relationships between conscientiousness, self-efficacy, self-deception, and learning over time
TRANSCRIPT
Relationships Between Conscientiousness, Self-Efficacy,Self-Deception, and Learning Over Time
Sunhee Lee and Howard J. KleinThe Ohio State University
The present study examined the dual mediating effects of self-efficacy and self-deception on therelationship between conscientiousness and learning over time. Data from 134 college students were usedto investigate the relative impact of self-efficacy and self-deception. Consistent with the hypothesizedmodel, conscientiousness was significantly and positively related to both early training self-efficacy andself-deception, and both self-efficacy and self-deception had significant effects on learning but inopposite directions. Furthermore, the relative impact of self-efficacy and self-deception on learningchanged over time as expected. The negative effect of self-deception in early stages of trainingdisappeared at later stages of training but the positive effects of self-efficacy remained. Support was notfound for self-efficacy and self-deception as mediators of the conscientiousness–learning relationship.
Interest in personality traits has increased in industrial–organizational psychology in recent years. The training literature isno exception (e.g., Colquitt, LePine, & Noe, 2000; Noe, 1986;Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). Among those traits, conscientious-ness, one of the Big Five personality factors (Costa & McCrae,1992), is considered to be especially promising in predictingtraining proficiency (Hogan & Ones, 1997). Individuals high inconscientiousness are well organized, dependable, purposeful, de-termined, cautious, and tend to perceive themselves as beingcapable and effective (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Although somemeta-analytic findings have shown a significant positive relation-ship between conscientiousness and training proficiency (Barrick& Mount, 1991; Salgado, 1997), another meta-analysis, conductedby Colquitt et al. (2000), found nonsignificant corrected popula-tion correlations between conscientiousness and training out-comes, such as declarative knowledge (r � �.01) and skill acqui-sition (r � �.05). Such inconsistent findings suggest the need tobetter understand the processes through which conscientiousnessinfluences those outcomes. There are a number of different defi-nitions of training effectiveness, and there are multiple trainingoutcomes. The current study focuses on learning outcomes andspecifically the acquisition of declarative knowledge.
Martocchio and Judge (1997) provided a framework to poten-tially explain the relationship between conscientiousness andlearning. They presented a dual mediating model, whereby bothself-efficacy and self-deception mediate the relationship betweenconscientiousness and learning but in opposite directions. Specif-ically, self-efficacy is expected to have a positive effect on learn-
ing, whereas self-deception is expected to have a negative effect onlearning. Accordingly, the zero-order correlation between consci-entiousness and learning depends on the relative effects of thesetwo variables in a particular context. Although Martocchio andJudge recognized and demonstrated the dual mediating effects ofself-efficacy and self-deception, they did not address the relativeeffects of these two variables. Because conscientiousness can bothpromote and hamper learning, we believe it is critical to specify theconditions that determine the relative impact of self-efficacy andself-deception in mediating the effects of conscientiousness onlearning. Without this knowledge, it cannot be said whether con-scientiousness is desirable in a learning context. The purpose of thepresent study is to gain a better understanding of the processesthrough which conscientiousness may affect learning. In doing so,we expect that time plays an important role in determining therelative impact of self-efficacy and self-deception in mediating theeffects of conscientiousness on learning. A conceptual model ofthese mechanisms is presented in Figure 1 and explicated in thefollowing sections.
Self-Efficacy and Self-Deception as Mediator BetweenConscientiousness and Learning Over Time
Self-efficacy refers to individuals’ judgments of their own ca-pabilities to organize and execute courses of action required toattain designated types of performances (Bandura, 1986). Self-deception is a dispositional tendency to have an unrealisticallypositive self-image (Sackeim, 1983). The training literature sug-gests that conscientiousness is positively related to both self-efficacy (Chen, Casper, & Cortina, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2000) andself-deception (Barrick & Mount, 1996; Martocchio & Judge,1997). Furthermore, both self-efficacy and self-deception havebeen identified as possible mediators of the conscientiousness–training effectiveness relationship (Martocchio & Judge, 1997).However, self-efficacy and self-deception are expected to haveopposite effects on training effectiveness. Self-efficacy is posi-tively related to learning outcome, whereas self-deception is neg-atively related to learning outcome when the effect of self-efficacy
Sunhee Lee, Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University;Howard J. Klein, Management & Human Resources, The Ohio StateUniversity.
We thank Raymond A. Noe for valuable comments on earlier versionsof this article. We are also grateful to Oded Shenkar, Ilgaz Arikan, and AsliArikan for their assistance in data collection.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to SunheeLee, Ohio Department of Education, 25 South Front Street, Mail Stop 708,Columbus, Ohio, 43210. E-mail: [email protected]
Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2002 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.2002, Vol. 87, No. 6, 1175–1182 0021-9010/02/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0021-9010.87.6.1175
1175
is controlled (Martocchio & Judge, 1997). In accordance withthose findings, we expect a similar relationship to be evident in thecurrent study.
Hypothesis 1: There will be a significant positive relationshipbetween conscientiousness and self-efficacy.
Hypothesis 2: There will be a significant positive relationshipbetween conscientiousness and self-deception.
Hypothesis 3: There will be a significant positive relationshipbetween self-efficacy and learning.
Hypothesis 4: Self-efficacy will mediate the relationship be-tween conscientiousness and learning.
Hypothesis 5: There will be a significant negative relationshipbetween self-deception and learning when the shared variancebetween self-deception and self-efficacy is controlled.
Hypothesis 6: Self-deception will mediate the relationshipbetween conscientiousness and learning.
The fact that self-efficacy and self-deception, both correlates ofconscientiousness, are expected to have different directional ef-fects on learning may help understand the inconsistent findingsthat have been observed between conscientiousness and learning.Because self-efficacy is expected to have a positive relationshipwith learning, whereas self-deception is expected to have a nega-tive relationship with learning, the zero-order correlation betweenconscientiousness and learning depends on the relative effects ofthese two variables in a particular context. If the relative impact ofself-efficacy is stronger than that of self-deception, the zero-ordercorrelation between conscientiousness and learning should be pos-itive. However, if the relative impact of self-deception is strongerthan that of self-efficacy, the zero-order correlation should benegative. Therefore, it is important to specify the conditions thatdetermine the relative impact of self-efficacy and self-deception.
Time in training is one factor that may be important in deter-mining the relative impact of self-efficacy and self-deception. The
further along one is in a training program, the more opportunityone has had to receive feedback, both formal and informal, onperformance and competence in acquiring the particular skills orknowledge being trained. In considering the effects of time intraining, it is important to note that self-efficacy is a task-specificchangeable state, whereas self-deception is a global stable trait. Anindividual’s level of self-efficacy can be expected to change overtime as new information and experience are acquired throughdirect experience with the task, performance feedback, and otherfactors (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Because individuals adjust theirlevel of self-efficacy over time, self-efficacy should remain asignificant positive predictor of learning regardless of the time intraining.
Self-deception, however, is a stable trait and does not changeover time, despite the receipt of new information or changes inperceptions regarding the training. The longer the time in training,the more chances to receive feedback, which will likely be incon-gruent if an individual has an inaccurate, self-deceptive self-image.Accordingly, it becomes more difficult to maintain a self-deceptiveself-image in later stages of training. As a result, the negativeeffects of self-deception on learning should mitigate over time.Conscientiousness can thus be expected to have a null or evennegative effect on learning early in training because of the negativeeffect of self-deception combined with the positive effect of self-efficacy. Over time, however, the positive effect of self-efficacyremains, and the negative effect of self-deception should dissipate.Therefore, at later stages of training, a positive relationship be-tween conscientiousness and learning should be evident.
Consideration of time in training allows for the explanation ofthe discrepant findings between Martocchio and Judge’s (1997)and Colquitt and Simmering’s (1998) studies. Martocchio andJudge’s study, which observed a negative correlation betweenconscientiousness and learning, examined a relatively short train-ing program (i.e., two 4-hr sessions, separately by 1 work day).However, Colquitt and Simmering, which reported a positivecorrelation between conscientiousness and learning, adopted arelatively longer training program (i.e., a 6-week course). It is,therefore, possible that the opposite effects of conscientiousness in
Figure 1. Hypothesized model of the relationship between conscientiousness and learning over time. Con-scient. � conscientiousness; C1–C6 � Conscientiousness Parcels 1–6; SD1–SD3 � Self-Deception Parcels 1–3.
1176 LEE AND KLEIN
these two studies might be attributable to the difference in timeframes.
Although time in training is a continuous construct, two specificpoints in time are considered in this study to examine whether therelative effects of self-efficacy and self-deception change overtime. The first point in time, referred to as early training, reflectsthe initial perceptions and attitudes held by trainees at the begin-ning of a training program. The second point in time, referred to aslater training, reflects a time when trainees have had the oppor-tunity to directly experience the training and receive feedback ontheir learning. On the basis of the discussion above, we expectedthat both self-efficacy and self-deception would have significanteffects on early training learning whereas only self-efficacy wouldhave a significant effect on learning later in training. The absenceof the effect of self-deception on later training is depicted as adotted line in Figure 1. Although not stated as formal hypotheses,we expected early training self-efficacy and early learning to bepositively related to later training self-efficacy, as indicated inFigure 1.
Hypothesis 7a: Self-efficacy will be significantly and posi-tively related to learning both early in a training program andat later stages of that same training program.
Hypothesis 7b: Self-deception will be significantly and neg-atively related to learning early in a training program but notat later stages of that same training program.
Method
Participants and Setting
The participants were 134 undergraduate business students (55% maleand 45% female, mean age � 21.3 years), who volunteered to participatein the study in exchange for a small number of extra credit points in thecourse from which they were recruited. That course, an introduction tointernational business, served as the training program for this study. This10-week course was primarily presented in a lecture–discussion format,although video segments, cases, and in-class group exercises were alsoused. Grades in this course were based on three quizzes (15%), twomidterm exams (25% each), and a final exam (35%). Neither Sunhee Leenor Howard J. Klein were associated with the delivery of this course.
Procedure
During Week 2 of the course, participants filled out the first question-naire, which measured participant’s demographics, conscientiousness, self-deception, and self-efficacy for their grade on the first midterm exam (earlytraining self-efficacy). The first midterm exam (early learning) occurredduring Week 4 of the course. During Week 5, after participants receivedfeedback on their performance on the first midterm exam, participants wereasked to complete another questionnaire assessing self-efficacy for theirgrade on the second midterm exam (later training self-efficacy). Perfor-mance on that second midterm exam, which occurred during Week 8 of theclass, constituted the later measure of learning.
Measures
Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness was measured using a 48-itemscale of the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (Costa & McCrae, 1992).A sample item was “I strive for excellence in everything I do.” Participants
responded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5(strongly agree). Coefficient alpha of the scale was .92.
Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy strength was measured in line with theprocedures recommended by Lee and Bobko (1994). Participants indicatedhow confident they were of attaining test scores corresponding to fivedifferent grade levels (i.e., A, A�, B�, B, and B�) by using a rating scalethat ranged from 0 (no chance at all) to 100 (completely certain). Thosefive confidence ratings were then summed.
Self-deception. A 20-item Self-Deception scale of Paulhus’ BalancedInventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR; Version 6, Paulhus, 1991) wasused to measure self-deception. Participants responded to these items (e.g.,“I always know why I like things”) by using a 7-point Likert scale rangingfrom 1 (not true) to 7 (very true). Paulhus (1991) provided constructvalidity evidence for the scale, and it has since been used in several otherstudies (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1996; Johnson, Vincent, & Ross, 1997;Martocchio & Judge, 1997; Paulhus, 1991) as a measure of self-deception.In the current study, a coefficient alpha of .61 was obtained.
Learning. Participants’ scores on the two midterm exams were used asthe measures of learning. The exams, each with a possible maximum scoreof 100 points, used a multiple-choice question format. The exams primarilyassessed declarative knowledge, and the exam questions were taken fromthe text, lectures, and other material covered during the class sessions(discussions, videos, exercises). Because we did not receive item-level datafrom the course instructor, we could not determine the internal consistencyreliability of these exams.
Analysis
In addition to examining zero-order correlations among the variables, weconducted a series of structural equation modeling analyses by usingLISREL (Joreskog & Sorbom, 2001) to test the hypotheses. In each of theanalyses, parcel scores, rather than individual item scores, were used asindicators (i.e., manifest variables) of latent variables of conscientiousnessand self-deception. To construct domain representative parcels, each ofthe 48 Conscientiousness scale items was randomly assigned to one of sixparcels. In the same manner, three parcels were constructed on the basisof 20 Self-Deception scale items.
At first, a null model, which assumes no relationship among manifestvariables, was fit to the data as a base model. Next, the hypothesizedmodel, without the direct path from self-deception to later learning, was fitto the data. Finally, we fit an alternative model to the data to test whetherthe addition of the path from self-deception to later learning (the dotted linein Figure 1) resulted in a significant improvement over the hypothesizedmodel. If the addition of the path significantly improves fit of the model,it indicates that it is desirable to include the path in the model. To assessthe adequacy of overall fit of a model, we presented the nonnormed fitindex (NNFI; Bentler & Bonett, 1980) and the root-mean-square error ofapproximation (RMSEA; Steiger & Lind, 1980).
Results
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and zero-ordercorrelations between all of the variables. An examination of Ta-ble 1 indicates initial support for several of the bivariate hypoth-eses. Conscientiousness is significantly and positively correlatedwith early training self-efficacy, but not with later training self-efficacy. These results partially support Hypothesis 1. As predictedby Hypothesis 2, conscientiousness was significantly and posi-tively correlated with self-deception. Consistent with Hypotheses 3and 7a, self-efficacy and learning were significantly and positivelycorrelated both early and later in the training. Self-deception wassignificantly and negatively correlated with learning early in thetraining, but not with later learning. These results are supportive of
1177CONSCIENTIOUSNESS AND LEARNING
Hypotheses 5 and 7b. Also, the fact that the zero-order correlationbetween conscientiousness and early learning was not significant,but the correlation between conscientiousness and later learningwas significant and positive provides indirect support to Hypoth-eses 7a and 7b.
Table 2 shows the overall fit statistics and model comparisonstatistics for the three structural equation models. The NNFI andRMSEA indicate that the hypothesized model fits the data well(RMSEA � .06, NNFI � .95). Figure 2 presents the parameterestimates for the hypothesized model. Factor loadings of manifestvariables for conscientiousness and self-deception were all reason-ably high. All the path coefficients, except the one from consci-entiousness to early learning, were significant ( p � .05). Specif-ically, conscientiousness was significantly and positively related toboth early training self-efficacy and self-deception, in support ofHypotheses 1 and 2. In turn, as predicted by Hypotheses 3 and 5,early training self-efficacy had a significant positive effect on earlylearning but self-deception had a significant negative effect onearly learning.
To provide a direct test of the mediation hypotheses (Hypoth-eses 4 and 6), we calculated and tested the indirect effects ofconscientiousness on learning through self-efficacy and self-deception as suggested by Sobel (1982). The estimate of indirecteffects for conscientiousness on early learning through self-efficacy was .17, t � 1.38, ns, and the estimate of indirect effectsfor conscientiousness on later learning through self-efficacy was.25, t � 1.14, ns. The estimate of indirect effects for conscien-tiousness on early learning through self-deception was �.39, t ��1.62, ns. These results suggest that self-efficacy and self-deception are not mediating the relationship between conscien-tiousness and learning. Accordingly, Hypotheses 4 and 6 were notsupported.
As predicted by Hypothesis 7a, self-efficacy had a significantand positive effect on both early and later learning. Finally, to testHypothesis 7b, we compared the hypothesized model and thealternative model using a chi-square difference test. As describedabove, the hypothesized model did not include the direct path fromself-deception to learning later in the course, whereas the alterna-tive model included this path. The chi-square difference test indi-cates that there was no significant difference between the hypoth-esized model and the alternative model, �2 (1, N � 134) � 2.81,ns. That is, the addition of the path from self-deception to laterlearning did not significantly improve the fit of the model. Also,the parameter estimate for the path from self-deception to laterlearning in the alternative model was positive rather than negative,even though it was not significant (parameter estimate � .16, ns).Taken together, these results suggest that the negative effect ofself-deception on learning was evident early in the training but notlater in the course. Thus, Hypothesis 7b was supported.
Discussion
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the potentialmechanisms through which conscientiousness affects learning andhow those processes change over time. As hypothesized, ourresults showed that highly conscientious individuals had higherself-efficacy, and self-efficacy had a positive effect on learning. Atthe same time, highly conscientious individuals tended to be highlyself-deceptive, and self-deception had a negative effect on learn-T
able
1M
eans
,St
anda
rdD
evia
tion
s,C
oeff
icie
ntA
lpha
s,an
dIn
terc
orre
lati
ons
for
the
Obs
erve
dV
aria
bles
Var
iabl
eM
SD1
23
45
67
89
1011
1213
1415
1.C
onsc
ient
ious
ness
169.
6319
.68
—2.
Con
scie
ntio
usne
ss(1
)28
.28
3.26
.79*
*—
3.C
onsc
ient
ious
ness
(2)
26.3
24.
15.8
4**
.54*
*—
4.C
onsc
ient
ious
ness
(3)
27.9
24.
28.8
3**
.62*
*.6
6**
—5.
Con
scie
ntio
usne
ss(4
)28
.10
3.87
.87*
*.6
6**
.68*
*.6
3**
—6.
Con
scie
ntio
usne
ss(5
)29
.58
3.92
.83*
*.5
9**
.58*
*.6
1**
.69*
*—
7.C
onsc
ient
ious
ness
(6)
29.4
34.
01.8
7**
.65*
*.7
0**
.62*
*.7
0**
.70*
*—
8.Se
lf-d
ecep
tion
84.6
811
.02
.39*
*.3
5**
.18*
.42*
*.3
6**
.35*
*.2
9**
—9.
Self
-dec
eptio
n(1
)30
.22
4.79
.22*
*.1
6.1
3.2
8**
.22*
*.1
1.2
0*.7
5**
—10
.Se
lf-d
ecep
tion
(2)
30.5
05.
11.4
0**
.39*
*.1
9*.4
3**
.35*
*.3
9**
.28*
*.7
7**
.32*
*—
11.
Self
-dec
eptio
n(3
)23
.96
4.46
.25*
*.2
4**
.09
.25*
*.2
4**
.27*
*.1
8*.7
8**
.42*
*.4
2**
—12
.E
arly
self
-eff
icac
y34
5.20
92.1
6.2
8**
.24*
*.1
8*.2
5**
.25*
*.2
6**
.23*
*.1
2.0
4.1
3.1
1—
13.
Lat
erse
lf-e
ffic
acy
343.
8798
.05
.09
.05
.02
.07
.03
.13
.13
.02
�.0
5.0
4.0
9.6
1**
—14
.E
arly
lear
ning
83.4
37.
93.0
3.0
2.0
3�
.07
�.0
3.0
9.1
0�
.15
�.1
9*�
.04
�.1
1.1
8*.3
8**
—15
.L
ater
lear
ning
83.7
112
.16
.22*
*.0
9.1
9*.1
4.2
0*.2
5**
.23*
*.0
4�
.01
.09
.01
.35*
*.4
0**
.45*
*—
Not
e.N
�13
4.Pa
rent
hetic
alnu
mbe
rsfo
llow
ing
vari
able
labe
lsin
dica
tein
divi
dual
indi
cato
rsfo
rth
egi
ven
scal
e.*
p�
.05.
**p
�.0
1.
1178 LEE AND KLEIN
ing. Although this chain of relationships appears to confirm thedual mediating model, such a conclusion is not supported becauseof the nonsignificant indirect effects from conscientiousness tolearning through self-efficacy and self-deception. That is, althoughconscientiousness was significantly related to both self-deceptionand self-efficacy, and self-deception and self-efficacy both hadsignificant effects on early learning, those effects on learningapparently did not come from conscientiousness. Although themediation hypotheses were not supported, the relative impact ofself-efficacy and self-deception on learning changed over time aspredicted. Self-efficacy had a significant positive effect on bothearly and later learning, whereas the negative effect of self-deception was apparent for early learning but disappeared for laterlearning. These findings extend past research in this area byclarifying the nature and role of self-deception and introducingtime as a critical variable that helps explain the relative impact ofself-efficacy and self-deception.
Implications
These results have important implications for both research andpractice. First, the failure to support self-efficacy and self-deception as dual mediators of the conscientiousness–learningrelationship is contradictory to the conclusions reached by Mar-tocchio and Judge (1997). It should be noted, however, that be-cause a direct test of mediation (i.e., the examination of indirecteffects) was not reported in that study, it is possible that dualmediation was not actually occurring there either. It may be thatfactors other than or in addition to self-efficacy and self-deceptionare necessary to fully understand the relationship between consci-entiousness and learning. There could be additional mediators orperhaps moderators that need to be incorporated into this model.For example, researchers have suggested that task complexitymoderates the extent to which self-efficacy mediates the relation-ship between conscientiousness and work-related performance,such that self-efficacy is only a mediator for simpler tasks (Chenet al., 2001). Alternatively, it may be that the dual mediatingeffects were present in the current study, but there was not suffi-cient statistical power to detect significant indirect effects.
The mediation issue aside, the current findings demonstrate adynamic relationship between self-deception and learning overtime. Early in training, the positive effects of self-efficacy and thenegative effects of self-deception appear to cancel each other out.Later, trainees appear to develop more accurate and realistic self-perceptions, which help overcome the influence of self-deceptivecharacteristics. These findings highlight the significance of time, afactor often overlooked in psychological research, but one that is
increasingly being recognized as critical (George & Jones, 2000).In the present study, the nature of the relationships among vari-ables changed over time. In such cases, omitting the temporaldimension results in an incomplete description of the phenomenaand inconsistent findings. Thus, researchers should routinely spec-ify and test whether a specific relationship changes over time and,if it does, why and how it does.
The present study also has important implications for practice,particularly with regard to the need to recognize and attempt tominimize the negative or neutralizing effect that self-deception canhave on learning. The finding that the negative effect of self-deception disappears over time after direct experience of trainingand feedback suggests that one of the possible ways to minimizethe negative effect of self-deception is the use of longer timeframes and more frequent feedback in training. Although buildingmechanisms into training programs to enhance self-efficacy isoften considered to be desirable, such efforts could backfire if theyperpetuate self-deception. That is, providing early feedback that isoverly positive or early experiences that are unrepresentativelyeasy in an effort to foster self-efficacy could, in fact, inhibitlearning by failing to provide the information necessary to discon-firm an unrealistic self-image. Another possibility would be theinclusion in training programs of a short intervention aimed atovercoming self-deceptive tendencies. It would be interesting tosee whether something along the lines of inducing a learning goalorientation (e.g., Steele-Johnson, Beauregard, Hoover, & Schmidt,2000; Stevens & Gist, 1997) could minimize the negative effect ofself-deception early in training programs. An alternative approachwould be to measure self-deception and use those assessments ininstances where individuals are selected for training or develop-ment programs. Similarly, self-deceptive characteristics may beimportant to screen for in selecting individuals to work in organi-zations that place a heavy emphasis on continuous learning.
Limitations and Future Research
One of the limitations of the study is the use of students in anacademic course to test the model. Although it provides a goodopportunity to examine changing relationships within a trainingprocess over an extended period of time, the findings from thecurrent sample and setting may not fully capture organizationaltraining settings. Accordingly, more research in alternative-training contexts is clearly needed to generalize the findings of thepresent study. The fact that the reliability of our learning measurescould not be assessed is another potential limitation. Similarly,although frequently used, the reliability of our measure of self-efficacy is unknown. Although coefficient alphas can be calculated
Table 2Fit Statistics and Model Comparisons
Model �2 dfRMSEA(90% CI) NNFI ��2 �df
Null model 812.50 78 .266 (.250, .283) .00Hypothesized model 90.09 60 .061 (.033, .086) .95 722.41 1Alternative model 87.28 59 .060 (.030, .085) .95 2.81 1
Note. N � 134. RMSEA � root-mean-square error of approximation; CI � confidence interval; NNFI �nonnormed fit index.
1179CONSCIENTIOUSNESS AND LEARNING
Fig
ure
2.Pa
ram
eter
estim
ates
for
the
hypo
thes
ized
mod
elof
the
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
cons
cien
tious
ness
and
lear
ning
over
time.
All
path
sex
cept
the
one
from
cons
cien
tious
ness
toea
rly
lear
ning
wer
esi
gnif
ican
tat
.05.
Con
scie
nt.�
cons
cien
tious
ness
;C
1–C
6�
Con
scie
ntio
usne
ssPa
rcel
s1–
6;SD
1–SD
3�
Self
-Dec
eptio
nPa
rcel
s1–
3.
1180 LEE AND KLEIN
(.94 and .93 for early and later self-efficacy), doing so is notappropriate in our opinion because the ratings of different possibleoutcomes are not independent.
Studies that use multiple self-report personality and state mea-sures are often susceptible to common method bias, especiallywhen they are measured at the same time. Although conscientious-ness, self-deception, and early self-efficacy were all measured byself-report at the same time, the fact that self-deception wassignificantly related to conscientiousness but not to self-efficacybut conscientiousness was significantly related to both self-deception and early self-efficacy suggests that such a possibility isnegligible. Another measurement issue is the relatively low alphacoefficient of the Self-Deception scale. Although the BIDR(Paulhus, 1991) has been widely used to measure self-deception,the relatively low item consistency level indicates that the scalemay include irrelevant items or consist of multiple dimensions.Future research should be conducted to examine this issue more indepth or use an alternative measure of self-deception.
Another important limitation of this study is the training out-come examined. There are multiple training outcomes, includingdifferent forms of learning (e.g., declarative knowledge, knowl-edge organization), behavioral performance in training, retention,maintenance, and generalization or adaptability. This study onlyassessed learning and only used a measure of declarative knowl-edge. Although few studies have assessed multiple outcomes,those that have (e.g., Kozlowski et al., 2001) have found thatdifferent outcomes relate differentially to both hypothesized ante-cedents of training effectiveness and to later performance. Aninteresting extension of this study would be the examination ofadditional training outcomes. The present study demonstrates thatthe relative influence of self-efficacy versus self-deceptionchanges over time. However, it is not clear exactly when or whythis happens. It appears that direct experience in training andformal performance feedback over time help individuals overcomethe influence of self-deceptive characteristics, yet exactly howsuch experience operates must be further investigated. One possi-ble explanation is that over time, trainees acquire more accurateinformation concerning what is required to succeed in training andthe extent to which they possess those requirements. Such concretespecific information may disconfirm their general initial self-perceptions based on self-deceptive characteristics. Although thepresent findings suggest that the negative effect of self-deceptiondiminishes over time, there may be some situations where self-deceptive characteristics are too stubborn to give way, even whenreality does not support those self-deceptive-based self-perceptions. High self-deception may, in some cases, inhibit theaccurate processing of the very feedback necessary to make theappropriate adjustments in self-perception. Future studies thatspecify and examine such boundary conditions are needed.
It is also likely that factors other than the direct experience andformal feedback play an important role in the revision of self-perceptions during training. For example, various experiences dur-ing training provide trainees with informal feedback (e.g., inter-actions with other trainees and trainers). Other conditions thatimpact self-efficacy (Gist & Mitchell, 1992), such as previousexperience, verbal persuasion, or modeling (either in training orback on the job) could also alter the relative impact of self-efficacyand self-deception if they help foster a realistic self-image. Char-acteristics of the feedback other than timing may also have an
impact, such as the extent and nature of the feedback or thecongruence between the feedback received in training and thatreceived on the job. Future research is needed to explicitly specifythe factors that are most important in building accurate self-perception and how these factors help individuals overcome thenegative effects of self-deception. Experimental settings, in whichinvestigators have more control over the amounts, types (informalvs. formal), and timing of feedback may be useful in investigatinghow factors such as these affect the relative impact of self-efficacyand self-deception. Replications of the current findings in settingswith more frequent feedback and measurement of self-efficacy arealso needed to better pinpoint when the shift occurs in the relativeinfluence of self-efficacy and self-deception.
This study also highlights the value of making finer distinctionsby examining specific personality traits (i.e., examining self-deception) in addition to the Big Five personality factors. One suchtrait receiving considerable attention as it relates to learning andtraining is goal orientation. It would be valuable for future researchto examine the relationships between goal orientation and thevariables examined in this study. For example, a learning goalorientation has been shown to correlate positively with conscien-tiousness, self-efficacy, and learning (e.g., Colquitt & Simmering,1998; Vande Walle, Cron, & Slocum, 2001). Findings from thisstudy could also help inform the goal orientation literature in twoways. First, time was found to be an important factor here indetermining the relative impact of self-deception, a stable trait, andself-efficacy, operationalized as a task-specific state. Time maysimilarly be important in understanding the relative impact ofdispositional and task-specific measures of goal orientation as theyrelate to training outcomes. In addition, the opposing directionaleffects of self-efficacy and self-deception are similar to the gen-erally negative effects of a performance-avoid goal orientation andthe generally positive effects of performance-prove and learninggoal orientations. Although time may not be the key issue for thesevariables, research is needed to specify the conditions that deter-mine the relative impact of these orientations.
Future research is also needed to more fully understand thecomplex relationship between conscientiousness and learning.Like previous research, the current findings regarding this rela-tionship were inconsistent, as conscientiousness was unrelated toearly learning but positively and significantly related to laterlearning. Helmreich, Sawin, and Carsrud (1986) similarly demon-strated temporal increases in the relationships between personalitymeasures and job performance. The differing time frames used fordifferent training programs may explain the inconsistent results inthe literature. Although time did influence the relative impact ofself-efficacy and self-deception on learning, those mechanisms didnot account for the relationship between conscientiousness andlearning at either point in time in this study. A key future researchquestion therefore is to identify exactly why time makes such adifference. Such research needs to examine other possible media-tors as well as possible moderators such as task complexity orautonomy. It may be, for example, that conscientiousness has moreimpact on later learning than early learning because early trainingis often more structured, constituting a stronger situation with lessautonomy (Barrick & Mount, 1993) than later training.
In conclusion, the results of this study highlight the complexityand dynamic nature of the relationships among individual charac-teristics such as conscientiousness, self-deception, and self-
1181CONSCIENTIOUSNESS AND LEARNING
efficacy as they relate to learning over time. Future research in thisarea should incorporate and expand on this dynamic view tofurther advance our understanding of the role of personality traitsin the training process.
References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A socialcognitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimen-sions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44,1–26.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of therelationship between the Big Five personality dimensions and job per-formance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 111–118.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of impression managementand self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs.Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 261–272.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness offit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88,588–606.
Chen, G., Casper, W. J., & Cortina, J. M. (2001). The role of self-efficacyand task complexity in the relationships among cognitive ability, con-scientiousness, self-efficacy, and work-related performance: A meta-analytic examination. Human Performance, 14, 209–230.
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrativetheory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 yearsof research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 678–707.
Colquitt, J. A., & Simmering, M. J. (1998). Conscientiousness, goalorientation, and motivation to learn during the learning process: Alongitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 654–665.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory(NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL:Psychological Assessment Resources.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2000). The role of time in theory and theorybuilding. Journal of Management, 26, 657–684.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysisof its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Re-view, 17, 183–211.
Helmreich, R. L., Sawin, L. L., & Carsrud, A. L. (1986). The honeymooneffect in job performance: Temporal increases in the predictive power ofachievement motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 185–188.
Hogan, J., & Ones, D. S. (1997). Conscientiousness and integrity at work.In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personalitypsychology (pp. 849–870). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Johnson, E. A., Vincent, N., & Ross, L. (1997). Self-deception versusself-esteem in buffering the negative effects of failure. Journal of Re-search in Personality, 31, 385–405.
Jorkeskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8.5. Chicago: ScientificSoftware International.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Brown, K. G., Salas, E., Smith, E. M.,& Nason, E. R. (2001). Effects of training goals and goal orientationtraits on multi-dimensional training outcomes and performance adapt-ability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85,1–31.
Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1994). Self-efficacy beliefs: Comparison of fivemeasures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 364–369.
Martocchio, J. J., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Relationship between conscien-tiousness and learning in employee training: Mediating influences ofself-deception and self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,764–773.
Noe, R. A. (1986). Trainees’ attributes and attitudes: Neglected influenceson training effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 11, 736–749.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In K. P.Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of person-ality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
Sackeim, H. A. (1983). Self-deception, self-esteem, and depression: Theadaptive value of lying to oneself. In J. Masling (Ed.), Empirical studiesof psychoanalytical theories (pp. 101–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job perfor-mance in the European community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,30–42.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structuralequations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp.290–312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Steele-Johnson, D., Beauregard, R. S., Hoover, P. B., & Schmidt, A. M.(2000). Goal orientation and task demand effects on motivation, affect,and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 724–738.
Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. (1980, June). Statistically based tests for thenumber of common factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of thePsychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.
Stevens, C. K., & Gist, M. E. (1997). Effects of self-efficacy and goal-orientation training on negotiation skill maintenance: What are themechanisms? Personnel Psychology, 50, 955–978.
Tannenbaum, S. I., & Yukl, G. (1992). Training and development in workorganizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 399–441.
Vande Walle, D., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. J. (2001). The role of goalorientation following performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 86, 629–640.
Received July 16, 2001Revision received February 1, 2002
Accepted February 11, 2002 �
1182 LEE AND KLEIN