The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm
JMP
29,2
122
Received 29 June 2012
Revised 31 January 2013
Accepted 7 March 2013
Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 29 No. 2, 2014
pp. 122-140
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
DOI 10.1108/JMP-06-2012-0193
Psychological capital, Big Five
traits, and employee outcomes
Yongduk Choi and Dongseop Lee
Korea University Business School, Seoul, South Korea
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this paper was to examine the incremental validity of positive psychological
capital (PsyCap) in predicting several important employee outcomes while controlling for a full range
of personality traits.
Design/methodology/approach Using a cross-sectional field study design, the authors collected
data from 373 employees in South Korea.
Findings Hierarchical multiple regression analyses revealed that employees PsyCap is related to
their perceived performance, turnover intention, work happiness, and subjective well-being, even after
controlling for the Big Five personality traits.
Research limitations/implications By controlling for the Big Five traits, this study was able to
evaluate the role of PsyCap more precisely. However, as the data were collected from the same source
at one point in time, common method variance is a potential issue.
Practical implications The findings suggest that managers need to focus on developing
employees PsyCap, given its unique effect on the outcome variables.
Social implications By developing employees PsyCap, organizations could turn work into a
significant source of happiness and life satisfaction for their employees.
Originality/value This study identified the broad and unique effect of PsyCap on work and life
outcomes beyond personality traits.
Keywords Performance, Turnover intention, Big Five traits, Psychological capital,
Subjective well-being, Work happiness
Paper type Research paper
In the past ten years, efforts to understand human functioning via a positive lens have
been applied to the workplace. Consequently, positive organizational behavior (POB)
has been developed (Bakker and Schaufeli, 2008). POB refers to the study and
application of positively oriented human resource strengths and psychological
capacities that contribute to organizational outcomes, such as employee attitudes,
behaviors, and performance (Luthans and Youssef, 2007c). A growing body of research
to date indicates that psychological capital (PsyCap), a core construct of POB, may
have a positive effect on important work attitudes and behaviors, including job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, absenteeism, turnover intention,
organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), and work performance (Avey et al., 2009;
Avey, Luthans, Smith, and Palmer, 2010; Luthans, Avolio, Avey and Norman, 2007a;
Walumbwa et al., 2010). PsyCap is defined as an individuals positive psychological
state of development that is characterized by: having confidence (self-efficacy) to take
on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; making a positive
attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; persevering toward
goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and
when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even
beyond (resilience) to attain success (Luthans, Youssef and Avolio, 2007b, p. 3). As a Psychological
higher-order construct consisting of hope, efficacy, optimism, and resilience that can capital
change and develop, PsyCap is proposed to be concerned with who you are becoming
and your best self, going beyond human capital (i.e. what you know) and social
capital (i.e. who you know) (Luthans and Youssef, 2004).
Given the early stage of the development of PsyCap research, however, we suggest
that more research is needed to better understand whether PsyCap is indeed an 123
important and meaningful variable at work and in life. The purpose of this study is to
enrich our understanding of the unique effect of PsyCap on work and life outcomes,
contributing to the literature in three ways. First, although PsyCap has been proposed to
have a unique effect on various outcome variables beyond individual differences, such as
personality traits, most empirical studies have not directly tested this proposition in the
presence of a full range of personality factors. Represented by the Big Five, relatively
stable and dispositional personality traits have been widely recognized to have
significant effects on various individual outcomes that are also suggested to be
influenced by PsyCap (Barrick and Mount, 1991; Zimmerman, 2008). Moreover, PsyCap
and the Big Five traits share some conceptual similarity in the sense that they both are
positive in nature (Luthans, Avolio, Avey and Norman, 2007a). For example, resilience of
the PsyCap dimensions refers to ones capacity to rebound or bounce back from
adversity (Masten and Reed, 2002) while emotional stability works to maintain relatively
stable emotional functioning concerning personal anxiety, insecurity, and depression
(Barrick and Mount, 1991). Although both are conceptually associated with positive
coping or adaptation to change or adversity, psychological resilience is different from
emotional stability as well as other traits because it includes proactive property that
allows individuals to grow and even thrive in the face of adversity, going beyond simple
reactive adaptations or perseverance that conscientious or emotionally stable individuals
take towards the adversity (Luthans and Youssef, 2007c). Given the potential functional
and conceptual overlap between PsyCap and personality traits, ignoring the role of
personality may lead to overstating the importance of PsyCap. Controlling for a full
range of personality traits would help ensure more accurate and systematic evaluation of
the unique contribution of PsyCap by enhancing the internal validity of the findings.
Second, we note that the extant research on PsyCap is limited in scope, as it has
focused almost exclusively on the effect of PsyCap on work-related outcomes. The
findings thus far revealed that employees PsyCap might induce positive work-related
attitudes and behaviors, which in turn contribute to organizational outcomes. To
appreciate the full potential of PsyCap, however, it is necessary to view PsyCap not
only as a functional variable for performance enhancement, but also as a fundamental
psychological capacity for human life (Wright, 2003). Research suggests that
happiness at work and in life is an essential ingredient for employees psychological
and physical health and work-life balance (Diener, 2000) and are related to
problem-solving capability, task competence, and interpersonal relationship
(Lyubomirsky et al., 2005). Much can be improved in our understanding of the
nature and functions of PsyCap by widening the scope of our examination to include a
more diverse range of outcomes.
Third, in terms of research setting, most PsyCap research has been conducted in the
US. Only a limited number of studies examined PsyCap in different cultures, such as
China (Luthans, Avey, Smith and Li, 2008a), Portugal (Rego et al., 2010), and Turkey
JMP (Cetin, 2011). Moreover, the findings from these international settings are not
29,2 consistent. The present study conducted with employees from South Korea answers
Luthans and Youssefs (2007c) call for testing the external validity of PsyCap in a wide
range of settings with an aim to understand its contextual applicability and limitations.

Theoretical background and hypotheses

124 PsyCap and performance
PsyCap is considered an important psychological resource, which can improve
employees performance through its positive cognition and motivational processes
(Luthans, Youssef and Avolio, 2007b). Empirical results have revealed that PsyCap is
associated with performance (Avey, Nimnicht and Pigeon, 2010; Luthans, Avey Smith
and Li, 2008a; Luthans, Avolio, Avey and Norman, 2007a; Walumbwa et al., 2010).
Despite those empirical associations, however, the unique effect of PsyCap on
performance remains largely undetermined because most previous studies did not
control for other individual differences, such as personality traits, which are valid
predictors of work-related performance (Barrick and Mount, 1991). While Avey,
Nimnicht and Pigeon (2010) reported that PsyCap was related to salespersons
performance when extraversion was controlled for, we note that extraversion is not the
only trait that affects performance (Barrick et al., 2001). To date, there seems to be no
clear evidence that PsyCap indeed has a unique effect on employee performance in the
presence of a full range of personality traits, such as the Big Five.
The importance of controlling for the Big Five traits when investigating the effect of
PsyCap concerns the fact that PsyCap and the Big Five conceptually share positivity,
as they both take positive approaches to understanding human functioning (Luthans,
Avolio, Avey, and Norman, 2007a). Moreover, meta-analytic findings have shown that
the Big Five traits are associated with work performance (Barrick and Mount, 1991;
Barrick et al., 2001). Specifically, conscientiousness among the Big Five has the largest
average correlation with performance across various contexts, as conscientious
individuals tend to be responsible, persistent, and hardworking. Emotional stability
also contributes to performance in general by effectively controlling negative emotions,
such as worry, nervousness, and stress. On the other hand, extraversion and
agreeableness are predictive of performance particularly when substantial
interpersonal interaction is required, while openness to experience tends to predict
the criteria that are relevant to learning. Given the empirical associations between
personality traits and performance as well as the conceptual similarity between
PsyCap and the Big Five, we posit that it is essential to control for all Big Five
personality traits to understand the PsyCaps unique value to performance.
Despite a possible overlap between the Big Five traits and PsyCap, we still expect to
find a positive effect of PsyCap on performance. A primary rationale is that state-like
PsyCap is a more proximal predictor of performance than are more distal personality
traits (Locke and Latham, 2004). Research suggests that each of the four positive
constructs forming PsyCap is related to desirable employee performance. For example,
self-efficacy enables the employee to contribute to performance by accepting
challenging tasks and goals proactively and exerting necessary efforts to achieve them
persistently (Bandura, 1997; Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998). Hope contributes to
performance because hopeful employees have the will to accomplish their goals and the
ability to find alternative ways to reach the goals (Peterson and Luthans, 2003; Snyder,
2002). Resilience can lead to positive results in times of adversity because resilient Psychological
people adapt flexibly to unexpected problems or setbacks and bounce back more capital
readily (Masten and Reed, 2002). In uncertain situations, realistically optimistic
expectations and interpretations help employees increase or maintain their level of
motivation, efforts, and performance (Jensen et al., 2007; Seligman, 1998).
Furthermore, while each factor has its own cognitive and motivational processes
that lead to performance, it is anticipated that combining the factors would enhance the 125
effect of these processes (Luthans, Avolio, Avey and Norman 2007a). That is,
employees with such a composite positive resource have the belief that they can make
positive outcomes, the hope to reach their goals, optimistic yet realistic expectations
about goal achievement, and the ability to bounce back from and beyond various
difficulties. Therefore, PsyCap has a broader and greater effect on work performance
than any one of the four positive constructs.
H1. PsyCap is positively related to performance, controlling for the Big Five traits.

PsyCap and turnover intention

Employee turnover incurs substantial costs to organizations, both in terms of direct
expenditures (e.g. replacement, recruiting, training, and development) and in terms of
hidden costs (e.g. low morale and loss of organizational memory) (Glebbeek and Bax,
2004). Based on the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), which posits that
behavioral intention is a strong and immediate determinant of actual behavior, the
intention of an employee to quit his or her organization has been considered a
significant predictor of future turnover (Tett and Meyer, 1993). To date, only two
studies (Avey et al., 2009; Avey, Luthans, Smith and Palmer, 2010) tested the
relationship between PsyCap and turnover intention but without controlling for a full
range of personality traits. Given that employee turnover intention is affected not only
by situational factors relevant to job or organizational environment, but also by
individuals dispositional traits (Zimmerman, 2008), the unique effect of PsyCap on
turnover intention has yet to be examined in the context of the Big Five traits.
The Big Five variables have received substantial research attention in relation to
turnover intention. For example, emotional stability contributes to reducing turnover
intention by helping employees cope with various stress and negative emotions
(Maertz and Griffeth, 2004). Conscientious employees are less likely to leave their
organizations because they are likely to feel responsible and obliged to stay in their
organizations (Maertz and Griffeth, 2004). Agreeable employees tend to remain at their
organizations by fostering positive relationships with coworkers (McCrae and Costa,
1991) and adapting well to any given environment (Maertz and Griffeth, 2004).
Extraverts are more likely to establish successful social relationships, which in turn,
contributes to an increase in job embeddedness within their organizations (Mitchell
et al., 2001). Contrary to the other Big Five traits, openness to experience is positively
linked to turnover intention because those high in openness to experience value new
experiences and tend to seek other opportunities (Maertz and Griffeth, 2004). Moreover,
according to Zimmermans (2008) meta-analysis, emotional stability among the Big
Five best predicts turnover intention. Therefore, although Avey, Luthans, Smith and
Palmer (2010) reported that PsyCap predicted turnover intention with
conscientiousness and extraversion controlled for, their finding is still limited in that
emotional stability was omitted.
JMP Acknowledging the potential bearings of personality traits, we posit that PsyCap
29,2 can play a major role in preventing negative thoughts that induce employees turnover
intention, by increasing positive experiences in job and social relationships and helping
resolve conflicts and reduce stress at work (Avey, Luthans, Smith and Palmer, 2010).
Moreover, employees with higher PsyCap are more likely to succeed in their current
jobs because they are competent about their capabilities to create desirable work
126 outcomes and devise various alternative pathways to realize them. The more positive
outcomes employees achieve, the more they want to remain in their organizations.
Even when frustrated from failures at work, those with higher PsyCap are likely to
develop optimistic expectations and recover from and go beyond such setbacks by
investing much effort, time, and energy. That is, PsyCap leads to positive adaptability
in the face of adversity rather than to inclination to leave organizations.
H2. PsyCap is negatively related to turnover intention, controlling for the Big Five
traits.

PsyCap and happiness

Along with the developing interest to understand what can make life most valuable
and flourishing, two related happiness constructs work happiness and subjective
well-being (SWB) have received increasing attention from both practitioners and
researchers (Menard and Brunet, 2011). Work happiness refers to the degree to which
people experience positive affect and satisfaction at work (Youssef and Luthans, 2007).
SWB is defined as peoples cognitive and affective evaluations of their lives in
general (Diener, 2000, p. 1). Both concepts reflect subjective senses of satisfaction and
well-being, but they differ from each other in the scope of the domain in which
individuals experience happiness.
As many people spend a significant portion of their daily lives contributing to their
organizations, workplaces have become an important source of peoples happiness. In
addition to the normative values that are attached to work happiness and SWB, we also
posit that these two variables can be important factors in the development of
organizations as well. Furthermore, we argue that the effect of PsyCap on work happiness
and SWB also needs to be evaluated in the presence of personality traits because these
traits predispose individuals to appraise their life and respond to their environments in a
manner congruent with their stable dispositions (McCrae and Costa, 1991). Personality
traits are among the most consistent predictors of such subjective experiences as work
happiness and SWB. For example, extraverts tend to maintain high levels of positive
affect because they are not only sociable and affiliative, but also susceptible to positive
experiences (Barrick and Mount, 1991). Similarly, agreeable people tend to get along well
with their peers. In turn, such social activities and interaction with others increase work
happiness and SWB (Lyubomirsky et al., 2005). Emotional stability helps experience work
happiness and SWB by enabling people to perceive the world optimistically (McCrae and
Costa, 1991). Conscientious people tend to pursue happiness with detailed plans and
responsibility at work and in life (McCrae and Costa, 1991). Finally, openness to
experience can also foster subjective senses of happiness, as it helps employees engage in
interesting activities (McCrae and Costa, 1991).
Despite such theoretical and empirical evidence for the association between
personality traits and happiness, the potential bearings of personality traits have not
been appropriately accounted for in prior research on the effect of PsyCap on the two
happiness variables. In fact, no studies have examined the relationship between Psychological
PsyCap and work happiness. One study reported that some individual components of capital
PsyCap are related to work happiness but without controlling for personality traits
(Youssef and Luthans, 2007). Two previous studies reported that PsyCap is related to
employee well-being (Avey, Luthans, Smith, and Palmer, 2010; Culbertson et al., 2010);
however, neither one controlled for any of personality traits. Thus, it seems timely and
necessary to examine the unique effect of PsyCap on happiness at work and in life 127
while controlling for the Big Five traits.
We propose that even after controlling for the Big Five traits, PsyCap can increase
employees work happiness and SWB because PsyCap helps them perceive and
interpret their work and life experiences positively, obtain positive achievements, and
overcome difficulties and setbacks in their jobs and lives. For example, self-confident
people tend to be more satisfied with their lives, as they obtain higher achievements
(Lyubomirsky et al., 2005). Hopeful people tend to be healthier both mentally and
psychologically, have a positive outlook on their achievement, and be satisfied with
their environment (Snyder, 2002). Optimistic people are more likely to experience
positive emotions and have higher satisfaction in life (Diener, 2000), as they tend to
consider positive outcomes as internal and stable and negative outcomes as external
and temporary (Carver and Scheier, 2001). Resilient employees are more likely to go
through hardships and adapt well even to unexpected situations than to be stuck in
frustration (Masten and Reed, 2002). Thus, PsyCap, as the core construct of those
positive resources, contributes to employee work happiness and SWB.
H3. PsyCap is positively related to work happiness (a) and SWB (b), controlling
for the Big Five traits.

Methods
Sample and procedures
The sample in this study consisted of 373 employees from ten organizations in South
Korea. We contacted human resource directors of 15 organizations in diverse
industries, including manufacturing, services, and finance/banking, to ask for
participation in our data collection. We explained to them that the purpose of the study
is to examine the role of employees traits and psychological states experienced at
work. We explicitly noted that the study is purely academic and that there is no
material compensation for participation. Instead, we offered to share the knowledge
gained from the study through conference presentations. In total, ten organizations
agreed to participate. Hence, we distributed our survey to 650 employees through their
HR directors, along with an accompanying cover letter explaining the purpose of the
study, an assurance of confidentiality, and a prepaid addressed envelope. Overall, 373
employees provided usable responses, resulting in a response rate of 57.4 percent. Of
these respondents, 77 percent were male, and 91 percent reported to have completed
college or a higher level of education. Furthermore, 64 percent of the respondents were
administrative personnel, 16 percent were sales personnel, 12 percent were engineers,
and 6 percent were R&D professionals. Their ages ranged from 20 to 53 years, with an
average of 32.88 years (SD 6.05).
All scales in the survey were translated into Korean using the back-translation
method (Brislin, 1980). First, the second author translated the questionnaires from
original English to Korean. Second, a bilingual linguist translated this Korean version
JMP back to English. Finally, the two translators and the first author compared the two
29,2 English versions (i.e. the back-translated and the original), resolving discrepancies by
collective agreement among them. The survey items are provided in the Appendix.

Measures
We measured PsyCap using the 12-item scale adopted from Luthans, Avolio, Avey and
128 Norman (2007a). The scale included three items for self-efficacy, two items for
optimism, four items for hope, and three items for resilience. All items were measured
on a six-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The 12 items
were averaged to form a single measure of PsyCap to reflect its nature as the
higher-order construct of the four variables. Cronbachs alpha for this scale was 0.90.
We measured individual performance using Luthans, Norman Avolio and Avey
(2008b) scale for self-rated performance. Turnover intention was assessed with a
three-item scale extracted from the Michigan Organizational Assessment
Questionnaire (Cammann et al., 1983). Responses were made on a five-point scale
(1 strongly disagree, 5 strongly agree). Cronbachs alpha for the scale was 0.71.
Work happiness was assessed with the instrument developed by Fordyce (1988). We
slightly modified the items to capture happiness at work rather than general happiness
by adding the term at work. Respondents rated the magnitude of work happiness on
an 11-point scale ranging from extremely unhappy to extremely happy, and they
reported the amount of time they felt happy at work in the form of a percentage. Work
happiness was formed by averaging the two figures. The Cronbachs alpha for the
scale was 0.90. SWB was measured using the five-item satisfaction with life scale
(Diener et al., 1985). The scale measures a persons judgment of global life satisfaction
on a seven-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Cronbachs alpha for the scale was 0.89.
Our key control variables, the Big Five personality traits, were measured using 50
items, ten items for each of the five traits, adopted from Goldberg et al. (2006).
Responses were provided on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). Cronbachs alphas were 0.82 for agreeableness, 0.80 for extraversion,
0.85 for conscientiousness, 0.82 for emotional stability, and 0.81 for openness to
experience. In addition, respondents socio-demographic data (e.g. age, gender,
education level, job type, and organizational tenure) were included as control variables
in the regression models. Job type was measured with five categories, including
administrative personnel, sales personnel, R&D professionals, engineers, and the
others, resulting in four dummy variables.

Results
Table I presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations among study
variables. As the sample consisted of employees from multiple organizations, we
conducted an analysis of variance to see whether the responses on the study variables
differ depending on differences among firms. We found no differences among firms in
the responses on the study variables.

Confirmatory factor analyses

We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to examine the factor structure among
the four constructs that form PsyCap, turnover intention, work happiness, SWB, and
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

1. PsyCap 4.21 0.60 (0.64)

2. Self-rated performance 7.55 1.50 0.41
3. Turnover intention 2.87 0.78 2 0.37 2 0.13 (0.56)
4. Work happiness 45.32 16.84 0.37 0.22 2 0.42 (0.83)
5. SWB 4.28 1.01 0.48 0.12 2 0.36 0.38 (0.62)
6. Agreeableness 3.47 0.46 0.27 0.20 2 0.22 0.24 0.22 (0.70)
7. Conscientiousness 3.52 0.48 0.48 0.40 2 0.22 0.24 0.24 0.27 (0.65)
8. Emotional stability 3.27 0.58 0.44 0.28 2 0.30 0.37 0.42 0.41 0.43 (0.55)
9. Extraversion 3.06 0.52 0.37 0.18 2 0.18 0.30 0.28 0.05 0.23 0.29 (0.56)
10. Openness 3.40 0.56 0.16 0.08 0.11 20.03 0.05 0.08 0.17 0.02 0.19 (0.65)
11. Age 32.88 6.05 0.27 0.32 2 0.16 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.14 0.12 2 0.11 20.12
12. Gender 0.76 0.43 0.19 0.15 2 0.11 0.06 0.02 0.03 20.01 0.18 0.00 20.14 0.44
13. Education 3.86 0.75 0.26 0.07 2 0.09 0.10 0.25 0.11 0.09 0.16 0.14 0.11 0.24 0.22
14. Tenure 3.23 1.42 0.11 0.28 2 0.08 0.00 2 0.02 0.11 0.10 0.03 2 0.15 20.10 0.74 0.22 0.01
15. Job type 1 0.64 0.48 2 0.13 2 0.04 0.01 20.04 2 0.14 0.00 20.01 0.00 2 0.06 0.01 20.12 20.12 20.29 0.11
16. Job type 2 0.16 0.36 0.02 0.00 0.03 20.06 0.02 2 0.05 20.08 20.03 0.04 20.02 0.10 0.16 0.09 0.00 20.58
17. Job type 3 0.06 0.24 0.09 0.01 2 0.03 0.16 0.12 0.14 0.06 0.01 0.09 20.02 20.01 20.12 0.28 20.11 20.34 20.11
18. Job type 4 0.12 0.32 0.08 0.05 2 0.06 0.02 0.08 2 0.04 0.07 0.04 2 0.05 0.02 0.08 0.11 0.13 20.07 20.49 20.16 20.09

Notes: n=373. Correlations above 0.10 are significant at the 0.05 level, and those above 0.13 are significant at the 0.01 level. Average extracted variances are on the diagonal in parentheses. Dummy
codes for gender (1 male, 0 female); job type 1 (1 administrative personnel, 0 other), job type 2 (1 sales personnel, 0 other), job type 3 (1 R&D professionals, 0 other), job type
4 (1 engineers, 0 other)
Psychological

correlations
capital

Means, standard
deviations, and
129

Table I.
JMP the Big Five variables. We used item parcels to represent the indicators of the Big Five
29,2 traits because fitting measurement models with large numbers of items is an overly
stringent approach that may yield poor fit ( Judge et al., 2002, p. 697). We randomly
broke the ten items of each factor of the Big Five into three parcels, resulting in two
three-item parcels and one four-item parcel. We modeled 12 correlated first-order
factors that correspond to a three-item self-efficacy factor, a four-item hope factor, a
130 three-item resilience factor, a two-item optimism factor, a three-item turnover intention
factor, a two-item work happiness factor, a five-item SWB factor, and five three-item
personality factors. The results of confirmatory factor analysis showed that the
12-factor model fit the data adequately x2 1350:67; df 563; CFI 0:90; IFI
0:90; RMSEA 0:06; and the factor correlations between the four PsyCap
components were, as expected, very high, ranging from 0.82 to 0.94. The strong
interrelationships among the four PsyCap components support their posited common
threads of positive cognition and motivational processes, justifying them to be
combined into a higher core factor. On the other hand, the factor correlations between
the four PsyCap components and the other variables were relatively lower, ranging
from 0.03 to 0.55 in absolute values. All items loaded significantly on their underlying
factors with loadings ranging from 0.63 to 0.88 for PsyCap, 0.69 to 0.83 for turnover
intention, 0.71 to 0.89 for SWB, 0.90 to 0.91 for work happiness, and 0.74 to 0.93 for the
Big Five, supporting the measures convergent validity (Hair et al., 1998).
In addition, we assessed the discriminant validity among the measures of PsyCap
(as a combined measure of the four components), turnover intention, work happiness,
SWB, and the five personality traits by conducting a series of Chi-square difference
tests. For each pair of the nine factors, we compared the Chi-square values between the
theoretical nine-factor model and the constrained model in which the correlation
between two given factors was fixed to 1.00, entailing 36 comparisons (Anderson and
Gerbing, 1988). The tests resulted in a significant Chi-square difference
(i.e. significantly worsened fit in the constrained model) in all 36 cases. For example,
while the theoretical model x2 1318:43; df 593; CFI 0:90; IFI 0:90;
RMSEA 0:06 provided a reasonable approximation to the data, the best
competing model in which PsyCap and work happiness were merged into one
construct x2 1353:90; df 594; CFI 0:89; IFI 0:87; RMSEA 0:06 yielded a
significantly poorer fit Dx2 35:47; Ddf 1; p , 0:01; implying that
distinguishing any two constructs indeed makes a meaningful contribution to
explaining our data and that the measures used are distinct from one another. We
further complemented this result with two additional assessments. First, we found that
the confidence interval around the correlation estimate between any two variables
excluded 1.00 (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). We also found that the average extracted
variance of each construct was greater than the constructs shared variance with any
other construct (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). These results indicate that each construct
had more in common with its items than with other constructs, providing further
support for discriminant validity.

Assessing common method bias

Given that the data were obtained from the study participants, we assessed the effect of
the same-source variance using a rigorous statistical test. We re-estimated our
measurement model by adding a latent common method factor (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
All items were allowed to load onto both their theoretical latent constructs and the Psychological
unmeasured latent method factor. The results showed that all factor loadings of the capital
items on their respective theoretical construct remained significant even after the effect
of the common method factor was taken into account. In contrast, the results indicated
frequent non-significant loadings onto the method factor. The theoretical model
without the common method factor produced the following fit indices: x2 783:81;
df 341; p , 0:01; CFI 0:89; IFI 0:90; RMSEA 0:06: The re-estimated model 131
with the additional method factor yielded the following fit indices: x2 607:10; df
312; p , 0:01; CFI 0:93; IFI 0:93; RMSEA 0:05: While the inclusion of the
common method factor improved overall model fit, the amount of the total variance
explained by this method factor was 13 percent, which is well below the suggested 25
percent that is considered an indication of substantial method variance (Williams et al.,
1989). Taken together, these results indicate that the same-source bias was not a
serious threat to this studys findings.

Hypothesis tests
To test the hypotheses, we performed a series of hierarchical regression analyses. We
entered the variables into regression models in three hierarchical steps:
(1) socio-demographic variables;
(2) the Big Five traits; and
(3) PsyCap.
Table II presents the results of the analyses. First, in support of H1, PsyCap
significantly predicted self-rated performance b 0:20; p , 0:01 even after the
socio-demographic variables and the Big Five traits were controlled for, explaining an
additional 3 percent of variance in the self-rated performance p , 0:01: Among the
Big Five, conscientiousness remained a significant predictor of performance, which is
consistent with Barrick and Mounts (1991) meta-analytic findings. Second, in support
of H2, PsyCap was negatively related to turnover intention b 20:29; p , 0:01
beyond the control variables, explaining an additional 5 percent variance in turnover
intention p , 0:01: As found in past research (Zimmerman, 2008), openness to
experience was also related to turnover intention. Third, PsyCap predicted both work
happiness b 0:19; p , 0:01 and SWB b 0:36; p , 0:01; supporting H3a and
H3b, respectively. The addition of PsyCap accounted for an additional 2 percent of
variance in work happiness p , 0:01 and an additional 7 percent of variance in SWB
p , 0:01: At the same time, emotional stability, extraversion, and openness to
experience were also related to work happiness while emotional stability was related to
SWB, findings which largely corroborate prior work on the personality-happiness
relationship (DeNeve and Cooper, 1998; Diener and Lucas, 1999). In summary, PsyCap
turned out to be predictive of all four outcome variables considered, accounting for
significant incremental variance beyond the personality traits.

Discussion
The main purpose of this study was to identify whether PsyCap has a unique effect on
the criteria that are important to both work and life while controlling for personality
traits. Conceptual correspondence between the Big Five traits and PsyCap, and the
empirical associations between the personality traits and those outcome variables,
 29,2
JMP

132

Table II.

analysis resultsa
Summary of regression
Variable Self-rated performance Turnover intention Work happiness SWB
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

1. Age 0.21 * 0.17 * 0.12 20.18 * 2 0.14 20.08 0.10 0.08 0.04 0.07 0.04 2 0.04
Gender 0.03 0.05 0.03 20.05 2 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.00 20.01 2 0.05 20.11 2 0.13
Education 0.00 20.06 2 0.07 20.03 2 0.01 0.01 0.03 20.03 20.04 0.23 * * 0.16 * * 0.14 * *
Tenure 0.13 0.15 * 0.15 * 0.06 0.04 0.03 2 0.07 20.04 20.03 2 0.05 20.01 0.00
Job type 1 20.07 20.07 2 0.04 20.24 2 0.23 20.26 0.00 0.00 0.02 2 0.13 20.16 2 0.11
Job type 2 20.07 20.03 2 0.02 20.12 2 0.14 20.16 2 0.06 20.05 20.03 2 0.09 20.08 2 0.05
Job type 3 20.01 20.01 2 0.01 20.13 2 0.09 20.10 0.14 0.11 0.12 2 0.01 20.03 2 0.02
Job type 4 0.00 0.00 0.01 20.18 2 0.19 * 20.20 0.00 0.02 0.02 2 0.04 20.03 2 0.02
2. Agreeableness 0.05 0.04 2 0.12 * 20.10 0.11 0.09 0.05 0.03
Conscientiousness 0.28 * * 0.23 * * 2 0.10 20.02 0.05 0.00 0.03 2 0.07
Emotional stability 0.08 0.04 2 0.14 * 20.09 0.24 * * 0.21 * * 0.34 * * 0.27 * *
Extraversion 0.13 * 0.08 2 0.16 * * 20.09 0.23 * * 0.19 * * 0.15 * * 0.06
Openness 0.05 0.04 0.15 * * 0.18 * * 20.09 20.10 * 20.02 2 0.05
3. PsyCap 0.20 * * 20.29 * * 0.19 * * 0.36 * *
DR 2 0.11 0.16 * * 0.03 * * 0.04 0.12 * * 0.05 * * 0.03 0.19 * * 0.02 * * 0.07 0.18 * * 0.07 * *
R 2 for total equation 0.11 0.27 * * 0.30 * * 0.04 0.16 * * 0.21 * * 0.03 0.22 * * 0.24 * * 0.07 0.25 * * 0.32 * *
**
Notes: : aStandardized coefficients are reported. *p , 0.05. p , 0.01
warrant our test of the incremental predictive validity of PsyCap in the presence of a Psychological
full range of personality traits. In addition, we focused on individual happiness at work capital
and in life as well as performance and turnover intention as outcome criteria. The
former, in particular, is not only essential and desirable to individuals, but also may
ultimately contribute to organizational effectiveness.

Contributions and theoretical implications 133

This study contributes to the literature in three ways. First, this study demonstrated
that PsyCap is indeed related to perceived performance, turnover intention, work
happiness, and SWB, through more conservative analyses compared to most previous
studies on PsyCap. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to examine the
relationship between PsyCap and any of the four outcome variables in the presence of a
full range of personality traits. At the same time, our results indicated that considering
the Big Five together significantly increases explained variances in all four outcome
variables. Moreover, some of the personality traits remained significant predictors of
the outcome variables after including PsyCap. These findings suggest that omitting
personality traits might result in a positively biased estimation of the PsyCap effect.
Second, compared to previous studies on PsyCap that focused mainly on the
relationship between PsyCap and work outcomes, the present research offers
additional significance, as it expands the domain of criterion variables by exploring
PsyCaps role in a broader context of work and life. This study provides evidence that
the benefits of PsyCap may not be limited to work-related outcomes only but may also
be directed to employees individual happiness. Such findings answer Wrights (2003,
p. 441) call that more than just considering employees as a means to the desired end of
higher organizational productivity, to make a truly valuable contribution to the field,
the mission of POB must also include the pursuit of employee happiness, health, and
betterment issues as viable goals or ends in themselves. Investigating the role of
PsyCap in a wider domain more comprehensively, this study helps enhance our
understanding of whether and if so, how human strengths and positive capacities
contribute to making lives more meaningful and thriving.
Third, we identified the unique value of PsyCap in a Korean context. Given the
increasing globalization of todays business environment, not much has been
discovered about the nature and functions of PsyCap in culturally different
organizational settings. For PsyCap to gain global recognition as a new approach to
management studies and practices, more research should be designed to examine
PsyCap across various cultural contexts. By verifying the applicability of PsyCap
among Korean employees, this study adds to the external validity of the PsyCap
construct and its functions.

Limitations and future research

The contributions of this research should be interpreted in light of its limitations. A
first limitation pertains to a potential common method variance problem because the
data were obtained from the same source. To reduce this potential method bias, in
developing questionnaires, caution was taken to separate measures for predictors and
those for criterion variables proximally and psychologically (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Moreover, the confirmatory factor analysis with additional latent method factor
indicated that common method bias was not serious to the extent of distorting our
JMP results. Nevertheless, efforts to obtain data from multiple sources (e.g. obtaining
29,2 performance measures from company records or supervisor ratings and assessing
personality and/or PsyCap through peer evaluations) in future research seem
warranted as ways to alleviate the potential common method bias.
A second limitation concerns the cross-sectional nature of study design. This study
embraces the underlying assumption that PsyCap would influence performance,
134 turnover intention, work happiness, and SWB; however, some of the outcome variables
might change PsyCap. An experimental design would enable the investigators to
evaluate directions of the causality more precisely. In addition, our cross-sectional,
between-subjects data do not speak to the intra-individual dynamics of the
relationships we considered. Longitudinal, within-subjects data, on the other hand,
are better able to capture the dynamic process through which psychological states
experienced at work (i.e. at least in part influenced by the given environment) and
individual traits lead to employee outcomes (e.g. Ilies et al., 2006) at the intra-individual
level. Using such longitudinal within-subjects data, future research may explore the
interactive effects of PsyCap and personality traits on intra-individual patterns of the
outcomes variables.
Third, besides the Big Five traits, other individual differences may affect the
outcome variables we examined. For example, core self-evaluations ( Judge and Bono,
2001) and positive affectivity (Watson et al., 1988) are among the positive traits that
can be related to those outcomes. By controlling for such additional individual
difference variables, future research would further increase the internal validity of the
findings regarding the effect of PsyCap.
Finally, while this study was carried out in South Korea, and it contributes to our
understanding of PsyCaps contextual applicability, the generalizability of its findings
and implications to other cultural contexts may be questionable. Thus, future research
needs to replicate the findings of this study in diverse cultures.

Practical implications
The findings of this study also provide practical implications for organizations and
their managers in terms of building more effective organizations in more constructive
and healthier ways. First, managers should note that the unique effect of PsyCap on the
outcome variables goes beyond the Big Five traits. Despite an increasing use of the Big
Five traits as a selection tool (Barrick et al., 2001) and their utility, personality traits are
difficult to develop with organizational interventions because they remain, by
definition, relatively stable over time. On the other hand, the notion that PsyCap is a
state-like psychological resource that is sufficiently malleable to change provides a
good rationale for interventions to develop employees PsyCap. Prior research suggests
that PsyCap can be developed through relatively short (two hours or so) online-based
or face-to-face intervention training (Luthans, Avey, and Patera, 2008c; Luthans, Avey,
Avolio, and Peterson, 2010).
In addition, while positive organizational climates supported by overall HRM
systems can create the preconditions necessary for employees PsyCap (Luthans,
Norman, Avolio, and Avey, 2008b), it is also important for organizations to realize the
important role of leaders in developing employees PsyCap. The PsyCap of the leaders
themselves (Walumbwa et al., 2010) and certain types of leader behaviors, such as
authentic and transformational leadership (Gooty et al., 2009), are known to be more
conducive to employees PsyCap development. Therefore, leadership programs that Psychological
focus directly on stimulating the PsyCap of leaders and encourage positive leadership capital
behaviors would help organizations reap more positive outcomes through enhancing
positive psychological strengths among their employees.
Finally, today, employee welfare and well-being are receiving great attention from
practitioners (as well as from researchers) more than ever because of their implications
not only for employees mental and physical health but also for long-term 135
organizational effectiveness (Danna and Griffin, 1999). Enhancing happiness both at
work and in life is considered an important agenda in many organizations as work and
life have become increasingly interrelated and reciprocally influential on each other
(Leung et al., 2011). The results of this study suggest that one way to achieve this
agenda would be via improving employees PsyCap. By developing employees
PsyCap, organizations could make work a significant source of happiness and life
satisfaction for their employees.

References
Ajzen, I. (1991), The theory of planned behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Process, Vol. 50, pp. 179-211.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), Structural modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, pp. 411-423.
Avey, J.B., Luthans, F. and Jensen, S. (2009), Psychological capital: a positive resource for
combating employee stress and turnover, Human Resource Management, Vol. 48,
pp. 677-693.
Avey, J.B., Nimnicht, J.L. and Pigeon, N.G. (2010), Two field studies examining the association
between positive psychological capital and employee performance, Leadership
& Organization Developmental Journal, Vol. 31, pp. 384-401.
Avey, J.B., Luthans, F., Smith, R.M. and Palmer, N.F. (2010), Impact of positive psychological
capital on employee well-being over time, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,
Vol. 15, pp. 17-28.
Bakker, A. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2008), Positive organizational behavior: engaged employees in
flourishing organizations, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29, pp. 147-154.
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Freeman, New York, NY.
Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1991), The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: a meta-analysis, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44, pp. 1-26.
Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K. and Judge, T.A. (2001), Personality and performance at the
beginning of the new millennium: what do we know and where do we go next?,
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 9, pp. 9-30.
Brislin, R.W. (1980), Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials,
in Triandis, H.C. and Berry, J.W. (Eds), Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology, Vol. 2,
Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA, pp. 389-444.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D. and Klesh, J. (1983), Assessing the attitudes and
perceptions of organizational members, in Seashore, S.E., Lawler, E.E. III, Mirvis, P.H.
and Cammann, C. (Eds), Assessing Organizational Change: A Guide to Methods, Measures,
and Practices, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 71-138.
Carver, C.S. and Scheier, M. (2001), Optimism, pessimism, and self-regulation, in Chang, E.C.
(Ed.), Optimism And Pessimism: Implications for Theory, Research, and Practice,
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 31-51.
JMP Cetin, F. (2011), The effects of the organizational psychological capital on the attitudes of
commitment and satisfaction: a public sample in Turkey, European Journal of Social
29,2 Sciences, Vol. 21, pp. 373-380.
Culbertson, S.S., Fullagar, C.J. and Mills, M.J. (2010), Feeling good and doing great:
the relationship between psychological capital and well-being, Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, Vol. 15, pp. 421-433.
136 Danna, K. and Griffin, R.W. (1999), Health and well-being in the workplace: a review and
synthesis of the literature, Journal of Management, Vol. 25, pp. 357-384.
DeNeve, K.M. and Cooper, H. (1998), The happy personality: a meta-analysis of 137 personality
traits and subjective well-being, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124, pp. 197-229.
Diener, E. (2000), Subjective well-being: the science of happiness and a proposal for a national
index, American Psychologist, Vol. 55, pp. 34-43.
Diener, E. and Lucas, R.E. (1999), Personality and subjective well-being, in Kahneman, D.,
Diener, E. and Schwarz, N. (Eds), Well-being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology,
Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY, pp. 213-229.
Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J. and Griffin, S. (1985), The satisfaction with life scale,
Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 49, pp. 71-75.
Fordyce, M.W. (1988), A review of research on the happiness measures: a sixty second index of
happiness and health, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 20, pp. 355-381.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 48, pp. 39-50.
Glebbeek, A.C. and Bax, E.H. (2004), Is high employee turnover really harmful? An empirical
test using company records, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47, pp. 277-286.
Goldberg, L.R., Johnson, J.A., Eber, H.W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M.C., Cloninger, C.R. and Gough,
H.C. (2006), The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain
personality measures, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 40, pp. 84-96.
Gooty, J., Gavin, M., Johnson, P., Frazier, M. and Snow, D. (2009), In the eyes of the beholder:
transformational leadership, positive psychological capital, and performance, Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 15, pp. 353-367.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th
ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Ilies, R., Scott, B.A. and Judge, T.A. (2006), The interactive effects of personal traits and
experienced states on intraindividual patterns of citizenship behaviour, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 49, pp. 561-575.
Jensen, S.M., Luthans, K.W., Lebsack, S.A. and Lebsack, R.R. (2007), Optimism and employee
performance in the banking industry, Journal of Applied Management
& Entrepreneurship, Vol. 12, pp. 57-72.
Judge, T.A. and Bono, J.E. (2001), Relationship of core self-evaluation traits self-esteem,
generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability with job-satisfaction and
performance: a meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 80-92.
Judge, T.A., Erez, A., Bono, J.E. and Thoresen, C.J. (2002), Discriminant and incremental validity
of four personality traits: are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and
generalized self-efficacy indicators of a common core construct?, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 693-710.
Leung, S.M., Cheung, Y.H. and Liu, X. (2011), The relations between life domain satisfaction and
subjective well-being, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 26, pp. 155-169.
Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (2004), What should we do about motivation theory? Psychological
Six recommendations for the twenty-first century, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 29, pp. 388-403. capital
Luthans, F. and Youssef, C.M. (2004), Human, social and now positive psychological capital
management: investing in people for competitive advantage, Organizational Dynamics,
Vol. 33, pp. 143-160.
Luthans, F. and Youssef, C.M. (2007c), Emerging positive organizational behavior, Journal of 137
Management, Vol. 33, pp. 321-349.
Luthans, F., Avey, J.B. and Patera, J.L. (2008c), Experimental analysis of a web-based training
intervention to develop positive psychological capital, Academy of Management Learning
& Education, Vol. 7, pp. 209-221.
Luthans, F., Youssef, C.M. and Avolio, B.J. (2007b), Psychological Capital: Developing the Human
Competitive Edge, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., Avolio, B.J. and Peterson, S. (2010), The development and resulting
performance impact of positive psychological capital, Human Resource Development
Quarterly, Vol. 21, pp. 41-67.
Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., Smith, R.C. and Li, W. (2008a), More evidence on the value of Chinese
workers psychological capital: a potentially unlimited competitive resource?,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 19, pp. 818-827.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B.J., Avey, J.B. and Norman, S.M. (2007a), Positive psychological capital:
measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 60, pp. 541-572.
Luthans, F., Norman, S.M., Avolio, B.J. and Avey, J.B. (2008b), The mediating role of
psychological capital in the supportive organizational climate-employee performance
relationship, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 29, pp. 219-238.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L. and Diener, E. (2005), The benefits of frequent positive affect:
does happiness lead to success?, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 131, pp. 803-855.
McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. (1991), Adding Liebe und Arbeit: the full five-factor model and
well-being, Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 17, pp. 227-232.
Maertz, C.P. and Griffeth, R.W. (2004), Eight motivational forces and voluntary turnover:
a theoretical synthesis with implications for research, Journal of Management, Vol. 30,
pp. 667-683.
Masten, A.S. and Reed, M.J. (2002), Resilience in development, in Snyder, C.R. and Lopez, S.J.
(Eds), Handbook of Positive Psychology, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 74-88.
Menard, J. and Brunet, L. (2011), Authenticity and well-being in the workplace: a mediation
model, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 26, pp. 331-346.
Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., Lee, T.W., Sablynski, C.J. and Erez, M. (2001), Why people stay:
using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 44, pp. 1102-1121.
Peterson, S. and Luthans, F. (2003), The positive impact of development of hopeful leaders,
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24, pp. 26-31.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), Common method biases
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 879-903.
Rego, A., Marques, C., Leal, S., Sousa, F. and Cunha, M.P.E. (2010), Psychological capital and
performance of Portuguese civil servants: exploring neutralizers in the context of an
JMP appraisal system, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 21,
pp. 1531-1552.
29,2 Seligman, M.E.P. (1998), Learned Optimism, Pocket Books, New York, NY.
Snyder, C.R. (2002), Hope theory: rainbows in the mind, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 13,
pp. 249-275.
Stajkovic, A.D. and Luthans, F. (1998), Self-efficacy and work-related performance:
138 a meta-analysis, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124, pp. 240-261.
Tett, R.P. and Meyer, J.P. (1993), Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover
intention, and turnover: path analysis based on meta-analytic findings, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 46, pp. 259-293.
Walumbwa, F.O., Peterson, S.J., Avolio, B.J. and Hartnell, C.A. (2010), An investigation of the
relationships among leader and follower psychological capital, service climate, and job
performance, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 63, pp. 937-963.
Watson, D., Clark, L.A. and Tellegen, A. (1988), Development and validation of brief measures
of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 54, pp. 1063-1070.
Williams, L.J., Cote, J.A. and Buckley, M.R. (1989), Lack of method variance in self-reported
affect and perceptions at work: reality or artifact?, Journal of Applied Psychology, No. 74,
pp. 462-468.
Wright, T.A. (2003), Positive organizational behavior: an idea whose time has truly come,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24, pp. 437-442.
Youssef, C.M. and Luthans, F. (2007), Positive organizational behavior in the workplace: the
impact of hope, optimism, and resilience, Journal of Management, Vol. 33, pp. 774-800.
Zimmerman, R.D. (2008), Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals
turnover decisions: a meta-analytic path model, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 61, pp. 309-348.

Further reading
Avey, J.B., Luthans, F. and Youssef, C.M. (2010), The additive value of positive psychological
capital in predicting work attitudes and behaviors, Journal of Management, Vol. 36,
pp. 430-452.

About the authors

Yongduk Choi is a doctoral candidate at Korea University Business School. His research
interests include leaders use of humor, positive organizational behavior, and psychological
capital.
Dongseop Lee is an Associate Professor of Management at Korea University Business School.
He gained his PhD in Organizational Behavior from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His
research interests include applications of social cognitive theory in organizations, trust,
leadership, and change management. His research has appeared in such journals as Journal of
Applied Psychology, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, and Human Resource Management.
Dongseop Lee is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: dongseoplee@korea.ac.kr
Appendix Psychological
capital

139

Figure A1.
 JMP
29,2

140

Figure A1.

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.