summary

Psychological Reports, 2011, 108, 1, 239-251. © Psychological Reports 2011

DOI 10.2466/07.09.20.PR0.108.1.239-251 ISSN 0033-2941

ROLE OF SELF-ESTEEM IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STRESS AND INGRATIATION1, 2

KEKE WU

Central Washington University

CHENWEI LI AND DIANE E. JOHNSON

The University of Alabama

Summary.—The relations among self-esteem, stress, and ingratiatory behaviors in the workplace were examined. Competing models for moderating and mediat- ing effects of self-esteem on the relationship between stress and ingratiation were presented. Data from a sample of 136 employees at a state lottery organization were used to test the competing models. Support was found for the full mediation model, wherein self-esteem completely mediated the relationship between stress and in- gratiation.

As a personal belief about one’s self-worth (Rosenberg, 1965), self- esteem refers to the extent to which individuals hold positive or negative views about themselves. In their discussion on stress and coping, Lazarus and Folkman (1984) included personal beliefs such as self-esteem as a re- source for coping with stress, because such beliefs can “serve as a basis for hope and sustain coping efforts .  .  .” (p. 159). As such, self-esteem can af- fect how one copes with stress. There are competing views about the rela- tionship of self-esteem, stress, and outcome variables. Some research sug- gests that self-esteem moderates the effects of stress and coping behaviors (Nonis, Sager, & Kumar, 1996; Jex & Elacqua, 1999; Brutus, Ruderman, Ohlott, & McCauley, 2000), while other studies have shown that self-es- teem mediates the relationships between stress and behavioral, as well as attitudinal, outcomes (Gardner & Pierce, 1998; Lee, 2003; Pierce & Gard- ner, 2004). However, few studies have examined the role of self-esteem in the relationships between stress and coping behaviors. Coincidentally, little research has been conducted where ingratiation has been examined specifically as a coping mechanism. There are a limited number of studies suggesting that influence tactics, such as ingratiation, can be used to cope with job-related stress (Nonis, et al., 1996). The purpose of this study was to examine the competing views of self-esteem’s role in the relation be- tween stress and ingratiation. The Nature of Self-esteem

Following the conceptualization by Campbell, Chew, and Scratch- ley (1991) of self-esteem, self-esteem was considered to be a personal be- 1Address correspondence to Keke Wu, Department of Management, College of Business, Central Washington University, 400 East University Way, Ellensburg, WA 98926 or e-mail ([email protected]). 2We are grateful to Dr. Micki Kacmar for making the data available and for giving us invalu- able guidance and support during the development of this paper.

K. WU, ET AL.240

lief that has both a cognitive and an evaluative component. The cogni- tive component is a structured schema built with concrete and semantic memories about the self (Markus, 1977, 1980; Kihlstrom & Cantor, 1983; Kihlstrom, Cantor, Albright, Chew, Klein, & Neidenthal, 1988), whereas the evaluative component is the positivity, i.e., quality or state, of the self- attitude that results from a self-evaluation. Campbell, et al. (1991) stated that both components could be conceptualized as states or traits. As such, self-esteem can be a stable trait that reflects one’s global judgment about one’s self-worth, or a fluid state that depicts temporary feelings of self-re- gard that vary over time and across situations (Rosenberg, 1979; Mortim- er, Finch, & Kumka, 1982; Epstein, 1983; Tesser & Campbell, 1983).

The nature of self-esteem as both a trait and a state is of particular rel- evance to the role that self-esteem plays in stress and coping behaviors. As a stable trait, self-esteem would be more likely to moderate the stress and coping relation, but as a fluid state, self-esteem may be affected by stress and hence more likely to mediate the stress and coping relation. Below, ingratiation will be proposed as a mechanism for coping with stress. The competing moderating or mediating roles of self-esteem in the relation- ship between stress and ingratiation will be explored. Ingratiation as a Mechanism For Coping With Stress

In the transactional model of stress and coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), psychological stress is defined as “a particular relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her well-being” (p. 19). This person-environment relationship is mediated by two critical processes, cognitive appraisal and coping. Whereas cognitive appraisal refers to the process through which one determines why and how a par- ticular person–environment relationship is stressful, coping is the process one goes through in managing the demands and emotions generated by this stressful relationship (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The focus for the present study is on the coping process, specifically, how ingratiation, de- fined as assertive tactics to gain the approbation of superiors who have control over rewards (Tedeschi & Melburg, 1984), serves as a coping tactic against stress.

Although there is no direct evidence indicating ingratiation as a cop- ing tactic, there have been a limited number of studies investigating the use of social skills in the stress-and-coping process. According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984), social skills can be regarded as means to cope with stress, because they enable appropriate and effective communications and thus enhance one’s control over stressful social transactions. Perrewe, Fer- ris, Frink, and Anthony (2000) proposed that political skills (i.e., social skills with political purposes of personal gain or protection) can be seen

SELF-ESTEEM, STRESS, AND INGRATIATION 241

as an antidote to stressors as they can reduce executives’ perceptions of stressors and serve as a buffer between perceived stressors and strain. In a study by Nonis, et al. (1996), a group of salespersons was found to use up- ward influence tactics, attempts to influence someone in a superior posi- tion in an organization (Porter, 1981), to resolve role stress from their jobs. The study showed that those who perceived more stress used upward influence tactics more often as a way to cope by influencing the immedi- ate supervisor, who may change the stressful situation. According to Ku- mar and Beyerlein (1991), ingratiation is among the most commonly used upward influence tactics. Thus, ingratiation can also be seen as a kind of coping tactic against job stress. As one might use upward influence tactics more often when perceiving more stress, one might also use ingratiation more often. Stress is therefore expected to be positively related to ingratia- tion (Hypothesis 1).

As a coping resource in this model (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), self- esteem is a personal belief that may influence both the appraisal and cop- ing processes. On the one hand, self-esteem can be posited as a modera- tor in this model as it may affect the outcome of the appraisal process. Brockner (1984) posited a moderating role for self-esteem: individuals with high self-esteem may be less likely to perceive an event as stressful, and hence will be less likely to engage in stress-neutralizing behaviors. In contrast, self-esteem may also be posited as a mediator in the stress-and- coping process when the appraisal of an event as stressful leads an indi- vidual to believe that self-image is threatened (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). This perceived threat may subsequently damage the individual’s self-es- teem, which may, in turn, result in increased coping. Self-affirmation the- ory supports this view as it suggests that self-esteem is contingent upon social approval and lowered self-esteem can elicit esteem-restoring efforts (Steele, 1988). Self-esteem as a Moderator

Support in the literature exists for both the moderating and mediat- ing effects of self-esteem in the relationship between stress and one’s cor- responding coping behaviors. Lazarus (1990a) suggested that as a person- ality trait, self-esteem is present before one’s encounter with stress and elicits subsequent coping behaviors. Thus, self-esteem should moderate relations between stress and coping behaviors, as it may enhance or sup- press these reactions. Brockner’s behavioral plasticity theory (1984) has been used to explain the moderating effects of self-esteem on behavior- al outcomes (Campbell, 1990; Ganster & Schaubroeck, 1991). Behavioral plasticity is the extent to which individuals are affected by external stim- uli such as stress. Brockner (1984) suggested that compared to individuals with high self-esteem, those with low self-esteem are more behaviorally

K. WU, ET AL.242

plastic, that is, more sensitive and more reactive because they are more easily influenced by external factors. Individuals with high self-esteem are less plastic because they care less about others’ expectations and influenc- es (Baumeister, 1982). Individuals with low self-esteem may be more vul- nerable to stress and consequently seek more means to cope.

Further support for self-esteem’s role as a moderator between stress and ingratiation can be found among theories in esteem and impression management. Esteem theories posit that individuals have a need to en- hance their self-evaluation of their self-worth and this need for self-esteem varies from one individual to another (Jones, 1973). Individuals with high self-esteem have less need for self-enhancement, as they already have a positive view of themselves. In contrast, those with low self-esteem are not content with their self-images and are more likely to take action to im- prove their self-images. The theory of motivation for impression manage- ment (Leary & Kowalski, 1990) suggests that an individual will be more motivated to manage impressions when there is a larger gap between de- sired self-image and currently perceived self-image. Given that ingratia- tion is a tactic of impression management aimed specifically at improv- ing one’s image in the eyes of a superior other (Jones & Wortman, 1973), individuals with low self-esteem may have more motivation to ingratiate as they often see themselves further below their desired self-images com- pared with those who have high self-esteem. Therefore, self-esteem can serve as a moderator in the relationship between stress and ingratiation (as shown in Fig. 1). In this study, self-esteem is expected to moderate be- tween stress and ingratiation such that higher stress will lead to more in- gratiation in individuals with low self-esteem. Self-Esteem as a Mediator

There is also evidence that self-esteem may mediate between stress and ingratiation. Mruk (1999) noted that self-esteem should be a prod- uct of social environments, that is, self-esteem can be affected by stress- ful social transactions, the conjunctions of “a person with certain motives and beliefs with an environment whose characteristics pose harm, threats, or challenges” (Lazarus, 1990a, p. 41). Empirical evidence suggests that stress and self-esteem are often negatively related to each other (Ormel & Schaufeli, 1991; Brown & Dutton, 1995; Kregner, 1995; Abel, 1996; Tang

Fig. 1. Self-esteem as a moderator

Self-esteem

Stress Ingratiation

SELF-ESTEEM, STRESS, AND INGRATIATION 243

& Ibrahim, 1998; Hudd, Dumlao, Erdmann-Sager, Murray, Phan, Soukas, et al., 2000; Mckinzie, Altamura, Burgoon, & Bishop, 2006). Thus, self-es- teem may decrease as stress increases. Decreased self-esteem can make individuals more focused on protecting themselves from further stress or negativity. Campbell (1990) suggests that lowered self-esteem may incur stronger reactions to failure situations and therefore greater needs for be- haviors that protect them from further stress. One such coping mecha- nism may be the use of ingratiation.

Theoretical explanations for the connection between self-esteem and ingratiation can be found in Self-Affirmation Theory, as advanced by Steele (1988), wherein self-affirmation and image maintenance are reac- tions to threats to the self-image. In response to such threats, individuals can choose either to accept the threat or to affirm some other aspects of the self in order to reaffirm overall self-adequacy. Self-esteem is a resource for self-affirmation that becomes more salient and more readily available to individuals when threats to self-image exist (Steele, 1988; Brown & Dut- ton, 1995). When stress is internalized, individuals are more likely to use

Fig. 2. Self-esteem as a mediator

Self-esteem

Stress Ingratiation

self-esteem to reaffirm their self-adequacy. Since self-esteem is a resource for coping with stress, it becomes depleted in this coping process and the individual becomes more likely to use ingratiation to protect, repair, or even boost self-image. By presenting the self in a positive light to a super- visor, an individual may mitigate reduced feelings of self worth. As stress increases, it would be expected to decrease self-esteem, and in turn, low- ered self-esteem may elicit coping behaviors such as ingratiation as a way to present the self in a more positive light. Given the negative relations between stress and self-esteem and between self-esteem and the coping process in stress resolution (Lazarus, 1990a, 1990b), self-esteem may me- diate between stress and ingratiation (as shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3). It was expected that self-esteem would mediate the relation between stress and ingratiation.

Fig. 3. Full mediation model

Self-esteemStress Ingratiation

K. WU, ET AL.244

Method Participants

The sample comprised 136 employees of the state lottery organiza- tion. Some (21; 15.4%) of the respondents did not indicate their sex; of the others, 62 (45.6%) were men and 53 (39.0%) were women. The majority of the sample was White (72.1%). The average age of the respondents was close to 43.8 yr. (range = 22–71). Tenure with the organization ranged from 1 to 11 years with a mean of 6.77 yr. Measures

Stress was measured with the 11-item Likert-type job-related tension scale (House & Rizzo, 1972) with anchors of 1: Strongly disagree and 5: Strongly agree. Sample items were: “I work under a great deal of tension” and “I have too much work to do in my job.” This scale measured the stress an employee perceived in doing his job. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .86, compared with .77 reported by Deluga (1989) with a similar sample of 184.

Self-esteem (self-esteem) was measured with the 5-point Likert-type scale developed by Rosenberg (1965). The scale consisted of nine items composed to measure one’s general attitude toward one’s self-worth. All nine items were anchored by 1: Strongly disagree and 5: Strongly agree. Sample items were: “I take a positive attitude toward myself” and “I feel I do not have much to be proud of.” Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .70, compared with .78 reported by Strauss (2005) with a similar sample of 143. Ingratiation was measured with the Measure of Ingratiatory Behaviors in Organizational Settings scale (MIBOS) developed by Kumar and Beyer- lein (1991). MIBOS measures the frequency of employees’ use of ingratia- tory behaviors. The MIBOS scale consisted of 24 items, which were divid- ed into four subscales: Opinion Conformity (7 items), Other Enhancement (7 items), Self-presentation (4 items), and Favor Rendering (6 items). All of the items used a 5-point Likert-type scale, with anchors of 1: Never and 5: Always. Sample items were: “Let your supervisor know the attitudes that you share with him/her,” “Tell him/her you can learn a lot from his or her experience,” “Try to make sure that he or she is aware of your success,” and “Go out of your way to run an errand for your supervisor” for favor rendering. Cronbach’s alpha for this sample was .92, the same as reported by Kumar and Beyerlein (1991) in their study with a similar sample of 148. Procedure

Data were extracted from a secondary data source where the data were collected from employees of a state lottery organization in the south- ern United States. Letters were attached to the surveys, written by the di- rector of the agency, requesting employees’ participation. Employees were

SELF-ESTEEM, STRESS, AND INGRATIATION 245

assured anonymity and given work time to complete the questionnaires. Follow-up e-mails were sent to all employees at 2- and 4-wk. intervals af- ter the original survey was mailed. Completed surveys were sent directly to the researchers for analyses. Analyses

Prior to hypotheses testing, a confirmatory factor analysis was con- ducted with LISREL 8.8 to test the fit of the measurement model. The sole purpose of this analysis was to confirm that the factor structures of the measures were stable in the sample. The fit statistics for the three-factor full measurement model (χ2 = 371.91, p < .001; χ2/df = 2.723; CFI = 0.93, IFI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.062) indicated that the model had a reasonable fit with the data collected (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1999). A test for common method variance was conducted according to the structural equation modeling approach (Williams, Buckley, & Cote, 1989), and showed that common method vari- ances accounted for only 15% of the total variance in the dependent vari- able, which is below the threshold of 25% (Williams, et al., 1989).

According to Baron and Kenny (1986), self-esteem moderates the rela- tionship between stress and ingratiation if the strength or the direction of this relationship varies with self-esteem. In contrast, self-esteem can medi- ate the effect of stress on ingratiation if stress has a significant relationship with both ingratiation and self-esteem and stress’ effect on ingratiation is reduced when ingratiation is regressed on both stress and self-esteem at the same time. Further, self-esteem fully mediates the effect of stress on ingratiation if stress’ effect on ingratiation is reduced to a nonsignificant level when ingratiation is regressed on both stress and self-esteem at the same time. Two regression analyses were conducted to test the role of self- esteem in the relationship between stress and ingratiation following Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedures in testing for moderators and mediators. 3Although Barrett (2007) stated a significant χ2 test and a χ2/df ratio higher than 2.0 would sug- gest misfit of the model in question, other scholars, such as Schumacker and Lomax (2004), suggest that a χ2 test may be misleading. For example, the more complex the model, the more likely a good fit; the larger the sample size, the more likely the rejection of the model and the more likely a Type II error; the chi-squared fit index is also very sensitive to violations of the assumption of multivariate normality. Wheaton (1987) advocated that a χ2/df ratio not be used, partly because of the inconsistent benchmarks. Carmines and McIver (1981) contended that the ranges of 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 indicate acceptable fit between the hypothetical model and the sample data. Other researchers have recommended using a ratio as low as 2 or as high as 5 to indicate a reasonable fit (Marsh & Hocevar, 1985). Therefore, most applications of confirmatory factor analysis, including LISREL, require additional evaluation of whether or not a statistically significant chi square is small enough to constitute an adequate fit. The additional fit indices we reported, including CFI, IFI, and RMSEA, were intended to serve as additional indicators of fit. CFI, comparative fit index, accommodates for the sample size effect (Medsker, Williams, & Holahan, 1994). IFI, incremental fit index, has less bias as an estimate of the asymptotic value (Mulaik, James, Van Alstin, Bennett, Lind, & Stillwell, 1989). Joreskog and Sorbom (1999) suggest that the closer to 1 CFI and IFI are, the better the fit of the model, and that models with RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) higher than .1 have poor fit. Based on this line of work, we concluded that the measurement model had a reasonable fit with the data, according to 4 out of the 5 fit indices that we reported.

K. WU, ET AL.246

Results Means, standard deviations, and correlations for the variables, in-

cluding ingratiation (dependent variable, DV), stress (independent vari- able, IV), and self-esteem (moderator/mediator), are presented in Table 1. Stress was significantly correlated with ingratiation, lending support for Hypothesis 1. The significant correlations between stress and self-esteem suggest multicollinearity may exist between the predicting variables in the moderation model. As such, stress and self-esteem scores were both mean-centered in order to reduce the interrelatedness of the two variables in the following moderation analyses.

TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations

Among Ingratiation, Stress, and Self-esteem (N = 136)

Variable M SD 1 2 3 1. Ingratiation 2.34 0.66 −.92 2. Stress 2.79 0.81 .22* −.86 3. Self-esteem 4.58 0.44 −.36† −.24* −.70

Note.—DV = Ingratiation; Cronbach’s alpha displayed on the diagonal. *p < .01. †p < .001.

TABLE 2 Hierarchical Moderated Regression Results For Ingratiation (N = 136)

Variable b t p R2 Adj. R2 ΔR2

Step 1: Stress F4,131 = 2.577, p < .05 0.13 1.53 .13 .07 .05 .038 Step 2: Self-esteem F5,130 = 5.224, p < .001 −0.32 −3.78 < .001 .17 .14 .094 Step 3: Self-esteem*Stress F6,129 = 7.09, p < .001 −0.05 −0.60 .55 .17 .13 .002 Note.—Unstandardized betas are reported from the final step.

The relationship between stress and ingratiation with self-esteem as the moderator was examined with a hierarchical moderated regression analysis. The independent variable, stress, was entered in the first step; the moderator, self-esteem, in the second step; and the interaction term (self- esteem*stress) in the final step. As shown in Table 2, the model in Step 1 with the independent variable, stress, explained a significant portion of the variance (ΔR2 = .073, p < .05) in ingratiation; with self-esteem add- ed, the model in Step 2 explained a significant incremental portion of the variance (ΔR2 = .094, p < .01) in ingratiation over stress and the control vari- ables; however, the addition of the interaction term (self-esteem*stress) in the final model failed to explain a significant incremental portion of the variance (ΔR2 = .002, ns) in ingratiation over the main effects of stress and self-esteem combined. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 and the moderation model were not supported.

Next a three-step regression analysis outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) was used to assess the mediating role of self-esteem in the relation-

SELF-ESTEEM, STRESS, AND INGRATIATION 247

ship between stress and ingratiation. The results of this analysis are pre- sented in Table 3. In Step 1, the regression results of ingratiation (DV) on stress (IV) suggest that stress has a significant positive effect on ingratia- tion (β = 0.16, p < .05). In Step 2, the regression results of self-esteem (medi- ator) on stress (IV) indicate that stress also has a significant negative effect on self-esteem (β = −0.12, p < .05). In the final step, ingratiation (DV) is re- gressed on both self-esteem (mediator) and stress (IV). The results show a significant negative effect of self-esteem on ingratiation (β = −0.48, p < .001). However, the effect of stress on ingratiation (β = 0.10, ns) decreased to a nonsignificance, meaning that self-esteem completely explains the effect of stress on ingratiation. Taken together, the results of regression analysis support Hypothesis 2 and a full mediation model (Fig. 3).

TABLE 3 Three-step Regression Analysis Results (N = 136)

Variable F df R2 Adj. R2 ΔR2 b Ingratiation regressed on Stress 2.58* 131 .07 .05 .04*

Stress 0.16* Self-esteem regressed on Stress 6.39* 131 .08 .05 .05*

Stress −0.12* Ingratiation regressed on Stress & Self-esteem 10.35† 130 .17 .14 .13†

IV: Stress 0.10 Mediator: Self-esteem −0.48†

Note.—Unstandardized betas are reported from the final step. *p < .05. †p < .001.

Discussion This study was designed to examine the two faces of self-esteem, as

a moderator versus a mediator, in the relationship between stress and in- gratiatory behaviors in the workplace. Competing models were present- ed for both the moderating as well as mediating effects of self-esteem on the relationship between stress and ingratiation. Although the majority of literature supports the moderating role, results only support the mediat- ing role. The first analysis, with the moderation model, yielded a positive main effect of stress, and a negative main effect of self-esteem, on ingratia- tion. However, the analysis did not find a significant effect on ingratiation from the interaction of stress and self-esteem, leading to a rejection of the moderation model. The second analysis posited self-esteem as the media- tor and found full mediation as presented in Fig. 3. Full mediation indi- cates that the effect of stress on ingratiation was explained by self-esteem in this sample. With the negative association between stress and self-es- teem, the negative effect that self-esteem had on ingratiation explained the positive relationship between stress and ingratiation. The mediation mod- el suggests that job-related stress lowered self-esteem, which in turn led to more frequent use of ingratiatory behaviors, lending full support for the

K. WU, ET AL.248

hypothesis that self-esteem mediates the relationship between stress and ingratiation.

Results support a growing body of research that corroborates me- diation models and contradicts moderation models. For example, Jalajas (1994) conducted a longitudinal study of 205 students who were inter- viewing for jobs. He tested both a mediating and moderating model of self-esteem in the stress process. Self-esteem mediated the relationship be- tween perceived success in a job hunt and well-being, but no support was found for the moderating effects of self-esteem. Similarly, in her laborato- ry study on undergraduate students who completed questionnaires, Abel (1996) tested the role of self-esteem as both a moderator and a mediator in the relationship between perceived stress and expectancy of success. Abel only found a partial mediation effect; self-esteem was not found to be a moderator. Thus, the finding of self-esteem as a mediator that completely explained the effects of stress on ingratiation is intriguing, because theo- ries of self-esteem generally support the role of self-esteem as a moderator instead of a mediator (Rosenberg, 1965; Jones, 1973; Mruk, 1999). Together with Jalajas’ (1994) and Abel’s (1996) studies, the current study warrants further research efforts in examining the role of self-esteem as a mediator between stress and possible outcome variables. Future research on stress and its outcomes may benefit from investigating how self-esteem may in- fluence the relationships between specific stressors and their correspond- ing outcomes.

As the study was limited by the nature of the secondary data which were collected under a cross-sectional design, the causal relationships be- tween the measures of stress, self-esteem, and ingratiation may be limit- ed because of common method bias. However, what alleviates concern is that common method variances accounted for only 15% of the total vari- ance (Williams, et al., 1989). Although the study was also limited by single- source data when it comes to generalizability, it did produce results that coincide with those of Jalajas (1994), who conducted a longitudinal study and found some support for the mediating role of self-esteem. Nonethe- less, additional longitudinal research is required to allow for more sophis- ticated tests on the causal paths between the variables. Despite its limita- tions, this study challenges the traditional approach to investigating the role of self-esteem in the relationship between stress and various behav- ior outcomes. The fact that self-esteem was found to be a mediator in this study suggests that self-esteem may indeed have two aspects, one as a stable trait and the other as a fluid state. As theories support both a mod- erator role and a mediator role of self-esteem in the relationship between stress and coping behaviors, future studies should investigate what it is that influences which aspect self-esteem assumes, how such influence

SELF-ESTEEM, STRESS, AND INGRATIATION 249

takes place, and how self-esteem affects reactions to stress in general, and to specific stressors.

REFERENCES Abel, M. H. (1996) Self-esteem: moderator or mediator between perceived stress and

expectancy of success? Psychological Reports, 79, 635-641. 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.

Barrett, P. (2007) Structural equation modeling: adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 815-824.

Baumeister, R. F. (1982) Self-esteem, self-presentation, and future interaction: a di- lemma of reputation. Journal of Personality, 50, 29-45.

Brockner, J. (1984) Low self-esteem and behavioral plasticity: some implications for personality and social psychology. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1732-1741.

Brown, J. D., & Dutton, K. A. (1995) The thrill of victory, the complexity of defeat: self-esteem and people’s emotional reactions to success and failure. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 68, 712-722.

Brutus, S., Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., & McCauley, C. D. (2000) Developing from job experiences: the role of organization-based self-esteem. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(4), 367-380.

Campbell, J. D. (1990) Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 538-549.

Campbell, J. D., Chew, B., & Scratchley, L. S. (1991) Cognitive and emotional reac- tions to daily events: the effects of self-esteem and self-complexity. Journal of Per- sonality, 59, 473-505.

Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981) Analyzing models with unobservable vari- ables. In G. W. Bohrnstedt & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: current issues. Beverly Hills: Sage. Pp. 65-115.

Epstein, S. (1983) The unconscious, the preconscious, and the self-concept. In J. Suls & A. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self. Vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 219-247.

Ganster, D. C., & Schaubroeck, J. (1991) Role stress and worker health: an extension of the plasticity hypothesis of self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 6, 349-360.

Gardner, D. G., & Pierce, J. L. (1998) Self-esteem and self-efficacy within the organi- zational context. Group and Organization Management, 23, 48-70.

House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. (1972) Toward the measurement of organizational practic- es: scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(5), 388-396.

Hudd, S. S., Dumlao, J., Erdmann-Sager, D., Murray, D., Phan, E., Soukas, N., & Yo- kozuka, N. (2000) Stress at college: effects on health habits, health status, and self-esteem. College Student Journal, 34, 1-9.

Jalajas, D. S. (1994) The role of self-esteem in the stress process: empirical results from job hunting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1984-2001.

Jex, S. M., & Elacqua, T. C. (1999) Self-esteem as a moderator: a comparison of global and organization-based measures. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy- chology, 72, 71-81.

K. WU, ET AL.250

Jones, E. E., & Wortman, C. (1973) Ingratiation: an attributional approach. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Jones, S. C. (1973) Self- and interpersonal evaluations: esteem theories versus consis- tency theories. Psychological Bulletin, 79(3), 185-199.

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1999) Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kihlstrom, J. F., & Cantor, N. (1983) Mental representations of the self. In L. Berkow- itz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 17. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 1-47.

Kihlstrom, J. F., Cantor, N., Albright, J. S., Chew, B. R., Klein, S. B., & Neidenthal, P. M. (1988) Information processing and the study of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 21. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 159-187.

Kregner, D. W. (1995) Self-esteem, stress, and depression among graduate students. Psychological Reports, 76, 345-346.

Kumar, K., & Beyerlein, M. (1991) Construction and validation of an instrument for measuring ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 76(5), 619-627.

Lazarus, R. S. (1990a) Author’s response. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 41-51. Lazarus, R. S. (1990b) Theory-based stress measurement. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 3-13. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984) Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer. Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990) Impression management: a literature review

and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34-47. Lee, J. (2003) An analysis of organization-based self-esteem as a mediator of the rela-

tionship between its antecedents and consequences. The Korean Personnel Admin- istration Journal, 27(2), 25-50.

Markus, H. (1977) Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78.

Markus, H. (1980) The self in thought and memory. In D. M. Wegner & R. R. Vallacher (Eds.), The self in social psychology. New York: Oxford Univer. Press. Pp. 102-130.

Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985) Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: first- and higher order factor models and their invari- ance across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 562-582.

McKinzie, C., Altamura, V., Burgoon, E., & Bishop, C. (2006) Exploring the effect of stress on mood, self-esteem, and daily habits with psychology graduate students. Psychological Reports, 99, 439-448.

Medsker, G., Williams, L. J., & Holahan, P. (1994) A review of current practices for evaluating causal models in organizational behavior and human resources man- agement research. Journal of Management, 20, 439-464.

Mortimer, J. T., Finch, M. D., & Kumka, D. (1982) Persistence and change in develop- ment: the multidimensional self-concept. In P. B. Baltes & O. G. Brim, Jr. (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior. Vol. 4. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 263-313.

Mruk, C. J. (1999) Self-esteem: research, theory, and practice. (2nd ed.) New York: Springer. Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstin, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stillwell, C. D.

(1989) An evaluation of goodness of fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 15, 430-445.

SELF-ESTEEM, STRESS, AND INGRATIATION 251

Nonis, S. A., Sager, J. K., & Kumar, K. (1996) Salespeople’s use of upward influence tac- tics (UITs) in coping with role stress. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 24, 44-56.

Ormel, J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1991) Stability and change in psychological distress and their relationship with self-esteem and locus of control: a dynamic equilib- rium model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 288-299.

Perrewe, P. L., Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., & Anthony, W. (2000) Political skill: an antidote for workplace stressors. Academy of Management Executive, 14(3), 115-123.

Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. (2004) Self-esteem within the work and organization- al context: a review of the organizational-based self-esteem literature. Journal of Management, 30, 591-622.

Porter, L. W. (1981) The politics of upward influence in organizations. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. (3rd. ed.) Greenwich, CT: JAI. Pp. 109-149.

Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1990) Role conflict and ambiguity in com- plex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163.

Rosenberg, M. (1965) Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer. Press.

Rosenberg, M. (1979) Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Book. Schumacker, R. E. & Lomax, R. G. (2004) A beginner’s guide to structural equation model-

ing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Steele, C. M. (1988) The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the

self. In L. Berkowtz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 21, 261-302. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Tang, T. L., & Ibrahim, A. H. S. (1998) Antecedents of organizational citizenship be- havior revisited: public personnel in the United States and in the Middle East. Public Personnel Management, 27(4), 529-549.

Tedeschi, J. T., & Melburg, V. (1984) Impression management and influence in the organization. Research in Sociology of Organizations, 3, 31-58.

Tesser, A., & Campbell, J. (1983) Self-definition and self-evaluation maintenance. In J. Suls & A. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self. Vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 1-31.

Tetrick, L. E., & LaRocco, J. M. (1987) Understanding, prediction, and control as moderators of the relationships between perceived stress, satisfaction, and psy- chological well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 538-543.

Wheaton, B. (1987) Assessment of fit in overidentified models with latent variables. Sociological Methods and Research, 16, 118-154.

Williams, L. J., Buckley, R. M., & Cote, J. A. (1989) Lack of method variance in self- reported affect and perceptions at work: reality or artifact? Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 74, 462-467.

Accepted January 25, 2011.