1. Individual and Contextual Factors: An Interactionist Approach to Understanding Self-Development G.P. Leffler Thesis Defense 17 August 2009

2. Presentation Overview Summary of relevant literature Summary of experimental method Discussion of results for each hypothesis Discussion of conclusions Contributions of the research Future direction and goals

3. Summary of Literature Context/Support Individual Differences Person X Situation interactions

4. Context/Support Support from both the org & the supervisor has been shown to have a positive direct effect on SD Org support, see Maurer & Tarulli, 1994; Tharenou, 2001; Xu, 2007 Sup support, see Birdi et al., 1997; Maurer & Tarulli, 1994; Maurer et al., 2003; Tharenou, 2001

5. Individual Differences Many IDs have been found to have positive direct relationships on SD quantity; I chose the ones studied most often and the emerging construct of PP SE/SD, Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience, LGO, PP (Major et al. 2006 only for SD) (see: Birdiet al., 1997; Blau et al., 2008; Boyce et al., in press; Maurer et al., 2008; Maurer et al., 2002; Maurer et al., 2003)

6. Person X Situation Interactions The new ground with this research is to extend the idea of P X S interactions to the self-development world. Exist throughout Psychology: in leadership (Shamir & Howell, 1999), entrepreneurship (Basu & Altinay, 2002), and training (Bolt et al., 2001) First research to examine these interactions in SD

7. Summary of Experimental Method Survey sent to 2500 randomly-selected members of the StudyResponse Panel 203 completed the survey; 23 dropped, N = 180 Survey consisted of a series of multiple-choice questionnaires to measure each ID and quantity of supervisor support. 50% Male, 50% Female; Mean age 36.5 (SD 10.8) and 82% White.

8. Results Overall: Hs 1, 2a,3, 7, 8b, 9 were supported Hs 2b, 4a, 4b, 5, 6a, 6b, 8a, 10a, 10b were not Evidence was found for the existence of two interactions Many direct effects were also found

9. Hypothesis 1 Self-efficacy for self-development will be positively related to quantity of self-development participation. Supported. β = .37, p < .01, sri2 = .35

10. Hypothesis 2 There will be an interaction between self-efficacy for self-development and (a: organizational support; b: supervisor support) such that the positive relationship between organizational/supervisor support and self-development quantity will be stronger as self-efficacy for self-development decreases. 2a: Not Supported*. (β = .31, p < .05, sri2 = .17) 2b: Not Supported.

11. Hypothesis 2a – Interaction Graph

12. Hypothesis 3 Learning goal orientation will be positively related to quantity of self-development participation. Supported. (β= .39, p < .05, sri2 = .39)

13. Hypothesis 4 There will be an interaction between learning goal orientation and (a: organizational; b: supervisor) support such that the positive relationship between organizational/supervisor support and self-development quantity will be stronger as learning goal orientation decreases. Not Supported.

14. Hypothesis 5 Conscientiousness will be positively related to quantity of self-development participation. Not Supported.

15. Hypothesis 6 There will be an interaction between conscientiousness and (a: organizational; b: supervisor) support for self-development such that the positive relationship between organizational/supervisor support for self-development and quantity of self-development will be stronger as conscientiousness decreases. Not supported.

16. Hypothesis 7 Openness to experience will be positively related to quantity of self-development participation. Supported. (β= .29, p < .05, sri2 = .29)

17. Hypothesis 8 There will be an interaction between openness to experience and (a: organizational; b: supervisor) support for self-development such that the positive relationship between organizational/supervisor support for self-development and quantity of self-development will be stronger as openness to experience decreases. a: Not supported. b: Not supported*.(β = -.28, p < .05, sri2 = -.20)

18. Hypothesis 8b – Interaction Graph

19. Hypothesis 9 Proactive personality will be positively related to quantity of self-development participation. Supported. (β = .29, p < .05, sri2 = .29)

20. Hypothesis 10 There will be an interaction between proactive personality and (a: organizational; b: supervisor) support for self-development such that the positive relationship between organizational/support support and self-development quantity will be stronger as proactive personality decreases. Not Supported.

21. Conclusion Contributions Limitations Future Directions

22. Contributions Evidence found of person X situation interactions for self-development quantity Evidence found supporting the construct of proactive personality Replication of prior research Main effects exist for SE, LGO, and O2E, as well as for both support variables

23. Person X Situation Interactions Not quite as hypothesized Expected org support to be more helpful for those low in SE/SD. Instead, helps everyone. Likely because all employees valued resources and were willing to take advantage of them Complex interaction for openness and supervisor support Both low and high openness employees weren’t helped by support; only average employees. High O employees harmed by it.

24. Proactive Personality Past research (e.g. Major et al. 2006) examined the influence of PP (and other Big 5 traits) on SD through motivation to learn An exploratory analysis supports the existence of a unique direct relationship to SD Only LGO & PP contributed significant unique variance to SD quantity in this study

25. Replication of Prior Research Supported the vast body of prior literature that examined the effects of both IDs and support factors as having positive direct relationships to SD Only finding not replicated was for Conscientiousness Likely due to nature of sample Has only a modest correlation to SD anyway

26. Limitations Use of StudyResponse Unable to deliver promised response rate Unique nature of the participants Common method Predictors & criterion were measured via the same method in the same survey Prevents the establishment of causation (Doty & Glick, 1998; Podsakoff et al. 2003)

27. Future Directions In the field What about SD quality? Further study the effect of PP on SD – why does this effect exist? Personally Examine these interactional effects with intent to SD as the DV Write up the results from the thesis for publication

28. THANK YOU! I’d like to extend my deepest gratitude to all of you, and especially to my advisor, for your tireless work throughout my graduate school career. I couldn’t have produced this work without you.