Contents lists available at ScienceDirectPersonality and I

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
The importance of being resilient: Psychological well -being, job
autonomy,
and self-esteem of organization managers
Donald G. Gardner
University of Colorado Colorado Springs, 1420 Austin Bluffs
Parkway, Colorado Springs, CO 80933-7150, United States
A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords:
Resilience
Psychological well-being
Self-esteem
Autonomy
A B S T R A C T
The demands on people in the 21st century pose enormous
threats to their psychological well-being (PWB).
Because people high in PWB are happier, healthier, and more
productive than those who are low, it is morally
and economically important for organizations to do what they
can to promote the PWB of its members. Based on
job demands/resources theory, this study explores how
organizations can use knowledge about work design and
individual differences to bolster the PWB of its members. We

propose that organizations can increase the PWB of
members by enhancing job autonomy, thereby increasing
organization-based self-esteem (OBSE), which is po-
sitively related to PWB. In addition, we propose that resilience
might act as a moderator of this indirect re-
lationship, such that high resilience enhances the positive
relationship autonomy has with OBSE, and subse-
quently with PWB. Measures of autonomy, resilience, OBSE,
and PWB were obtained online from a sample of
674 organizational managers. SEM results indicated that high
job autonomy most benefited (in terms of OBSE)
those participants who were low in trait resilience, while
providing fewer benefits to high resilient people.
Results are discussed in terms of how organizations might
enhance member PWB by increasing member OBSE
and/or resilience.
1. Introduction
The 21st century has confronted people with a multitude of
threats
to their psychological well-being. Many of those threats exist
within the
work organizations in which they spend a substantial amount of
their
time. One way in which organizations can improve the well-
being of
employees is to provide them autonomy, so that they can make
deci-
sions and initiate actions that would allow them to adapt to or
resolve
the threats (and opportunities) that confront them (Stiglbauer &
Kovacs, 2018). However, it is known that personality and other
in-
dividual differences can affect how successfully employees use
au-

tonomy to manage their work environments, thereby improving
their
overall well-being. In this study, the job demands/resources
(JD-R)
model of well-being at work is used as a framework to structure
our
hypotheses (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner & Schaufeli, 2001).
The JD-
R proposes that what keeps people healthy at work in the face
of de-
mands are health-protecting factors called job resources, which
are
physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the
job that:
(a) may be functional in achieving work goals, (b) reduce job
demands,
and/or (c) stimulate personal growth and development. In this
study,
the relationships between one external resource (job autonomy),
and
two internal resources (self-esteem and resilience), with
employees’
psychological well-being are examined. The hypothesis that
self-esteem
mediates the relationship between job autonomy and
psychological
well-being is evaluated, while resilience is proposed and tested
as a
moderator of that indirect relationship.
1.1. Psychological well-being
Psychological well-being is the extent to which individuals are
functioning at an optimal level (Diener et al., 2009). People
who are

high in psychological well-being (PWB) are happy, healthy,
productive,
and have satisfying interpersonal relationships (Ryff, 2014).
There are
many different approaches to the study of PWB, including the
ex-
ploration of personality and individual differences that promote
PWB
(Di Fabio & Saklofske, 2018). There is also a growing body of
research
on psychological well-being in work organizations (e.g.,
Inceoglu, Thomas, Chu, Plans & Gerbasi, 2018). For example,
there is
evidence that job autonomy has a positive relationship with
affective
well-being (Stiglbauer & Kovacs, 2018), and we expect to find a
positive
autonomy-PWB relationship in our study as well. Still, there
remains
much to be learned about it, such as how to enhance the PWB of
people
through their work (Oliver & MacLeod, 2018).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109731
Received 24 December 2018; Received in revised form 16
November 2019; Accepted 23 November 2019
E-mail address: [email protected]
Personality and Individual Differences 155 (2020) 109731
Available online 02 December 2019
0191-8869/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01918869

https://www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
mailto:[email protected]
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.paid.2019.1
09731&domain=pdf
1.2. Self-Esteem at work
Self-esteem is an evaluation of the self, and arises from many of
life's
venues (cf., Horberg & Chen, 2010; Rentzsch, Wenzler, &
Shütz, 2016).
One of the venues in which self-esteem emerges is the work
organiza-
tion. Organization-based self-esteem (OBSE) is rooted in that
aspect of
life, and has been defined as the degree to which individuals
evaluate
themselves as “important, meaningful, effectual, and
worthwhile within
their employing organization” (Pierce, Gardner, Cummings &
Dunham,
1989, p. 625). Theoretically, some of OBSE's most defining
character-
istics (Pierce et al., 1989) are: (a) once established it manifests
itself in
beliefs like “I MAKE A DIFFERENCE around here;” (b) people
with high
OBSE are motivated to verify or enhance it, while those low in
OBSE are
motivated to prevent further erosion (Pierce & Gardner, 2004;
Schaubroeck, Kim & Peng, 2012); and (c) as a result, OBSE is
related to

a number of positive personal (e.g., engagement) and
organizational
(e.g., performance) outcomes.
There are dozens of studies of OBSE, and much is known about
it
(see reviews by Bowling, Eschlerman, Wang, Kirkendall &
Alarcon,
2010; and Pierce & Gardner, 2004). Generally speaking, the
experience
of success at work, and the role conditions that facilitate
success, re-
inforce OBSE. Particularly relevant to the current study is that
job au-
tonomy, an external job resource in the JD-R model, is
positively if not
causally related to OBSE, because it enables the individual to
attribute
successes (and failures) to the self. OBSE is considered a
personal re-
source in the JD-R framework, and as such it mediates
relationships
between job resources and employee well-being
(Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti & Schaufeli, 2011),
including
though a work to life spillover effect (Pierce, Gardner &
Crowley,
2015). Combined with the robust positive relationship between
job
autonomy and well-being (Stiglbauer & Kovacs, 2018), it is
possible to
propose that OBSE mediates the relationship between autonomy
and
PWB.
1.3. Resilience

Resilience has been defined as “the ability to adapt to stress and
adversity” (Liu, Reed & Girard, 2017), and is a personal
resource in the
JD-R model (Cooke, Cooper, Bartram, Wang & Mei, 2019).
Resilience
buffers people from the challenges in their lives, which leads
them to
believe that they have developed environmental mastery,
positive re-
lationships and growth, and self-determination, which are
principal
elements of PWB (Ryff, 2014). As such, there are positive
relationships
between resilience and PWB (e.g., Mayordomo, Viguer, Sales,
Satorres
& Meléndez, 2016), including at work (Tripathi, 2011), which
we ex-
pect to find in our study as well.
1.4. Resilience and OBSE
Despite both being personal resources in the JD-R, the
theoretical
relationship between self-esteem and resilience is not well-
understood.
Researchers have considered or found that resilience is: (a) an
ante-
cedent of self-esteem (e.g., Benetti & Kambouropoulos, 2006),
(b) a
consequence of self-esteem (e.g., Kidd & Shahar, 2008), (c)
redundant
with self-esteem (e.g., Schmeichel et al., 2009), and (d)
unrelated to
self-esteem (e.g., Lee, Sudom & McCreary, 2011). In this study,
we

propose that people who are routinely successful at resolving or
re-
covering from problems in their lives (i.e., resilience) will
experience
success on a regular basis, and then develop self-perceptions of
com-
petence, a major component of self-esteem (self-respect;
Tafarodi &
Swann, 2001). That is, trait resilience increases experiences
with suc-
cess, which in turn leads to self-esteem. Though it has not been
pre-
viously studied, we propose a positive relationship between
resilience
and OBSE, as the ability to adapt to challenges at work leads to
a sense
of work-based competence, a core element of OBSE. In
addition, be-
cause OBSE relates positively to PWB, it is possible to propose
and test a
mediation pathway from resilience to OBSE to PWB.
However, because this study focuses on work conditions that
facil-
itate the development of high PWB, we propose an additional
role for
resilience. Possessing autonomy on one's job does not insulate
em-
ployees from experiencing adverse and challenging situations;
indeed,
theories of job design suggest that challenging situations are
more likely
to occur in jobs with high levels of autonomy (Hackman &
Oldham, 1980). If employees are highly resilient, and given
high levels
of autonomy and the freedom to manage threats on the job, they

should
experience more successes than similarly high resilient people
who are
constrained by the organization in enacting adaptive behaviors.
In
other words, high resilience should amplify effects of autonomy
on
OBSE, which in turn is positively related to PWB. Combining
these
propositions with the expectation that OBSE mediates the
relationships
between job autonomy and PWB, we hypothesize:
H1. Trait resilience moderates the relationship between job
autonomy
and OBSE, such that the positive relationship is stronger for
employees
high in resilience than low.
H2. OBSE in turn mediates the positive relationship between
job
autonomy and psychological well-being.
Fig. 1 illustrates our proposed model. It represents a first stage
moderated mediation hypothesis, which is particularly useful in
theory-
testing because it includes boundary conditions (the moderator)
for the
theory-based hypotheses (Hayes, 2018).
Fig. 1. Summary illustration of study hypotheses: Indirect
relationship between autonomy and PWB through OBSE, as
moderated by resilience.
D.G. Gardner Personality and Individual Differences 155 (2020)
109731

2
2. Method
2.1. Sample
This study is part of a larger project to assemble a battery of
con-
struct valid scales to measure managerial psychological health
and
well-being, as well as to address our research questions.1
Measures were
selected based upon the research questions, as well as for
potential use
in management development programs. Data were collected
from par-
ticipants in two samples, separated in time by two months.
Because we
were interested in managerial well-being, we contracted with an
online
data collection service (Qualtrics) to provide samples of
managers
whose identities were verified with procedures “including, but
not
limited to: TrueSample, Verity, SmartSample, USPS
verification, and
digital fingerprinting” (Qualtrics, 2014). Sample demographics
are
presented in Table 1. There were small but statistically
significant (p <
.05) mean differences in education and job tenure (see Table 1).
To
simplify analyses and optimize statistical power, the two
samples were

combined (total n = 674). This sample size provides statistical
power of
approximately 0.95 for small effects.
2.2. Measures
Participants responded on seven-point Likert-type scales where
1 = “Strongly Disagree” and 7 = “Strongly Agree,” except as
noted.
The sample coefficient alpha reliability estimates appear in
Table 3.
Autonomy was assessed with the autonomy subscale of the Job
Diagnostic Survey (Hackman & Oldham, 1980), as revised by
Idaszak, Bottom and Drasgow (1988). It correlates with many
positive
employee outcomes, like job satisfaction and organizational
commit-
ment (see Hackman & Oldham, 1980, for a comprehensive
review). For
each item, participants indicated their agreement on a seven-
point scale
(1 = “very inaccurate” to 7 = “very accurate”). The items are
“My job
gives me considerable opportunity for independence” and “My
job gives
me the chance to use my personal initiative and judgement in
carrying
out the work.”
Organization-based self-esteem was measured with five of the
ten
items from the OBSE scale developed and validated by
Pierce et al. (1989). The scale correlates positively with
measures of
many of the antecedents (e.g., leadership) and consequences

(e.g., job
performance) in OBSE's nomological network (Bowling et al.,
2010).
This measure was truncated to facilitate the creation of a brief
ques-
tionnaire, which is often done in OBSE research because the
scale has
high internal consistency reliability (coefficient alpha is usually
above
0.90). The five items were selected based upon their factor
loadings in
prior research, and their content validity. A sample item is “I
am a
VALUABLE PART of this place.”
Resilience was measured with the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS)
de-
veloped by Smith et al. (2008). This scale was developed to
measure the
ability to adapt to and recover from adverse situations, while
mini-
mizing the number of items. The BRS correlates positively with
quality
of social relationships, coping strategies, and health (Smith et
al.,
2008). This six-item scale has three positively-worded items
(e.g., “I
tend to bounce back quickly after hard times”), and three
negatively-
worded items that were reverse-scored (e.g., “I have a hard time
making
it through stressful events”).
Psychological Well-Being was measured with the eight-item
PWB
scale developed by Diener et al. (2009), which indexes self-

perceived
success in several aspects of life. A sample item is “I lead a
purposeful
and meaningful life.” The PWB scale correlates with other,
longer
measures of PWB, as well as with happiness in life, positive and
nega-
tive experiences, and positive thinking (Diener et al., 2009).
3. Results
3.1. Preliminary analyses
Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to examine
the
dimensionality of the measures, utilizing Mplus software
(Muthén &
Muthén, 2017), and employing the cluster function to control
for any
differences between the two samples. A one-factor model was
compared
to the hypothesized four-factor model. The four-factor model
was a
significant improvement over a one-factor model (see Table 2),
but did
not yield a strong fit of the model to the data. Inspection of the
factor
loadings revealed a clear distinction between the positively- and
ne-
gatively-worded resilience scale items. This bi-factor result for
the BRS
has been found in prior research (e.g., Rodríguez-Rey, Alonso-
Tapia &
Hernansaiz-Garrido, 2016). A CFA without the negatively-
worded items
resulted in a better-fitting model to the data (see Table 2).

Because
these negatively-worded items reflect rigidity, and our
theoretical
model is based only upon resilience, we report results only for
the three-
item resilience measure in analyses below.2
Table 1
Demographics for sample.
Demographic Sample 1 Sample 2 Total
Sex (percent):
Male 30.8 25.6 28.4
Female 66.4 73.3 69.6
Non-binary/third gender 0.9 0 0.5
Prefer not to say 0.6 0 0.3
Missing 1.2 1.1 1.2
Age (percent):
Under 18 0.3 0 0.2
19–24 11.2 7.4 9.4
25–34 34.9 34.7 34.8
35–44 24.9 33.7 29.0
45–54 16.8 17.2 17.0
55–64 8.4 5.3 6.9
65–74 2.8 1.8 2.3
75–84 0.6 0 0.3
Education (percent):a
High School 19.9 14.0 17.2
Some College 22.4 19.3 21.0
2-year Degree 15.0 13.3 14.2
4-year Degree 23.7 33.7 28.4
Masters 13.1 15.8 14.4
Doctorate 2.8 3.9 3.3
Missing 3.1 0 1.7

Ethnicity (percent):
White 73.2 75.1 74.1
Black 10.3 5.6 8.1
Asian 2.2 6.3 4.1
Hispanic 8.4 7.7 8.1
Two or more races 3.7 4.2 4.0
Other 1.6 1.1 1.3
Missing .6 0 .3
Country (percent):
USA 91.6 97.2 94.2
Other (15 countries) 4.0 1.2 2.7
Missing 4.4 1.6 3.1
Job Level (percent):
First-level supervisor 41.4 34.7 38.3
Mid-level manager 31.2 48.8 39.4
Top-level manager 27.4 16.5 22.3
Direct reports (mean) 39.37 28.65 34.33
Organization tenure (mean years) 8.46 8.66 8.56
Job tenure (mean years)a 6.14 5.15 5.67
Note. Sample 1 N = 359, Sample 2 N = 315; a. Samples 1 and 2
are sig-
nificantly different (p < .05).
1 All methods and measures received approval for use in
research from the
author's Institutional Research Board.
2 We thank a reviewer for suggesting this. Analyses for the
rigidity index are
available from the authors.
109731
3

3.2. Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, and intercorrelations
of
the study variables are presented in Table 3. As expected (see
in-
troduction), autonomy, OBSE, and resilience were all
significantly
correlated with PWB (p < .01). Also as expected, resilience was
sig-
nificantly correlated with OBSE, as well as with autonomy (p <
.05).
3.3. Inferential results
SEM was used to test the moderated mediation hypothesis with
la-
tent variables. Equations for estimating indirect and moderated
effects
are from Hayes (2018), while Mplus code was modified from
Stride, Gardner, Catley and Thomas (2015). The index of
moderated
mediation (IMM; Hayes, 2018) was used to assess the
significance of the
moderated mediation effect, which is a combination of
parameter es-
timates for both the mediated and the moderated relationships.
Fig. 2 presents the results for the test of H1. The interaction of
au-
tonomy and resilience was statistically significant. To explore
the
nature of the interaction, slopes for low and high autonomy and

resi-
lience were plotted using the standardized parameter estimates
(Dawson, 2014) and the OBSE mean as the Y-intercept (see Fig.
3). For
high resilience participants, autonomy did not substantially
strengthen
or weaken the relationship between autonomy and OBSE (the
point
estimated value is 6.23 when autonomy is low, and 6.47 when
au-
tonomy is high). On the other hand, if resilience is low, the
relationship
between autonomy and OBSE is positive and strong. Low
resilience and
low autonomy are associated with a low level of OBSE (point
estimated
value of 4.57); low resilience and high autonomy are associated
with
substantially higher OBSE (estimated value of 6.09, or 1.52 SD
higher).
H2 proposed that OBSE would mediate the relationship between
autonomy and PWB. Because the IMM was statistically
significant, this
meant that the magnitude of the indirect effect varies as a
function of
the moderator (resilience). The indirect effects were calculated
at low
(−1 SD), average (0 SD), and high (+1 SD) levels of resilience.
These
results are presented in Table 4. The moderated mediation
effects for
resilience are inconsistent with Hypothesis 2. As resilience
increased in
magnitude, the indirect relationship between autonomy and

PWB
through OBSE diminished in size, becoming non-significant at
high
levels of resilience.
4. Discussion
With the JD-R as an overarching framework, this study
considered
the direct, indirect, and interactive relationships between one
external
resource (autonomy) and two personal resources (OBSE and
resilience)
with employees’ PWB. Consistent with much prior research, and
our
expectations, we found that job autonomy would relate
positively to
OBSE, which in turn carries that (mediated) relationship
through to
PWB. Further, we hypothesized that the relationship between
au-
tonomy and OBSE would be more positive for high resilience
employees
than low. This hypothesis was not supported, and our results
indicate
the opposite. The relationship between autonomy and OBSE was
strongest (and positive) for low resilience employees, while
high levels
of resilience seemed to neutralize the relationship between
autonomy
and OBSE. Low resilient employees seem to benefit more from
high
autonomy than do employees high in resilience. Although there
is a
ceiling effect for high resilience employees, the relationship
between

autonomy and self-esteem is positive and stronger for low
resilience
employees (see Fig. 3). From a theoretical perspective, it
appears that
highly resilient people have the personal resources (e.g.,
expertise, self-
efficacy, motivation) to adapt to the threats in their work
environments,
despite any constraints imposed on them by their organizations.
These
personal resources are also the seeds that grow into the success
ex-
periences that bolster OBSE.
What can we conclude from this pattern of results? It appears
that
being high in resilience results in both high OBSE and high
PWB, ir-
respective of one's level of job autonomy. Resilience acts as a
buffer
against what would otherwise be debilitating aspects of work
(low job
autonomy). Resilient people seem to be able to endure low
autonomy,
and develop both high OBSE and PWB. Keeping in mind that
there are a
multitude of other workplace characteristics that affect OBSE
(and
Table 2
Confirmatory factor analyses of study measures.
Model χ2 (df) CFI TLI RMSEA (90% CI) SRMR
One-factor modela 2725.52 (189)** .85 .83 .143 (0.138, 0.147)
.109

Four factor modelb 1873.41 (183)** .90 .89 .118 (0.114, 0.123)
.085
Five factor modelc 764.28 (179)** .97 .96 .070 (0.065, 0.076)
.040
Four factor modeld 642.89 (129)** .98 .98 .078 (0.072, 0.084)
.040
Note. OBSE = organization-based self-esteem; PWB =
psychological well-
being; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker Lewis index;
RMSEA = root
mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root
mean square
residual.
a All 21 scale items forced to load on a single latent factor.
b Items forced to load on their hypothesized latent factors:
Autonomy, OBSE,
Resilience, and PWB.
c Items forced to load on Autonomy, OBSE, Resilience-Positive
(3 items),
Resilience-Negative (3 items), and PWB.
d Items forced to load on Autonomy, OBSE, Resilience-Positive
(3 items), and
PWB.
⁎ ⁎ p < .01.
Table 3
Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations of study variables.
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Job Level 1.85 .76 NA

2. Age 3.88 1.20 .12** NA
3. Organizational Tenure (years) 8.76 8.37 .13** .45** NA
4. Education 3.12 1.44 .05 .06 −0.00 NA
5. Gender 1.73 .47 −0.08 −0.09* −0.14** −0.12** NA
6. PWB 5.51 1.11 .18** .17** .11** .11* −0.03 (0.92)
7. Autonomy 3.73 1.06 .11** .11** .01 −0.03 .07 .40** (0.81)
8. OBSE 5.84 1.13 .14** .14** .06 −0.05 .01 .61** .48** (0.89)
9. Resilience 5.04 1.26 .10* .11** .08* .09* −0.13** .63**
.25** .45** (0.78)
Note: Job Level 1 = first level, 2 = mid level, 3 = top level; Age
1 = under 18, 2 = 18–24, 3 = 25–34, 4 = 35–44, 5 = 4 5–54, 6 =
55–64, 6 = 65–74, 7 = 75–84,
8 = 75–84, 9 = over 85; Education 1 = high school, 2 = some
college, 3 = 2 year degree, 4 = 4 year degree, 5 = masters, 6 =
doctorate; Gender 1 = male,
2 = female, 3 = non-binary/third gender, 4 = prefer not to
answer.
Correlations for gender are point-biserial. PWB = psychological
well-being; OBSE = organization-based self-esteem.
Sample reliability estimates (coefficient alpha) appear on
diagonal for multi-item scales.
⁎ p < .05.
⁎ ⁎ p < .01.
109731
4
subsequently PWB), it would seem that resilient people recover
from
the setbacks on their jobs rather well. This “bouncing back”

does not
diminish their sense of achievement at work, enabling them to
maintain
a high level of OBSE. Resilient people are psychologically
healthy, at
work and in life.
Fortunately, research indicates that self-esteem and resilience
are
more amenable to change than broader personality traits like the
Big
Five (Anusic & Schimmack, 2016). Organizations have two
pathways in
which to help their low PWB employees. First, adding job
complexity
(including autonomy) to their work is a primary one (cf. Slemp,
Kern,
Patrick & Ryan, 2018). Second, there is a growing body of
research that
indicates that organizations can successfully train employees to
be more
resilient (e.g., Kuntz, Malinen & Näswall, 2017). It does seem
that en-
hancing either OBSE or resilience will likely result in higher
levels of
PWB. Organizations can enhance the quality of work life and
the quality
of life for its members, if they choose to do so.
Future research on well-being should replicate our results,
perhaps
with alternative measures of resilience, or with a formative
construct
like psychological capital that includes resilience (Grover, Teo,
Pick,
Roche & Newton, 2018). Such research might also expand on

our model
by including measures of job demands from the JD/R, such as
perceived
levels of job stressors. In addition, the nature of the relationship
be-
tween self-esteem and resilience remains understudied. Our
study in-
dicates that there is a strong relationship between OBSE and
resilience
(r = 0.45, p < .01, see Table 3), but do they have a common
antecedent
(knowledge, skills, abilities) or do they have causal and/or
reciprocal
relationships with one another?
4.1. Limitations
There are a number of limitations in the study. First, this is a
cross-
sectional study and inferences about causality are limited. Still,
past
research does point the causal arrows in the directions that we
propose
(e.g., autonomy to OBSE). Second, we utilized a targeted
sample
(managers) obtained from an online research participant
provider
(Qualtrics). There have been many criticisms of such web-based
re-
search, but recent studies suggest that they can be an effective
way to
conduct social science research (e.g., Buhrmester, Talaifar &
Gosling,
2018; Walter, Seibert, Goering & O'Boyle, 2019'). Third, we
restricted

our sample to participants who supervise others at work. This
limits our
ability to generalize results to other types of employees, or
organiza-
tional members (e.g., volunteers). Still, given the huge effects
that
managers can have on their direct reports, it is valuable to focus
on this
group of employees. Managers and leaders who have high OBSE
and/or
PWB are more likely to have employees who are also
psychologically
healthy (cf. Skakon, Nielsen, Borg & Guzman, 2010).
Increasing the
well-being of managers can indirectly have similar effects on
their
employees, which is a win-win-win result for the organization,
man-
ager, and employees (Inceoglu et al., 2018).
Funding for the online samples in this study was provided, in
part,
by Wisdom Works Group, Inc., Colorado Springs, Colorado,
USA
(http://wisdom-works.com/). Wisdom Works did not participate
in the
collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of
the
report; or in the decision to submit the article for publication.
References
Anusic, I., & Schimmack, U. (2016). Stability and change of
personality traits, self-esteem,
and well-being: Introducing the meta-analytic stability and
change model of retest

correlations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110,
766–781.
Benetti, C., & Kambouropoulos, N. (2006). Affect-regulated
indirect effects of trait anxiety
and trait resilience on self-esteem. Personality and Individual
Differences, 41, 341–352.
Bowling, N. A., Eschlerman, K. J., Wang, Q., Kirkendall, C., &
Alarcon, G. (2010). A meta-
analysis of the predictors and consequences of organization-
based self-esteem.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 3, 601–
626.
Buhrmester, M. D., Talaifar, S., & Gosling, S. D. (2018). An
evaluation of Amazon's
Mechanical Turk, its rapid rise, and its effective use.
Perspectives on Psychological
Science, 13, 149–154.
Cooke, F. L., Cooper, B., Bartram, T., Wang, J., & Mei, H.
(2019). Mapping the re-
lationships between high-performance work systems, employee
resilience and en-
gagement: A study of the banking industry in China. The
International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 30, 1239–1260.
Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research:
What, why, when and how.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 1–19.
http://www.jeremydawson.co.uk/
slopes.htm].
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W.

B. (2001). The job demands
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
499–512.
Di Fabio, A., & Saklofske, D. H. (2018). The contributions of
personality and emotional
intelligence to resiliency. Personality and Individual
Fig. 2. Results from Tests of Moderation of Resilience on the
Mediated Pathway from Autonomy to OBSE to Psychological
Well-being. Parameter estimates are
standardized. The index of moderated mediation and its CI are
−0.22 [−0.31, −0.13]. **<0.01.
Fig. 3. Illustration of Interaction of Autonomy and Resilience
on OBSE.
Table 4
Mediating effects at low, average, and high levels of resilience.
Mediation Path Level of Moderator Indirect Effect (95% CI)
Autonomy→OBSE→PWB Low Resilience .53 (0.26, 0.79)
Average Resilience .31 (0.13, 0.49)
High Resilience .09 (−0.01, 0.19)
Note: Parameter estimates are standardized. Indirect effects in
bold are p < .05
(two-tailed). OBSE = organization-based self-esteem; PWB =
psychological
well-being.
109731

5
http://wisdom-works.com/
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(19)30671-3/sbref0001
http://www.jeremydawson.co.uk/slopes.htm]
http://www.jeremydawson.co.uk/slopes.htm]
Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D., Oishi,
S., et al. (2009). New
measures of well-being. In E. Diener (Ed.). Assessing well-
being: The collected works of
ed diener (pp. 247–266). . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-
2354-412 Social
Indicators Research Series 39.
Grover, S. L., Teo, S. T. T., Pick, D., Roche, M., & Newton, C.
J. (2018). Psychological

capital as a personal resource in the JD-R model. Personnel
Review, 47, 968–984.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and
conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach (2 ed.). NY: The Guilford Press.
Horberg, E. J., & Chen, S. (2010). Significant others and
contingencies of self-worth:
Activation and consequences of relationship-specific
contingencies of self-worth.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 77–91.
Idaszak, J. R., Bottom, W. P., & Drasgow, F. (1988). A test of
the measurement equiva-
lence of the revised job diagnostics survey: Past problems and
current solutions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 647–656.
Inceoglu, I., Thomas, G., Chu, C., Plans, D., & Gerbasi, A.
(2018). Leadership behavior and
employee well-being: An integrated review and a future
research agenda. The
Leadership Quarterly, 29, 179–202.
Kuntz, J. C. R., Malinen, S., & Näswall, K. (2017). Employee
resilience: Directions for
resilience development. Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research, 69,
223–242.
Kidd, S., & Shahar, G. (2008). Resilience in homeless youth:
The key role of self-esteem.

American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78, 163–172.
Lee, J. E. C., Sudom, K. A., & McCreary, D. R. (2011). Higher-
order model of resilience in
the Canadian forces. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science,
43, 222–234.
Liu, J. J. W., Reed, M., & Girard, T. A. (2017). Advancing
resilience: An integrative, multi-
system model of resilience. Personality and Individual
Mayordomo, T., Viguer, P., Sales, A., Satorres, E., & Meléndez,
J. C. (2016). Resilience
and coping as predictors of well-being in adults. The Journal of
Psychology, 150,
809–821.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2017). Mplus user's guide
(8th). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén &
Muthén.
Oliver, J. J., & MacLeod, A. K. (2018). Working adults’ well-
being: An online self-help
goal-based intervention. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 91,
665–680.
Pierce, J. L., & Gardner, D. G. (2004). Self-esteem within the
work and organizational
context: A review of the organization-based self-esteem
literature. Journal of
Management, 30, 591–622.
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., & Crowley, C. (2015).
Organization-based self-esteem and

well-being: Empirical examination of a spillover effect.
European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 25, 181–199.
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R.
B. (1989). Organization-
based self-esteem: Construct definition, operationalization, and
validation. Academy
of Management Journal, 32, 622–648.
Qualtrics. (2014). ESOMAR 28: 28 questions to help research
buyers of online samples. Provo,
UT: Qualtrics.
Rentzsch, K., Wenzler, M. P., & Shütz, A. (2016). The structure
of multidimensional self-
esteem across age and gender. Personality and Individual
Rodríguez-Rey, R., Alonso-Tapia, J., & Hernansaiz-Garrido, H.
(2016). Reliability and
validity of the brief resilience scale (BRS) Spanish version.
Psychological Assessment,
28, e101–e110. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000191.
Ryff, C. D. (2014). Psychological well-being revisited:
Advances in the science and
practice of eudaimonia. Psychotherapy & Psychosomatics, 83,
10–28.
Schaubroeck, J., Kim, Y. J., & Peng, A. C. (2012). The self-
concept in organizational
psychology: Clarifying and differentiating the constructs.
International Review of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 27, 1–37.

Schmeichel, B. J., Gailliot, M. T., Filardo, E.-A., McGregor, I.,
Gitter, S., & Baumeister, R.
F. (2009). Terror management theory and self-esteem revisited:
The roles of implicit
and explicit self-esteem in mortality salience effects. Journal of
Personality and Social
Psychology, 96, 1077–1087.
Skakon, J., Nielsen, K., Borg, V., & Guzman, J. (2010). Are
leaders' well-being, behaviours
and style associated with the affective well-being of their
employees? a systematic
review of three decades of research. Work & Stress, 24, 107–
139.
Slemp, G. R., Kern, M. L., Patrick, K. J., & Ryan, R. M. (2018).
Leader autonomy support
in the workplace: A meta-analytic review. Motivation and
Emotion, 42, 706–724.
Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher,
P., & Bernard, J. (2008). The
brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back.
International Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 15, 194–200.
Stiglbauer, B., & Kovacs, C. (2018). The more, the better?
Curvilinear effects of job au-
tonomy on well-being from vitamin model and PE-fit theory
perspectives. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 23, 520–536.
Stride, C. B., Gardner, S., Catley, N., & Thomas, F. (2015).
Mplus code for mediation,
moderation, and moderated mediation models.

http://www.offbeat.group.shef.ac.uk/
FIO/mplusmedmod.htm.
Tafarodi, R. W., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2001). Two-dimensional
self-esteem: Theory and
measurement. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 653–
673.
Tripathi, P. (2011). Employee well-being: Role of psychological
capital. Amity Journal of
Applied Psychology, 2, 18–22.
Walter, S. L., Seibert, S. E., Goering, D., & O'Boyle, E. H.
(2019). A tale of two sample
sources: Do results from online panel data and conventional
data converge? Journal of
Business and Psychology, 34, 425–452.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli,
W. B. (2011). The role of
personal resources in the job demands-resources model.
International Journal of Stress
Management, 14, 121–141.
109731
6
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2354-412
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2354-412

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(19)30671-3/sbref0016a

https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000191
http://www.offbeat.group.shef.ac.uk/FIO/mplusmedmod.htm
http://www.offbeat.group.shef.ac.uk/FIO/mplusmedmod.htm
http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0191-8869(19)30671-

3/sbref0038The importance of being resilient: Psychological
well-being, job autonomy, and self-esteem of organization
managersIntroductionPsychological well-beingSelf-Esteem at
workResilienceResilience and
OBSEMethodSampleMeasuresResultsPreliminary
analysesDescriptive statisticsInferential
resultsDiscussionLimitationsReferences
Rubric Title: MN506 Unit 2 Assignment Rubric
Assignment Criteria
Level III
Level II
Level I
Not Present
Criteria 1
Level III Max Points
Points: 20
Level II Max Points
Points: 16
Level I Max Points
Points: 12
0 Points
Ethical and legal decision-making dilemma involving an
advanced practice nurse in the field of administration,
education, or a nurse practitioner
· Includes substantial integration of three course materials
and/or use of upper level thinking (legal synthesis of
malpractice case).
Ethical Legal decision making dilemma includes all of the

following:
· detailed
· addresses the relevant field of the APN demonstrates critical
thinking
· Includes substantial integration of two course materials and/or
use of upper level thinking (legal synthesis of malpractice
case).
Ethical Legal decision making dilemma includes at least two of
the following:
· detailed
thinking
· Includes substantial integration of one course material and/or
use of upper level thinking (legal synthesis of malpractice
case).
Ethical Legal decision making dilemma includes at least one of
the following:
· detailed
thinking
· Does not meet the criteria.
Assignment Criteria
Level III
Level II
Level I
Not Present
Criteria 2
Points: 15
Level II Max Points
Points: 12
Level I Max Points
Points: 9
0 Points

Relevant codes of conduct that apply to the practice of nursing
and the chosen APN field.
· Applies at least three relevant codes of conduct that apply to
the practice of nursing and the chosen APN field.
· Applies at least two relevant codes of conduct that apply to
the practice of nursing and the chosen APN field.
· Applies one relevant code of conduct that applies to the
practice of nursing and the chosen APN field.
Assignment Criteria
Level III
Level II
Level I
Not Present
Criteria 3
Points: 15
Level II Max Points
Points: 12
Level I Max Points
Points: 9
0 Points
One ethical principle and one law that could be violated and
whether the violation would constitute a civil or criminal act
based on facts.
Describes all of the following:
· one ethical principle,
· one law that could be violated
· correct type of violation
Describes two of the following:
· one ethical principle
Includes a description of at least one of the following:
· one ethical principle

Criteria 4
Points: 15
Level II Max Points
Points: 12
Level I Max Points
Points: 9
0 Points
Construct a decision
Construct a decision that includes all of the following:
· demonstrates integrity
· prevents violation of the ethical principle
· prevents the law from being violated
Construct a decision that includes two of the following:
· prevents violation of the ethical principle
· prevents the law from being violated
Construct a decision that includes one of the following:
· prevents violation of the ethical principle prevents the law
from being violated
Assignment Criteria
Level III
Level II
Level I
Not Present
Criteria 5
Points: 15
Level II Max Points
Points: 12
Level I Max Points
Points: 9

0 Points
Recommendations that will resolve APN moral distress
· Describes three or more recommendations that will resolve
APN moral distress in the dilemma presented.
· Describes less than three recommendations that will resolve
· Identifies less than two recommendations that will resolve
· Does not meet the criteria
Criteria 6
Points: 10
Level II Max Points
Points: 8
Level I Max Points
Points: 6
0 Points
College-level academic writing
· Includes less than three grammatical, spelling, or punctuation
errors that do not interfere with readability
· Meets assignment length requirements
· Provides three peer-reviewed scholarly sources
· Includes less than five grammatical, spelling, or punctuation
· Meets the length requirements
· Provides two peer-reviewed scholarly sources
· Includes five or more grammatical, spelling, or punctuation
errors that interfere with readability
· Provides one peer-reviewed scholarly sources
Assignment Criteria
Level III
Level II
Level I
Not Present

Criteria 7
Points: 10
Level II Max Points
Points: 8
Level I Max Points
Points: 6
0 Points
Citations and Formatting
No or less than three APA errors in:
· paper format
· reference page
· in-text citations
· headings
Less than five APA errors in:
· paper format
· reference page
· headings
More than five APA errors in:
· paper format
· reference page
· headings
Maximum Total Points
100
80
60
Minimum Total Points
81 points minimum
61 points minimum
1 point minimum

Assignment Criteria
Level III
Level II
Level I
Not Present
Criteria 1
Points: 25
Level II Max Points
Points: 20
Level I Max Points
Points: 16
0 Points
APN role of: Administrator, Practitioner, and Educator
Describes all three APN roles of:
· Administrator,
· Practitioner,
· AND Educator.
Describes at least two APN roles of:
· Administrator,
· Practitioner,
· AND/OR Educator.
Describes only one APN role of:
· Administrator,
· Practitioner,
· OR Educator.
Assignment Criteria
Level III
Level II
Level I
Not Present

Criteria 2
Points: 25
Level II Max Points
Points: 20
Level I Max Points
Points: 16
0 Points
Standards of care violations pertaining to the identified APN
role (administrator, practitioner, or educator)
Lists at least three standards of care violations pertaining to the
identified APN role
· administrator,
· practitioner,
· AND educator.
identified APN role
· administrator,
· practitioner,
· AND/OR educator.
identified APN role
· administrator,
· practitioner,
· OR educator.
Assignment Criteria
Level III
Level II
Level I
Not Present
Criteria 3
Points: 25
Level II Max Points
Points: 20

Level I Max Points
Points: 16
0 Points
Risk management steps to be taken before the incident to
alleviate the issue
· Identifies at least three risk management steps to be taken
before the incident to alleviate the issue
· Identifies at least two risk management steps to be taken
before the incident to alleviate the issue
· Identifies only one risk management step to be taken before
the incident to alleviate the issue
Criteria 4
Points: 25
Level II Max Points
Points: 20
Level I Max Points
Points: 16
0 Points
Risk management steps to be taken after the incident to
alleviate the issue
· Identifies at least three risk management steps to be taken
after the incident to alleviate the issue?
· Identifies at least two risk management steps to be taken after
the incident to alleviate the issue?
· Identifies only one risk management step to be taken after the
incident to alleviate the issue?
Assignment Criteria
Level III
Level II
Level I
Not Present
Criteria 5

Points: 10
Level II Max Points
Points: 8
Level I Max Points
Points: 6
0 Points
Assignment Criteria
Level III
Level II
Level I
Not Present
Criteria 6
Points: 10
Level II Max Points
Points: 8
Level I Max Points
Points: 6
0 Points
Less than three APA errors in:
· paper format

· reference page
· headings
· paper format
· reference page
· headings
· paper format
· reference page
· headings
120
96
72
97
73
1
Assignment Criteria
Level III
Level II
Level I
Not Present
Criteria 1
Points: 25

Level II Max Points
Points: 20
Level I Max Points
Points: 15
0 Points
Healthcare policy/legislation by name, date of implementation,
and state/local jurisdiction relevant to the policy
Identifies healthcare policy/legislation by:
· name,
· date of implementation,
· AND state/local jurisdiction relevant to the policy.
Identifies healthcare policy/legislation by at least two:
· name,
· AND/OR state/local jurisdiction relevant to the policy.
Identifies healthcare policy/legislation by only one:
· name,
· OR state/local jurisdiction relevant to the policy.
Assignment Criteria
Level III
Level II
Level I
Not Present
Criteria 2
Points: 25
Level II Max Points
Points: 20
Level I Max Points
Points: 15
0 Points
Summarized policy/legislation
The policy/legislation is all three:

· summarized,
· includes all relevant facts,
· AND the role of the APN is integrated throughout the paper.
The policy/legislation is at least two:
· summarized,
· AND/OR the role of the APN is integrated throughout the
paper.
The policy/legislation is only one:
· summarized,
· OR the role of the APN is integrated throughout the paper.
Assignment Criteria
Level III
Level II
Level I
Not Present
Criteria 3
Points: 25
Level II Max Points
Points: 20
Level I Max Points
Points: 15
0 Points
Strengths and weaknesses of the policy/legislation.
· Analyzes at least three strengths and/or weaknesses of the
policy/legislation.
· Analyzes at least two strengths and/or weaknesses of the
policy/legislation.
· Analyzes only one strength and/or weakness of the
policy/legislation.
Criteria 4

Points: 25
Level II Max Points
Points: 20
Level I Max Points
Points: 15
0 Points
Impact of policy
Discusses impact of policy on all three:
· consumer stakeholders,
· provider stakeholders,
· AND APRN practice specifically.
Discusses impact of policy on at least two:
· AND/OR APRN practice specifically.
Discusses impact of policy on only one:
· OR APRN practice specifically. Content is not supported.
Assignment Criteria
Level III
Level II
Level I
Not Present
Criteria 5
Points: 10
Level II Max Points
Points: 8
Level I Max Points
Points: 6
0 Points

Assignment Criteria
Level III
Level II
Level I
Not Present
Criteria 6
Points: 10
Level II Max Points
Points: 8
Level I Max Points
Points: 6
0 Points
· paper format
· reference page
· headings
· paper format
· reference page
· headings

· paper format
· reference page
· headings
120
96
72
97
73
1
Assignment Criteria
Level III
Level II
Level I
Not Present
Criteria 1
Points: 30
Level II Max Points
Points: 24
Level I Max Points
Points: 18
0 Points
Components of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that are
important to APN practice
· Identifies at least three components of the ACA that are
important to APN practice.

· Identifies at least two components of the ACA that are
important to APN practice.
· Identifies only one component of the ACA that is important to
APN practice.
Assignment Criteria
Level III
Level II
Level I
Not Present
Criteria 2
Points: 30
Level II Max Points
Points: 24
Level I Max Points
Points: 18
0 Points
Important to APN practice
· Describes why the three components are important to APN
practice.
· Describes why two components are important to APN practice.
· Describes why only one component is important to APN
practice.
Criteria 3
Points: 30
Level II Max Points
Points: 24
Level I Max Points
Points: 18
0 Points
State implementation of components
· Determines the implementation of three components.
· Determines the implementation of two components.

· Determines the implementation of one component.
Criteria 4
Points: 30
Level II Max Points
Points: 24
Level I Max Points
Points: 18
0 Points
Healthcare impact in state.
Describes how implementation / non-implementation of the
three components impacts healthcare in your state.
Describes how implementation / non-implementation of the two
components impacts healthcare in your state.
Describes how implementation / non-implementation of the one
component impacts healthcare in your state.
Assignment Criteria
Level III
Level II
Level I
Not Present
Criteria 5
Points: 15
Level II Max Points
Points: 12
Level I Max Points
Points: 9
0 Points

Assignment Criteria
Level III
Level II
Level I
Not Present
Criteria 6
Points: 15
Level II Max Points
Points: 12
Level I Max Points
Points: 9
0 Points
· paper format
· reference page
· headings
· paper format
· reference page
· headings
· paper format
· reference page

· headings
· Does not meet criteria
150
120
90
121
91
1
Assignment Criteria
Level III
Level II
Level I
Not Present
Criteria 1
Points: 30
Level II Max Points
Points: 24
Level I Max Points
Points: 18
0 Points
Primary issue, summary, and relationship of brief topic to APN
practice
Identifies
· the primary issue discussed in the brief,
· summarizes the brief,

· AND states the relationship of the issue to APN practice
Identifies
· AND/OR states the relationship of the issue to APN practice
Identifies
· OR states the relationship of the issue to APN practice
Assignment Criteria
Level III
Level II
Level I
Not Present
Criteria 2
Points: 30
Level II Max Points
Points: 24
Level I Max Points
Points: 18
0 Points
Strengths, weaknesses, advantages, and/or disadvantages of the
issue
· Lists at least three strengths, weaknesses, advantages, and/or
disadvantages of the issue.
· Lists at least two strengths, weaknesses, advantages, and/or
disadvantages of the issue
· Lists at least one strength, weakness, advantage, or
disadvantage of the issue
Assignment Criteria
Level III
Level II
Level I

Not Present
Criteria 3
Points: 30
Level II Max Points
Points: 24
Level I Max Points
Points: 18
0 Points
Solution
s or recommendations for the issue
· Describes at least three solutions or recommendations for the
issue
· Describes at least two solutions or recommendations for the
issue
· Describes at least one solution or recommendation for the
issue
Criteria 4
Points: 30
Level II Max Points
Points: 24
Level I Max Points
Points: 18

0 Points
Advocacy for or against the policy implementation.
· In APN role, lists at least three ways to advocate for or against
the policy implementation
· In APN role, lists at least two ways to advocate for or against
· In APN role, lists at least one way to advocate for or against
Assignment Criteria
Level III
Level II
Level I
Not Present
Criteria 5
Points: 15
Level II Max Points
Points: 12
Level I Max Points
Points: 9
0 Points

· Meets length requirements
Assignment Criteria
Level III
Level II
Level I
Not Present
Criteria 6
Points: 15
Level II Max Points
Points: 12
Level I Max Points
Points: 9
0 Points

· paper format
· reference page
· headings
· paper format
· reference page
· headings
· paper format
· reference page
· headings
150
120
90
121
91
1

Updated 2/2/2021
Rubric Title:
MN506
Unit
2
Assignment Rubric
Assignment Criteria
Level III
Level II
Level I

Not Present
Criteria 1
Points: 20
Level II Max Points
Points: 16
Level I Max Points
Points: 12
0 Points
Ethical and legal
decision
-
making dilemma involving
an advanced practice nurse
in the field of administration,

edu
cation, or a nurse
practitioner
?
Includes substantial
integration of three
course materials
and/or use of upper
level thinking (legal
synthesis of
malpractice ca
se).
Ethical Legal decision
making dilemma
includes all of the
following
:
?
detailed

?
addresses the
relevant field of
the APN
demonstrates
critical thinking
?
integration of two
course materials and/or
use of upper level
thinking (legal
synthesis
of malpractice case).
making dilemma includes
at least two of the following:

?
detailed
?
addresses the
relevant field of the
APN demonstrates
critical thinking
?
integration of one
course material and/or
use of upper level
thinking (legal synthesis
at lea

st one of the
following:
?
detailed
?
addresses the
APN demonstrates
critical thinking
?
Does not meet the
criteria
.
Assignment Criteria
Level III

Level II
Level I
Not Present
Criteria 2
Points: 15
Level II Max
Points
Points: 12
Level I Max Points
Points: 9
0 Points
Relevant codes of conduct
that apply to the practice of

nursing and the chosen
APN field.
?
Applies at least
three relevant
codes of conduct
that apply to the
practice of
nursing and the
?
Applies at least two
relevant codes of
conduct that apply
to the practice of
nursing and the
chosen APN field.
?
Applies one
relevant code of
con

duct that applies
to the practice of
nursing and the
chosen APN field.
?
Does not meet the
criteria.
Assignment Criteria Level III Level II Level I Not Present
Criteria 1 Level III Max Points
Points: 20
Level II Max Points
Points: 16
Level I Max Points
Points: 12
0 Points
Ethical and legal decision-

making dilemma involving
an advanced practice nurse
in the field of administration,
education, or a nurse
practitioner
? Includes substantial
integration of three
course materials
and/or use of upper
level thinking (legal
synthesis of
malpractice case).
making dilemma
includes all of the
following:
? detailed
? addresses the
relevant field of
the APN
demonstrates
critical thinking
integration of two

course materials and/or
use of upper level
at least two of the following:
? detailed
? addresses the
APN demonstrates
critical thinking
integration of one
course material and/or
use of upper level
at least one of the
following:
? detailed

? addresses the
APN demonstrates
critical thinking
? Does not meet the
criteria.
Assignment Criteria Level III Level II Level I Not Present
Criteria 2 Level III Max Points
Points: 15
Level II Max Points
Points: 12
Level I Max Points
Points: 9
0 Points
Relevant codes of conduct
that apply to the practice of
nursing and the chosen
APN field.
? Applies at least
three relevant
codes of conduct
that apply to the
practice of
nursing and the
? Applies at least two

relevant codes of
conduct that apply
to the practice of
nursing and the
chosen APN field.
? Applies one
relevant code of
conduct that applies
to the practice of
nursing and the
chosen APN field.
? Does not meet the
criteria.
research design one uses (longitudinal, cross-
sectional, experimental, quasi-experimental,
etc). It does not depend on the sample (e.g.,
American or Nigerian). Science is charac-
terized by testing and falsifying theories
(Meehl, 1978).
In light of this philosophy, it is unclear
why research on cultural context should be

considered more scientifically progressive
than research on basic processes. In fact, Ar-
nett’s (2008) description of cultural research
raises concerns that it could actually slow
progress in psychology. His vision of cultural
psychology does not invoke theory or the
importance of having testable hypotheses.
Rather, cultural psychology appears to be ex-
ploratory and descriptive in nature. Will cul-
tural psychology simply be an anecdotal
record of cultural differences or a collection
of replication studies? Will 100% of the
world’s population have to be studied before
psychology can be considered a “complete
science?” Arnett failed to provide any infor-
mation about how cultural psychology will
progress as a science.
From a philosophy of science perspec-
tive, Arnett’s (2008) distinction between cul-
tural context and basic processes is a false
dichotomy. The problem with human psy-
chology is not its focus on basic processes
rather than cultural context; it is the lack of
strong falsifiable theories (Meehl, 1978).

Cultural context cannot exist in a vacuum
isolated from basic processes such as cogni-
tion, perception, language, and so forth. If
cultural research is to take hold in psychol-
ogy, then it must be theory driven and inte-
grated into work on basic processes. It is not
enough to surmise that different cultures may
lead to different outcomes. Researchers need
to specify the conditions for when they would
and would not expect culture to affect basic
processes and behaviors.
Cultural context can serve an important
purpose in psychological science: It will en-
able us to test hypotheses about which fea-
tures of human behavior are acquired through
experience and which are basic (or innate).
Basic processes are mechanisms via which
humans—and other animals—are able to re-
spond adaptively to typical environments;
however, these processes can be distin-
guished from another kind of adaptation, ac-
quired associations or strategies (such as
reading), which vary across situations and
cultures. Within this framework, cultural ad-

aptations can be thought to arise from the
operation of basic processes, such as learn-
ing.4 For example, at one time it was thought
that language was acquired solely through
imitation of and reinforcement by models
within one’s sociocultural context (e.g., Skin-
ner’s, 1957, Verbal Behavior), until Chom-
sky’s synthesis of cross-cultural linguistic
variation revealed important similarities
across cultures, suggesting that language ac-
quisition also depends on a more basic struc-
ture or process that all humans share. Simi-
larly, conventional wisdom suggests that
abstract mathematical concepts are learned
through years of formal education and train-
ing; however, studies of hunter-gatherer cul-
tures (e.g., the Pirahã; Gordon, 2004) and
even of nonhuman animals (e.g., monkeys,
rats, pigeons; Gallistel & Gelman, 2000)
have shown that we all share a common
system for representing the abstract concept
of number. In clinical psychology, many as-
sume that eating disorders such as anorexia
nervosa and bulimia nervosa share a common

genetic etiology. However, recent research
suggests that the genetic diathesis for bulimia
nervosa may exhibit greater pathoplasticity
cross-culturally than the diathesis for an-
orexia nervosa; this finding indicates distinct
etiologies for these disorders (Keel & Klump,
2003). These examples highlight the impor-
tance of using cultural context to test theories
about basic and acquired human behavior.
Conclusion
Focusing on cultural context rather than
basic processes is not going to advance
American psychology, or psychology in
general. Neither are having students travel
abroad or take anthropology classes (as
recommended by Arnett), in and of them-
selves. Rather, science will advance by de-
veloping and testing theories. We believe
that psychological science can benefit most
by using differences in culture and context
to develop and test novel hypotheses about
basic human processes.

4 Note that this formulation of the purpose
of cross-cultural psychology differs markedly
from Arnett’s (2008), which espouses cultural
representativeness as a goal unto itself.
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. A., Lindsay, J. J., & Bushman,
B. J. (1999). Research in the psychological
laboratory: Truth or triviality? Current Direc-
tions in Psychological Science, 8, 3–9.
Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why
American psychology needs to become less
American. American Psychologist, 63, 602–
614.
Banks, M. S., Aslin, R. N., & Letson, R. D.
(1975, November 14). Sensitive period for the
development of human binocular vision. Sci-
ence, 190, 675– 677.
Davis, M., Myers, K. M., Ressler, K. J., & Roth-
baum, B. O. (2005). Facilitation of extinction
of conditioned fear by D-cycloserine: Impli-

cations for psychotherapy. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 14, 214 –219.
Gallistel, C. R., & Gelman, R. (2000). Non-verbal
numerical cognition: From reals to integers.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 59 – 65.
Gordon, P. (2004). Numerical cognition without
words: Evidence from Amazonia. Science,
306, 496 – 499.
Keel, K. K., & Klump, K. L. (2003). Are eating
disorders culturally bound syndromes? Impli-
cations for conceptualizing their etiology.
Psychological Bulletin, 129, 747–769.
Meaney, M. J. (2001). Maternal care, gene ex-
pression, and the transmission of individual
differences in stress reactivity across genera-
tions. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24,
1161–1192.
Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular
asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow
progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consult-

ing and Clinical Psychology, 46, 806 – 834.
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific
discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Stanovich, K. E. (2007). How to think straight
about psychology (8th ed.). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon/Pearson Education.
Correspondence concerning this comment
should be addressed to Gerald J. Haeffel, De-
partment of Psychology, 108 Haggar Hall, Uni-
versity of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556.
E-mail: [email protected]
DOI: 10.1037/a0016723
The Neglected 95%, a
Challenge to Psychology’s
Philosophy of Science
Jeffrey Jensen Arnett

Clark University
My goal in writing “The Neglected 95%:
Why American Psychology Needs to Be-
come Less American” (Arnett, October
2008) was to fuel a conversation in psy-
chology about whether American psycho-
logical research should become more re-
flective of how human beings in different
cultures around the world experience their
lives. I am pleased to see that many of my
colleagues have taken up this conversation,
as represented in the four comments Amer-
ican Psychologist is publishing in this is-
sue. The four comments were well chosen
in that they represent quite different reac-
tions to my article. Two of the comments
were generally in support of my thesis that
American psychology is too narrow cultur-
ally, and sought to provide additional in-
formation on the issues I raised. The other
two comments were in opposition to my
thesis and presented the grounds for their
571September 2009 ● American Psychologist

opposition. In this rejoinder I address the
issues raised in each of the comments, first
the two supporting comments and then the
two opposing comments. Following this, I
address the more general problem that cuts
across the comments: American psychol-
ogy’s dominant philosophy of science.
Strategies—and a Caveat—for
Reaching the Neglected 95%
LoSchiavo and Shatz (2009, this issue)
agreed that my analysis of articles pub-
lished in APA journals shows that Ameri-
can researchers in psychology have fo-
cused too narrowly on Americans while
neglecting the other 95% of the world’s
population. However, they placed the ori-
gin of the problem not mainly on a mis-
guided philosophy of science, as I did
(Arnett, 2008), but on practical issues, spe-
cifically “a lack of viable options for con-

ducting research with international sam-
ples” (LoSchiavo & Shatz, 2009, p. 566).
To remedy this problem they suggested the
creation of a centralized network of multi-
national field sites “so that researchers can
partner with international colleagues and
collect data from samples that better reflect
the whole of humanity” (p. 566). They also
recommended increased use of Web-based
research methods, which could make it
possible to involve colleagues and research
participants around the world without the
expense and logistical trouble of interna-
tional travel.
I support these suggestions. However,
I would only raise the caution that multi-
national studies would have to be based on
diverse culturally grounded theoretical per-
spectives and methods in order to be suc-
cessful in addressing the problems I de-
scribed in my article. For example, it would
be a mistake to believe that taking Ameri-
can-based questionnaires and using them in
10 different countries would be an ade-

quate way of representing the cultural con-
texts of all 10 countries. Questionnaires are
laden with cultural assumptions, in the items
chosen and the response options offered, so
the methods used would have to be adapted
to the range of cultural contexts involved,
even if doing so would make it more difficult
to compare the samples. Similarly, it would
be pointless to use the same experimental
laboratory methods in 10 different countries.
If experimental laboratory methods strip
away cultural context in one country, they
will do so in other countries as well. What
needs to change is not just the cultural range
of samples used in psychology but the dom-
inant philosophy of science.
Is American Psychology Already
Becoming More International?
Like LoSchiavo and Shatz (2009), Web-
ster, Nichols, and Schember (2009, this
issue) agreed with the thesis of my article.
However, their appraisal of American psy-
chology’s current international representa-

tion was more favorable than mine. They
conducted a journal analysis to supplement
the one I presented and concluded that
“substantial progress has been made over
the last 30 years” (Webster et al., 2009, p.
566) in APA journals, toward representing
a broader portion of humanity.
Their analysis included three journals
that mine did not—Journal of Experimen-
tal Psychology: General (JEP: General),
Psychological Bulletin, and Psychological
Review—and they excluded two journals
that had been part of my analysis, Health
Psychology and Family Psychology. My
analysis was over 20 years in 5-year incre-
ments; their analysis went back 30 years in
10-year increments. Furthermore, they an-
alyzed national institutional affiliations of
editors, associate editors, and consulting
editors across five time points from 1980 to
2008. In contrast, my analysis of APA’s
editorial representation was for only one
year, 2007. This is an impressive analysis
that Webster et al. (2009) have conducted,

with admirable swiftness (presumably in
the few months since my article was pub-
lished in October 2008). Perhaps only they
and I can truly appreciate the tolerance for
tedium that such an analysis requires.
Although I now consider Webster et
al. (2009) my comrades in tedium, I do not
share their sanguine interpretation of their
results. As I see it, there are three problems.
First, although they stated hopefully that
the “glass” is now “half full” (p. 568), in
my reading of their results it appears that
three glasses are actually 37% (authors),
18% (consulting editors), and 21% (edi-
tors/associate editors) full, in terms of in-
ternational representation in APA journals.
Second, and more seriously, their analysis
did not specify the proportion of non-
American authors, editors, and consulting
editors who were from English-speaking or
European countries, as mine did. If, as in
my analysis, nearly all non-American rep-
resentation was from English-speaking or
Western European countries, the cultural

areas most similar to the United States,
then the increased international representa-
tion they reported for recent decades is
not as comforting as it appears. Adding
English-speaking and Western European
countries to the United States may raise
APA journal representation to about 12%
of the world’s people (Population Refer-
ence Bureau, 2006), up from less than 5%
for the United States alone, but a human
science that neglects 88% of the species it
purports to study remains a dubious one.
Third, and most serious of all, it is not
enough for a growing proportion of authors
and editors to be non-American if nearly all
of them, American and non-American
alike, share a narrow philosophy of science
that focuses mainly on basic processes and
ignores or strips away cultural context. In
Webster et al.’s (2009) analysis, the journal
with the highest international representa-
tion was JEP: General, less than 50% of
whose first authors in 2008 were American.

However, JEP: General articles all use ex-
perimental methods that cast little or no
light on the cultural context of the persons or
the phenomena being studied. Similarly, in
my analysis, the highest proportion of non-
American authors and samples was for the
Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy (JPSP), but virtually all of the studies in
that journal, no matter where they were con-
ducted, involved samples of university stu-
dents taking introductory psychology classes,
and even non-American studies ignored the
cultural context of the samples.
It is a dangerous illusion to assume
that the mere presence of international au-
thors, editors, or samples in APA journals
would be enough to do justice to the cul-
tural breadth and richness of the world’s
peoples. International representation is a
necessary but not sufficient condition for a
cultural perspective in American psychol-
ogy. For this, a change in philosophy of
science is necessary.

Psychological “Laws” and Theories
Stroebe and Nijstad (2009, this issue) be-
gan their comment with a startling decla-
ration: “It is a fundamental assumption of
psychological science that, unless specified
otherwise, our theories apply to all of hu-
manity” (p. 569). This is a bold state-
ment—and a remarkably ethnocentric one.
Given human cultural diversity, how can it
be justified to assume that a theory devel-
oped on the basis of research on a tiny
proportion of the world’s population can
“apply to all of humanity”? As I noted
(Arnett, 2008), this is certainly a strange
way to conduct science.
Stroebe and Nijstad (2009) acknowl-
edged that it is a scientific standard that the
results of research can be generalized only
to the population from which the partici-
pants were drawn. Nevertheless, they as-
serted that sampling from a diverse range
of humanity is necessary only if the results
of a study are expected to be moderated by

other variables. “If no moderation is ex-
pected, any subgroup of the population will
do equally well, even the often maligned
572 September 2009 ● American Psychologist
undergraduate students” (Stroebe & Nij-
stad, 2009, p. 569).
The problem with this position is that
our theoretical expectations, and the vari-
ables we consider as possible moderators,
are shaped by our cultural assumptions,
whether we realize it or not. For example,
a long-standing finding on parent– child
relations in American research is that
from middle childhood to adolescence,
conflict increases and closeness decreases
(Laursen, Coy, & Collins, 1998). On the
basis of these findings, an American psy-
chologist proposed a theory that “distanc-
ing” between parents and adolescents may
have an evolutionary basis, in that it would

be adaptive for young people to move away
from closeness to their parents once they
reach sexual maturity, so that they would
mate and reproduce with persons outside
the family (Steinberg, 1989). Yet among
adolescents and parents in countries in-
cluding India, Brazil, and Indonesia—all
sharing the evolutionary history of homo
sapiens— conflict does not increase and
closeness does not decrease; adolescents
enjoy being with their parents and feel
closer to them than to their friends (French,
Rianasari, Pidada, Nelwan, & Buhrmester,
2001; Larson, Verma, & Dworkin, 2003;
Schlegel & Barry, 1991; Van Horn &
Cunegatto Marques, 2000). Thus a re-
searcher with knowledge of cultural varia-
tions in parent–adolescent relations would
develop much different theoretical expec-
tations, and search for much different mod-
erators, than an American researcher who
focused on the American pattern and yet
assumed that a theory developed from this
singular case applied to all of humanity.

Similarly, Stroebe and Nijstad (2009)
argued that “a major weakness of Arnett’s
(2008) argumentation is that he failed to
distinguish between research that tests gen-
eral laws of behavior and research aimed at
describing the impact of societal factors on
behavior” (p. 569, emphasis in original). As
an example, they named AIDS research, ar-
guing that for gay American men as for het-
erosexual African women, a theoretical
model like the theory of planned behavior
would apply equally well. The problem with
this view is that often what psychologists
proclaim as “general laws of behavior” are
actually general “laws” of American behav-
ior or, worse yet, general “laws” of American
undergraduate introductory psychology stu-
dent behavior (Norenzayan & Heine, 2005).
Theories are essential to good psycho-
logical research, but to be widely applica-
ble—much less “laws”—they would have
to be based on a broad knowledge of cul-
tural practices, not just the ways of one
culture. It would be a grave error to import

American-based theories and measures into
cultures around the world and assume that
they were based on “laws” that applied
equally well to all peoples. To continue
with the AIDS example Stroebe and Nij-
stad (2009) invoked, research has shown
that a key factor in the transmission of
AIDS in Africa is that men often migrate to
urban areas in search of work, where they
have sex with HIV-infected prostitutes be-
fore returning to their rural villages and
unknowingly infecting their wives (Kali-
peni, Craddock, Ghosh, & Oppong, 2008).
Knowledge of this cultural pattern would
be far more useful in developing interven-
tions for HIV prevention in Africa than
would applying an American theory like
the theory of planned behavior advocated
by Stroebe and Nijstad, which, in its Amer-
ican way, focuses entirely on individual-
level variables of knowledge, beliefs, atti-
tudes, and perceived behavioral control
without attending sufficiently to social or
cultural context.

What Is Science? What Is
Scientific Progress?
The most extensive of the four commentar-
ies is the one offered by Haeffel, Thiessen,
Campbell, Kaschak, and McNeil (2009,
this issue), who took the position that
“Theory, Not Cultural Context, Will Ad-
vance American Psychology” (p. 570).
Their main goal was to defend the value of
research on basic processes (e.g., cogni-
tion, perception, learning) and question the
value of culturally diverse research.
Haeffel et al. (2009) are on shaky
ground from the beginning. They showed the
limits of their perceptions in asserting that
“the problem of generalizability is often
overstated” (p. 570), offering in support of
this statement the assertion “Studies using
one sample of humans (e.g., Americans) of-
ten generalize to other samples of humans
(e.g., Spaniards)” (p. 570). Even adding
Spaniards to Americans (and throwing in Ca-

nadians for good measure) still makes for less
than 5% of the world’s population. Psychol-
ogists are far too quick to jump from one
study of Americans and one study of Span-
iards to a declaration of a universal psycho-
logical principle. It is not the problem of
generalizability that is overstated but the re-
search findings of psychologists based on a
tiny and unusual segment of humanity.
There may be an effective case to be
made for the value of psychological re-
search on basic processes, but Haeffel and
colleagues (2009) did not make it.1 They
claimed that I suffer from a “fundamental
misunderstanding about basic research”
and that my position is “akin to asking why
medical research continues to focus on
growing stem cells when there are more
daunting problems such as Alzheimer’s
and Parkinson’s disease” (p. 570). If only
the connection between psychological re-
search on basic processes and real-world
human problems were as clear as the rela-

tion between stem cell research and dis-
eases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s!
The relation between stem cell research
and treatments for Alzheimer’s and Parkin-
son’s disease is evident even to the nonsci-
entist. The relation between basic research
in psychology and real human problems is
far less clear even to a research psycholo-
gist. There may be value in psychological
research on basic processes, especially
when the results are linked to cultural con-
texts, as Haeffel et al. suggested. It is just
that research on basic processes alone is
not enough for a science of humanity. This
approach to research leaves out too much
about cultural beliefs, cultural practices,
and social relations.
Haeffel et al. (2009) accurately iden-
tified the heart of the difference between
my perspective and theirs as a divergence
in views of “how to define science . . . and
how to evaluate scientific progress” (p.
570). They hold to a philosophy of science
they attribute to Popper (1959) and Meehl

(1978): “If a theory is falsifiable, it is by
definition scientific” (Haeffel et al., 2009,
p. 570). To some extent, I agree with this
view. Certainly testing falsifiable hypothe-
ses is one part of psychological science.
However, restricting research to falsifiable
theories alone is far too narrow a view of
psychology as a human science. A focus on
falsifiable theories narrows psychology’s
1 Haeffel et al. (2009) claimed, “Basic re-
search in psychology has clear implications for
real-world issues” (p. 570), but the examples
they provided fall flat. Research on information
processing and behavioral activation has not “led
to the creation of highly effective treatments
(e.g., cognitive behavior therapy) for disorders
such as depression and anxiety” (p. 570). Cog-
nitive behavior therapy was developed in the
1950s and 1960s by Albert Ellis and Aaron
Beck, and its roots are in ancient Greek philos-
ophy, not basic research on information process-
ing and behavioral activation. To find an exam-
ple of basic research related to any of the
problems I suggested that psychology should

address (e.g., religious fundamentalism, terror-
ism, international ecological crises, war), the
authors are forced to go back half a century to
Milgram’s obedience studies and Zimbardo’s
prison experiment. I agree about the value of the
Milgram and Zimbardo studies, and I regard it as
a great pity that psychological research today is
rarely as creative in its methods as those studies
were. As for research on “abnormal binocular
experience such as esotropia” (p. 570), this seems
more in the realm of optometry than psychology.
573September 2009 ● American Psychologist
intellectual and scientific scope mainly to
the laboratory, where experimental situa-
tions can be carefully controlled. The prob-
lem with this focus is that laboratory stud-
ies are often ecologically invalid and have
little relation to how people actually live
and how they experience their lives. There
are many aspects of human development,
behavior, and experience that are worth

investigating even if they cannot be re-
duced to falsifiable theories (Rogoff,
2003). Psychology needs to get over its
“physics envy” and adapt its methods and
theoretical approaches to its uniquely hu-
man topic, in all its cultural complexity and
diversity, rather than endlessly and fruit-
lessly aping the natural sciences.
Toward a Broader Philosophy
of Our Human Science
The four comments on my article (Arnett,
2008) are diverse, but together they suggest
a need for a reexamination of psychology’s
dominant philosophy of science. Even the
two comments that were sympathetic to my
thesis did not fully grasp the crux of the
problem. Both assumed that a cultural un-
derstanding of human psychology could be
attained through cross-cultural research,
not realizing how transporting American-
based theories and methods to other cul-
tures might result in missing the most dis-
tinctive and essential features of those

cultures. The two opposing comments rep-
resented well the traditional approach to
psychological research, with its confident
assurance that progress in psychology is
best served by following the model of the
natural sciences, investigating basic pro-
cesses in search of universal laws, with
limited or no attention to that distracting
variable, cultural context, that actually
means the most to how people behave, how
they function psychologically, and how
they understand and interpret their lives.
I advocate a broader, more intellectu-
ally vibrant and inclusive philosophy of
science. The goal of the human sciences
should not be simply the pursuit of univer-
sal laws and the falsification of theo-
ries—no matter how dull or trivial the the-
ory, no matter how little relation the theory
has to how people experience life outside
the laboratory. The goal of the human sci-
ences should be to use the tools of the
scientific method to illuminate our under-
standing of human behavior, human func-

tioning, and human development. The tools
of the scientific method in psychology should
be construed broadly to include not just lab-
oratory tasks but any systematic investigation
of human phenomena. In this philosophy of
science, the structured interview and the eth-
nography are no less legitimate as tools of the
scientific method than are the laboratory or
the questionnaire. Many diverse methods are
welcome, and all contribute valuable pieces
to the mosaic that makes up a full under-
standing of humanity.
That mosaic is still missing many
large and essential pieces, over a century
after psychology was first established as a
field. However, many research psycholo-
gists are working daily to fill it in, using a
wide range of theories and methods
(Jensen, in press). What we need now in
American psychology is not a narrowing of
theories and methods to those that seem
best to mimic the methods of the natural
sciences, but a wider range of new, creative

theories and methods, synthesizing cultural
perspectives from all over the world, that
will broaden our understanding of the end-
lessly fascinating human experience.
REFERENCES
Arnett, J. J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why
American psychology needs to become less
American. American Psychologist, 63, 602–
614.
French, D. C., Rianasari, J. M., Pidada, S., Nel-
wan, P., & Buhrmester, D. (2001). Social sup-
port of Indonesian and U.S. children and ad-
olescents by family members and friends.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 47, 377–394.
Haeffel, G. J., Thiessen, E. D., Campbell, M. W.,
Kaschak, M. P., & McNeil, N. M. (2009).
Theory, not cultural context, will advance
American psychology. American Psycholo-
gist, 64, 570 –571.
Jensen, L. (in press). Bridging developmental

and cultural psychology: New syntheses in
theory, research, and policy. New York: Ox-
ford University Press.
Kalipeni, E., Craddock, S., Ghosh, J., & Op-
pong, J. R. (2008). HIV and AIDS in Africa:
Beyond epidemiology. New York: Wiley.
Larson, R., Verma, S., & Dworkin, J. (2003).
Adolescence without disengagement: The
daily family lives of Indian middle-class teen-
agers. In T. S. Saraswathi (Ed.), Cross-cul-
tural perspectives in human development:
Theory, research and applications (pp. 258 –
286). New Delhi, India: Sage.
Laursen, B., Coy, K. C., & Collins, W. A.
(1998). Reconsidering changes in parent–
child conflict across adolescence: A meta-
analysis. Child Development, 69, 817– 832.
LoSchiavo, F. M., & Shatz, M. A. (2009).
Reaching the neglected 95%. American Psy-
chologist, 64, 565–566.

Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabu-
lar asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the
slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 806 –
834.
Norenzayan, A., & Heine, S. J. (2005). Psycho-
logical universals: What are they and how can
we know? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 763–
784.
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific
discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Population Reference Bureau. (2006). 2006
world population data sheet. Washington,
DC: Author.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human
development. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Schlegel, A., & Barry, H. (1991). Adolescence:
An anthropological inquiry. New York: Free
Press.

Steinberg, L. (1989). Pubertal maturation and
parent–adolescent distance: An evolutionary
perspective. In G. Adams, R. Montemayor, &
T. Gullotta (Eds.), Advances in adolescent
development (Vol. 1, pp. 71–97). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Stroebe, W., & Nijstad, B. (2009). Do our psy-
chological laws apply only to Americans?
American Psychologist, 64, 569.
Van Horn, K. R., & Cunegatto Marques, J.
(2000). Interpersonal relationships in Brazil-
ian adolescents. International Journal of Be-
havioral Development, 24, 199 –203.
Webster, G. D., Nichols, A. L., & Schember,
T. O. (2009). American psychology is becom-
ing more international. American Psycholo-
gist, 64, 566 –568.
Correspondence concerning this comment
should be addressed to Jeffrey Jensen Arnett,
Department of Psychology, Clark University,

950 Main Street, Worcester, MA 01610. E-mail:
[email protected]
DOI: 10.1037/a0016593
Teaching White Privilege to
White Students Can Mean
Saying Good-bye to Positive
Student Evaluations
Su L. Boatright-Horowitz and
Sojattra Soeung
University of Rhode Island
As faculty and instructors working to re-
duce racism in our students and ourselves,
we certainly know about the phenomenon
alluded to in the title of this comment.
Many of us have discussed it with our
colleagues and administrators, but we lacked
empirical evidence to support our views.
Teaching antiracism can have a negative
impact on our careers when students eval-
uate our teaching efforts and abilities (in

fact, teaching antiracism has been called
“the kiss of death,” Nast, 1999, p. 105).
The published literature abounds with an-
ecdotes about negative student reactions to
antiracism teaching, particularly when it
involves teaching White students about
White privilege (McIntosh, 1988). Some
scholars have reported that their classroom
teaching experiences were negatively im-
pacted, and their professional legitimacy
questioned, because they discussed racism
574 September 2009 ● American Psychologist
lieve that people of various cultures are
more similar than different. As Helgeson
(2012) articulates regarding the issue of
gender differences, “most of us have two
eyes, two arms, two legs; a heart, lungs, and
vocal chords . . . The same logic applies to
cognitive and social domains” (p. 103). Sim-

ilarly, Myers (2005) draws from G. K. Ches-
terton’s observations—“When someone has
‘discovered why men in Bond Street wear
black hats he will at the same moment have
discovered why men in Timbuctoo wear red
feathers’” (Myers, 2005, p. 180)—to expli-
cate the universality of fundamental psycho-
logical processes. Although such nomothetic
propositions are often drowned by loud pro-
tests directed against the ethnocentrism of
mainstream psychology, we must neverthe-
less reiterate that the contributions of psy-
chologists from all the different camps are
essential in order to weave a truly coherent
and meaningful fabric of human behavior.
REFERENCES
Baron-Cohen, S. (2000). Autism: Deficits in folk
psychology exist alongside superiority in folk
physics. In S. Baron-Cohen, H. Tager-Flus-
berg, & D. Cohen (Eds.), Understanding other
minds: Perspectives from autism and develop-
mental cognitive neuroscience (2nd ed., pp.
73– 82). Oxford, UK: Oxford University

Contents lists available at ScienceDirectPersonality and I

Contents lists available at ScienceDirectPersonality and I

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Contents lists available at ScienceDirectPersonality and I

Similar to Contents lists available at ScienceDirectPersonality and I (20)

More from AlleneMcclendon878

More from AlleneMcclendon878 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Contents lists available at ScienceDirectPersonality and I