship
between core evaluations and perceptions of work characteristics
in the self-report model may be based on common method variance. Another difference from the self-report model was that core
self-evaluations no longer had a significant direct relationship with
job satisfaction. Results also show that job complexity had a
relationship, in this model, with perceptions of job characteristics
similar to that found in the self-report model. Finally, consistent
with the self-report model, perceptions of work characteristics and
job satisfaction were strongly related, whereas job complexity had
no direct relationship with job satisfaction. However, as in the
self-report model, job complexity had a significant indirect relationship with job satisfaction (r = .19, p < .05) as mediated
through perceived job characteristics. Fit statistics for the mixed
244
Perceived Job
Characteristics
.63*
.24*7
N.'6*
i
.20*
.24*
Core SelfEvaluations
.26*\
.28*
_^-^
X^
(
Job
H
Satisfaction
.04
^_,^__-^'
Job
Complexity
Figure 3. LISREL resultsStudy 1. Estimates in top row represent results from self-report model; estimates
in bottom row represent results from mixed data model. * p < .01.
the model that drops the link between job complexity and job
satisfaction, results indicated that dropping the link did not decrease the fit of the model for either the self-report, Ay2(l, N =
384) = 0.20, ns, or mixed data, A^l, N = 351) = 0.61, ns,
models. Thus, it appears that two of the direct links in the hypothesized model could be eliminated (thus simplifying the model)
without causing it great damage.
Study 2
Study 2 was conducted in an attempt to examine the extent to
which the relationships between core self-evaluations, job characteristics, and job satisfaction are robust over time. This study uses
longitudinal data collected over a period of 30 years to test the
hypothesized model.
Method
Data and Procedure
The data for this study were obtained from the Intergenerational Studies
(IGS), administered by the Institute of Human Development, University of
Table 2
Direct, Indirect, and Total Relationships Between Core SelfEvaluations and Job Satisfaction
Study 1
Relationship
Direct
Indirect
Total
Proportion of relationship
mediated
Study 2
.04
.22**
.26**
.20
.16**
.36**
.34**
.11**
.45**
.56
.85
.44
.24
245
scale include "Is self-defeating" (reverse scored), "Is satisfied with self,"
and "Is self-pitying" (reverse scored). Responses to these 8 items were
summed to form a measure of core self-evaluations for each time period.
The reliability of this scale was a = .72 for children ages 13 and 16, and
a = .74 for the adult assessment. Childhood core self-evaluations were
assessed as the average of the age 13 and age 16 assessments, whereas
adulthood core self-evaluations were assessed with the single (ages 30-38)
early adulthood assessment.
Job satisfaction. Overall job satisfaction was measured when participants were 41-50 years old, with an eight-item scale that asked participants
to report their satisfaction with various facets of their job (e.g., income,
supervision, job security, coworkers). Interviewers coded responses on a 1
(dislike it very much) to 5 (like it very much) scale. Responses to these eight
items were summed to form a measure of overall job satisfaction. The
reliability of this scale was a = .92.
Job complexity. At the same time participants' job satisfaction was
measured, job complexity was measured by matching the DOT rating of
job titles to the participants' jobs. The DOT evaluates job complexity in
terms of complexity in dealing with people (rated on a 0-8 scale anchored
by mentoring [0] and taking instructions [8]), data (rated on a 0-6 scale
anchored by synthesizing [0] and coordinating [6]), and things (rated on a
0-7 scale anchored by setting up [0] and handling [7]). These three facets
were summed (a = .72) to form an overall measure of job complexity.
After summing the facets, the scale was reverse scored to make high scores
indicate more complex jobs.
Results
Table 3 presents descriptive statistics, scale reliabilities, and
intercorrelations of study variables. Correlations between study
variables were consistent with Study 1 results. Specifically, core
self-evaluations, measured in both childhood and early adulthood,
were significantly correlated with job complexity and job satisfaction. Job complexity was also significantly correlated with job
satisfaction, at a level higher than that in Study 1. Results also
revealed relatively strong correlations between the childhood assessments of core self-evaluations and the early adulthood assessment. From the time individuals were teenagers to when they were
in their 30s, the correlation between their core self-evaluations was
.46. When corrected for unreliability, this correlation rose to .62.
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics, Scale Reliabilities, and Intercorrelations of Study 2 Variables
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
SD
0.00
0.00
5.21
27.96
1.76
1.00
74
46
22
2.35
5.71
27
74
19
43
72
41
92
Note. Decimals are omitted from correlations and reliability coefficients. Coefficient alpha reliability estimates
are on the diagonal. All correlations are significant at p < .05. Listwise N = 107.
246
Figure 4. Results indicate that core self-evaluations had a significant relationship with job complexity in both models. However,
core self-evaluations had a significant direct relationship with job
satisfaction only in the early adult model (in which core evaluations were assessed when participants were ages 30-38). Results
also showed that job complexity was significantly related to job
satisfaction in both models. The fit statistics for the childhood
model were as follows: ^(3, N = 107) = 2.70 (ns), RSEA = .01,
GFI = .99, AGFI = .96, NFI = .97, NNFI = 1.00, IFI = 1.00,
RFI = .93, PNFI = .48. For the adult model, the fit statistics were
as follows: )?(2, N = 151) = 0.11, ns, RSEA = .01, GFI = 1.00,
AGFI = 1.00, NFI = 1.00, NNFI = 1.00, IFI = 1.00, RFI = 1.00,
PNFI = .67.
The last two columns of Table 2 contain the direct, indirect, and
total (direct + indirect) relations of the core self-evaluations
concept to job satisfaction for the childhood and adulthood models.
As with Study 1, results indicated a significant indirect relationship
between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction. Also similar to
Study 1, results were somewhat inconsistent regarding the direct
relationship. There was also some inconsistency in the percentage
of the relationship that was mediated by job characteristics. In
total, results indicated that at least part of the relationship between
core self-evaluations and job satisfaction was mediated by job
characteristics, though the exact magnitude of the mediation is not
clear.
Discussion
The primary contribution of these studies was to reveal that job
complexitythe actual attainment of challenging jobswas an
important explanatory variable in the relationship between core
self-evaluations and job satisfaction, and to show that the relationship between core self-evaluations and job satisfaction persisted
over time. Brief (1998) discussed two different models of job
satisfaction: top-down, in which satisfaction is derived from how
one interprets one's environment, and bottom-up, in which satisfaction is derived from the experience of more positive job conditions. Previous research has supported the top-down model
(Judge et al., 1998). At the same time, results of the present studies
appear to support the bottom-up model. Regardless of which
alternative model is adopted, core self-evaluations had a significant total relationship with job satisfaction in all four models
tested, and similarly, core self-evaluations had a direct relationship
with job complexity. Because job complexity, core selfevaluations, and job satisfaction were measured with independent
methods and, in the case of Study 2, core self-evaluations were
measured before job satisfaction (in the case of the childhood
model, 30 years before job complexity and job satisfaction), confidence can be placed in the results.
Results from Study 2 indicated that core self-evaluations were
related to job satisfaction over time. As is to be expected, the
relationship was stronger when core evaluations were measured in
adulthood, but it is impressive that independent childhood assessments correlated with job satisfaction 30 years later. Only one
previous study (Staw et al., 1986) has related IGS data to job
satisfaction, and similar results were found with respect to Staw et
al.'s measure of affective disposition, which they acknowledged to
have some conceptual ambiguities. However, Staw et al. did not
link personality to job complexity.
Results from Study 2 also provided insight into the stability of
the core self-evaluations concept. Research on the Big Five personality traits suggests that the average correlation between the
Figure 4. LISREL resultsStudy 2. Estimates in top row represent results using childhood personality ratings;
estimates in bottom row represent results using early adult (ages 30-38) personality ratings. * p < .01.
traits is .58 over roughly the same time period (20 years) as that in
Study 2 (Costa & McCrae, 1994). The stability of core selfevaluations in Study 2 was somewhat lower: .46 (.62 when corrected for unreliability). The slightly lower stability may be due to
the fact that the time interval included an individual's formative
years (whereas Costa & McCrae's, 1994, data only considered
stability in adult personality), or it may be due to the fact that some
traits may be somewhat less stable than others (House et al., 1996).
Thus, although the stability of core self-evaluations is moderately
high, it is not so high to suggest that it is immutable to change. We
are aware of no previous research on the stability of the core
self-evaluations concept, so future research should explore this
issue further.
Some degree of confidence can be placed in the interpretation of
our results because we used independent sources of data to eliminate response-response bias and a longitudinal design to support
the assumed causal ordering of the variables. However, with
respect to several important aspects of the model, causal inferences
cannot be drawn. Specifically, it is just as likely that the hypothesized link from perceived job characteristics to job satisfaction is
also (or instead) in the opposite direction, from job satisfaction to
perceived job characteristics. Ideally, we would have tested a
nonrecursive model that tested a reciprocal relationship between
the two concepts, something that has been done in past research
(James & Jones, 1980; James & Tetrick, 1986). Unfortunately,
such tests require a number of instrumental variables that uniquely
influence each concept; it was not possible to use such variables in
this study. Thus, little weight can be placed on the hypothesized
causal ordering of the perceived job characteristics-job satisfaction relationship. For this reason, the results involving perceived
job characteristics are merely exploratory. Only experimental studies involving core self-evaluations, perceived task characteristics,
and task satisfaction would confirm the hypothesized causal
structure.
More weight can be placed on the relationship between core
self-evaluations and job complexity, which is where the unique
contribution of this study lies. For the first time, it has been shown
that part of the reason individuals with positive core selfevaluations perceive more challenging jobs and report higher
levels of job satisfaction is that they actually have obtained more
complex (and thus more challenging and intrinsically enriching)
jobs. Judge et al.'s (1997) theory of core evaluations suggests three
possible paths from core self-evaluations to job satisfaction: direct,
indirect through job attribute perceptions, and indirect through
on-the-job actions taken to make the job more rewarding (e.g.,
showing initiative). This study provides the first general support
for the action mediator.
Correlations between self- and significant-other reports of core
self-evaluations in Study 1 were far from perfect (the mean corrected correlation between the core traits was .49), and self-reports
of core self-evaluations had a higher relationship with job satisfaction than the significant-other reports. One might question the
use of significant-other reports for self-evaluations. Whereas an
individual's own core self-evaluations can be perceived directly,
from the perspective of others they must be inferred. However,
errors can be made in both cases. On the one hand, self-reports
may not be completely accurate because of the possibility of
self-enhancement. Further, in this case, self-reports also introduce
the possibility of response-response bias in the results. On the
247
248
self-reported core self-evaluations, .19 for significant-other reported core evaluations; see Table 1) nonsignificant. The nonrespondent correlation between core self-evaluations and job complexity that would render the observed correlation nonsignificant is
.09. Because both of these values are well below the observed
correlations (see Table 1), the relationships among nonrespondents
would have to be quite different than those that were observed in
this study. Furthermore, the representativeness of the sampleall
data were collected from residents of a single Midwestern cityis
a limitation. It is critical that future research replicate these results
with more diverse, particularly international, samples.
Future studies should attempt to build on the theory of core
evaluations offered by Judge et al. (1998). Although our findings
demonstrate a relationship between core self-evaluations and job
complexity (and thus extend previous findings that considered
only perceptions of job characteristics), they do not shed light on
the processes leading to the relationship. There are a number of
mechanisms that may link core self-evaluations to job complexity.
Job choice was one of the actions specifically mentioned by Judge
et al. (1997). People who are generally confident in themselves
should be more likely to think they can get challenging jobs.
People with high self-esteem also tend to have better social networks and make more favorable impressions on others (Locke,
McClear, & Knight, 1996), enhancing their ability to obtain complex jobs. Other possible mechanisms linking core self-evaluations
and job complexity include job behaviors such as goal setting, goal
commitment, effort and tenacity in the face of setbacks, and coping
with negative events at work. Other actions that might assist
positively disposed individuals in obtaining complex jobs include
efforts to improve one's skills and to exercise leadership. Finally,
given the link between core self-evaluations and job complexity
found in two separate studies here, and given the somewhat inexact
measurement of job complexity, more work is needed on the
construct validity of job complexity. Thus, although the present
study extends recent work on core self-evaluations, there is a need
for further extension.
References
Adelmann, P. K. (1987). Occupational complexity, control, and personal
income: Their relation to psychological well-being in men and women.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 529-537.
Anderson, C. R. (1977). Locus of control, coping behaviors, and performance in a stress setting: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 62, 446-451.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in
practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological
Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
Arvey, R. D., Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L., & Abraham, L. M. (1989). Job
satisfaction: Environmental and genetic components. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 74, 187-192.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy:
The exercise of control. New York:
Freeman.
Block, J. (1971). Lives through time. Berkeley, CA: Bancroft Books.
Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. F. (1951). An index of job satisfaction.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307-311.
Brief, A. P. (1998). Attitudes in and around organizations. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Brief, A. P., Butcher, A., & Roberson, L. (1995). Cookies, disposition, and
job attitudes: The effects of positive mood inducing events and negative
249