A Longitudinal Analysis

397368

JLO

A Longitudinal Analysis of Positive
Psychological Constructs and Emotions on Stress, Anxiety, and Well-Being

Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies
18(2) 216­–228
© Baker College 2011
Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1548051810397368 http://jlos.sagepub.com James B. Avey1, Tara S. Wernsing2, and Ketan H. Mhatre3

Abstract
Two studies were conducted including one involving a longitudinal research design to understand better the influential role of the positive psychological capacities of hope, efficacy, optimism, resilience, as well as positive emotions on individual stress, anxiety, and well-being. Study 1 (N = 1,316) was conducted to validate a hypothesized relationship
between the positive capacities and well-being. Next, in Study 2 (N = 172), data were collected from participants at 12 points in time over 4 months and random coefficient modeling was used to test hypotheses between variables in a cognitive mediational theoretical framework. Results suggest positive psychological capacities can be a source of positive emotions. In addition, positive emotions and stress mediate the relationship between positive psychological capacities and well-being. A discussion of implications and future research conclude the article.
Keywords
positive organizational behavior, psychological capital, well-being

Positive psychology is clearly making a presence not only in clinical and applied psychology but also in related fields such as human resource management and organizational behavior under the research umbrellas of positive organizational behavior (POB; Luthans, 2002) and the related positive organizational scholarship (Cameron, Dutton, &
Quinn, 2003). Leveraging the focus of positive psychology that seeks to understand what is “right” with people rather than a deficit approach to solving problems (see Seligman
& Csikszentmihalyi, 2000), POB (Luthans, 2002) has emerged as a framework to examine positivity in general
(e.g., Fineman, 2006; Luthans & Youssef, 2007) and the influence of hope, optimism, self-efficacy, and resilience in particular (Avey, Wernsing, & Luthans, 2008; Luthans, Avolio,
Avey, & Norman, 2007; Stajkovic, 2006). The research stream of POB has been defined as “the study and application of positively oriented human resource strengths and psychological capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively managed for performance improvement” (Luthans, 2002,
p. 59; also see Luthans & Youssef, 2007; Nelson & Cooper,
2007; Turner, Barling, & Zaharatos, 2002; Wright, 2003).
Although research in this domain has been profitable for preliminary understanding of the application of positive psychology, its progress has been limited by cross-sectional research designs stifling the ability to ascertain the effect of time on the relations between variables as well as construct

malleability. Furthermore, there remains a significant gap in the literature in terms of comprehensive theory integrating advances in POB and positive emotions preventing progress in the synthesis of these research domains. The current study was designed to address these gaps.
Researchers have empirically examined the role of four specific psychological capacities (hope, resilience, optimism, and efficacy) and their aggregate in the form of a multidimensional construct termed psychological capital (e.g., Avey,
Luthans, & Jensen, 2010; Avey, Luthans, & Youssef, 2010;
Luthans, Avolio, et al., 2007; Wright, 2003) on performance in the workplace. This study seeks to extend understanding of the process by which psychological capital affects constructs indirectly related to human performance such as stress, anxiety, and well-being. Furthermore, given that previous empirical work in this area has been based in cross-sectional designs (e.g., Avey, Patera, & West, 2006; Luthans, Avolio,
1

Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA, USA
Instituto de Empresa Business School, Madrid, Spain
3
Claremont McKenna College, Claremont, CA, USA
2

Corresponding Author:
James B. Avey, Department of Management, College of Business,
Central Washington University, 400 E. University Way, Mailstop 74-85,
Ellensburg, WA 98926, USA
Email: [e-mail]

217

Avey et al.

Stress

Positive
Psychological
Capital

Positive
Emotions

Well-Being

Anxiety

Figure 1. Theoretical model of positive psychological capital and well-being

et al., 2007; Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Li, 2005; Youssef
& Luthans, 2007), which limit the ability to ascertain processes and stability (e.g., trait versus state) of individual-level constructs vital to understanding their development, a longitudinal research design was implemented to enhance understanding the variation of psychological capital over time and its relationships with other important process factors. In this study, research on positive psychological capital is integrated with
Fredrickson’s (1998, 2001) “broaden and build” theory of positive emotions using Lazarus’s (1991, 1993) cognitive appraisal theory as the explanatory theoretical framework to describe the process and interrelations between these psychological capacities with positive emotions on stress, anxiety, and well-being over a 4-month span of time. Integrating these theories with longitudinal data allows us to examine the relationships with other variables in the nomological network over time. Therefore, the primary contribution of this study is to theorize and empirically investigate the relationship between psychological capital and positive emotions, and examine potential mediating process variables and outcomes, specifically, stress, anxiety, and well-being.
To accomplish this goal, first we introduce psychological capital and its components. We then differentiate psychological capital from positive emotions based on theory drawn from coping and stress literatures. Next, we explain the process by which these two constructs affect an individual’s level of stress, anxiety, and well-being. Finally, after presenting the empirical findings, conclusions are discussed and future research is suggested. It is important to note that when we use the term longitudinal, we refer to repeated measures over at least three occasions (Ployhart & Vandenberg, 2010). With this definition, a longitudinal study can vary in the length of time that passes between each occasion (see Figure 1).

Psychological Capital
Research on psychological capacities has focused on four constructs (self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience) that together make up a higher order construct called “psychological capital,” which has been shown to affect individual performance and satisfaction (Avey et al., 2010; Luthans,

Avolio, et al., 2007). Leveraging work on multidimensional constructs (Law, Wong, & Mobley, 1998) and resource theories (Hobfoll, 2002), psychological capital has been argued to represent a second order, core factor that is operationally defined as an individual’s positive psychological state of development that is characterized by: (1) having confidence
(self efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive expectation (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resilience) to attain success. (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio,
2007, p. 3)
In the following paragraphs, each of the four first-order constructs is further described.
First, Bandura’s (1977, 1997) classic work in self-efficacy
(referred to as simply efficacy here) suggests that efficacy is a belief in one’s personal ability to accomplish a given task.
Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) go on to define efficacy as “the employee’s conviction or confidence about his or her abilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, or courses of action needed to successfully execute a specific task within a given context” (p. 66). This personally derived sense of efficacy is generated through four processes: (a) task mastery, where an individual successfully accomplishes a given task; (b) vicarious learning, where observing similar others being successful generates a belief that the individual can also be successful;
(c) social persuasion, where relevant others persuade or convince the individual that he or she has the ability to accomplish a given task; and (d) physiological or emotional arousal, where the individual’s confidence is raised through interpreting physiological sensations or feelings as contributing to their capabilities to accomplish the task. In summary, when people possess a sense of efficacy they positively strive toward success given their personal belief that they can be successful.
Although efficacy is a belief in one’s ability to be successful, optimism can be considered a positive expectation of future events regardless of individual ability. Using an expectancy framework, Carver and Scheier (2002) have noted quite simply that “optimists are people who expect good things to happen to them; pessimists are people who expect bad things to happen to them” (p. 231). This positive expectancy view of optimism is different from but complementary to Seligman’s
(1998) attributional view of optimism. Specifically, Seligman
(1998) notes that optimists tend to make global, stable, and internal attributions of success and specific, unstable and external attributions of failures. This is driven by the expectation that success will happen; and when it does, it will be, for example, stable (e.g., will happen again), whereas when failure

218 occurs, it will be unstable (e.g., will not happen the next time effort is applied on the same task).
Conceptually, Snyder, Irving, and Anderson (1991) define hope as a “positive motivational state that is based on an interactively derived sense of successful (1) agency (goaldirected energy) and (2) pathways (planning to meet goals)”
(p. 287). This definition highlights the notion of both agentic thinking and pathways thinking. Snyder (2002) notes that agency thinking “takes on special significance when people encounter impediments. During such instances of blockage, agency helps the person to apply the requisite motivation to the best alternative pathway” (p. 258). Complementing agency thinking is pathways thinking. It is argued that people higher in hope tend to more easily consider multiple pathways to accomplishing the same goal. This concept is critical to the concept of hope given the pathways or “routes” to accomplishing goals are often blocked by obstacles. For an individual to maintain a sense of hope that he or she can be successful, an alternative pathway or back-up plan must be generated to continue taking actions toward success. Those higher in hope derive multiple routes to each goal, which enables them to continue progress toward goal accomplishment. As this occurs, people maintain hope for success.
The final construct included in Luthans and colleagues’ most recent conceptualization of psychological capital is individual resilience (Luthans et al., 2005; Luthans, Avolio, et al.,
2007). Although much of the original research in resilience is based in child and adolescent clinical psychology (e.g.,
Block & Kremen, 1996; Garmezy, 1971, 1974), resilience has emerged to be a potentially critical mechanism for coping in turbulent times.
From this clinical perspective, Masten and Reed (2002) assert resilience is “a class of phenomena characterized by patterns of positive adaptation in the context of significant adversity or risk” (p. 74). Luthans (2002) defines resilience as a “positive psychological capacity to rebound, to ‘bounce back’ from adversity, uncertainty, conflict, failure, or even positive change, progress and increased responsibility”
(p. 702). Resilience is discriminant from the other three capacities as it is uniquely reactive in nature instead of proactive.
Resilience enables an individual to frame an event in such a way that he or she reacts positively, bouncing back to even higher levels of well-being than original homeostasis. To do so, for example, individuals find a way to interpret challenges and setbacks as contributions to their development and success. The Psychological Capital Construct
The four dimensions of hope, efficacy, resilience, and optimism just described form the basis of the explanatory mechanisms used to understand the relation between
psychological capital and related constructs in its nomological network.
Hobfoll’s (2002) discussion of psychological resource theories argued that many psychological constructs are

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(2) best understood as indicators of broader core constructs or
“psychological resources.” In this case, the underlying common resource between each of the four capacities is a “positive agentic striving” (Avey et al., 2008, p. 55), which represents the tendency for people to act as agents on their environment to achieve tasks and goals based on individual positive appraisals of success. Empirical research supports that psychological capital is best understood as a second-order factor indicated by the shared variance between the four components of hope, efficacy, optimism, and resilience
(Luthans & Youssef, 2007). Competing confirmatory factor analytic model comparisons demonstrated that a superior fitting factor structure was obtained when modeling each of the four components as indicators of the overall higher order factor (Luthans et al., 2007).

Psychological Capital and Well-Being
There have been a few different conceptualizations of wellbeing in research literature. From a hedonic perspective, wellbeing is described as a process by which individuals indulge in pain avoidance and pleasure attainment (Kahneman, Diener,
& Schwarz, 1999). From a eudaimonic perspective, well-being is concerned with more than just happiness and involves a focus on meaning and self-realization that helps individuals fulfill their true nature (Waterman, 1993). In a more general sense, Ryan and Deci (2001) described well-being as a state of “optimal psychological functioning” (p. 142) experienced by individuals. Such a state of optimal psychological functioning usually depends on the experience of positive thoughts, emotions, and/or positive outcomes by individuals.
As discussed previously, psychological capital is described as a second-order core construct that involves the four components of self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience. Selfefficacious individuals tend to have stronger belief structures with regard to their abilities and capacities to perform various tasks, which in turn results in increased effort and persistence in the pursuit of their goals. This has a positive effect on the probability of success associated with the outcomes. High levels of hope help individuals generate the required agentic striving and pursue multiple pathways toward the attainment of their goals, which in turn leads to greater instances of successful outcomes. High levels of optimism help individuals maintain a positive perspective and expectations with regard to the outcomes, and high levels of resilience assists individuals to overcome adversity and “bounce back” from episodes of potential/actual failure. In sum, high levels of psychological capital lead to greater number of positive outcomes, and this intermediary mechanism perpetuates a process of optimal psychological functioning that is, well-being.
Hence, we introduce our first hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Psychological capital is positively related to well-being.

Avey et al.

Mediating Factors Between
Psychological Capital and
Well-Being (Positive Emotions,
Stress, and Anxiety)
Positive Emotions and Psychological Capital
Fredrickson (2001) described positive emotions as “multicomponent response tendencies that unfold over relatively short time spans” (p. 218). She argued that emotions begin when individuals assess (either consciously or unconsciously) the personal meaning associated with different events that they experience and this assessment results in response tendencies that are manifest across “loosely coupled component systems such as subjective experience, facial expression, cognitive processing, and physiological changes.” (p. 218).
Psychological capital, on the other hand, can be considered as a cognitive state that involves beliefs, attributions, and expectations about oneself (or others) in relation to a particular task or context. Although there seems to be conceptual overlap between positive emotions and psychological capital regarding appraisals, the two constructs differ from each other in two important ways.
First, positive emotions1 tend to exist for a relatively short period of time (Fredrickson, 2001) compared with psychological capital, and they are more likely to change over the course of time than psychological capital. For example, when receiving a compliment, an individual may exhibit a positive emotion of “feeling happy” through a physiological response of a smile. However, it is very unlikely that the response will be observable after a few hours. On the other hand, a person’s psychological capital is much more likely to be relatively stable over a period of days or months than positive emotions.
Luthans et al. (2007) outlined a state–trait continuum for classifying such constructs that vary in terms of their malleability and stability and described psychological capital as being relatively more stable and less malleable than positive states such as happiness, pleasure, and positive moods.
Second, positive emotions are “typically about some personally meaningful circumstance (i.e., they have an object)”
(Fredrickson, 2001, p. 218) whereas psychological capital can be conceptualized as both general as well as specific
(Luthans & Youssef, 2007). For instance, it is possible to conceptualize and measure an individual’s general psychological capital as well as his/her psychological capital with respect to a particular task or context. However, conceptualizations of positive emotions (e.g., joy, contentment) are typically a result of some preceding stimulus such as succeeding at a tough task, getting a raise, or receiving a compliment. Together, these points lead to our second hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Psychological capital demonstrates more stability than positive emotions over time.

219
Research focused on the theoretical frameworks that account for the relationship between psychological capital and emotions is just beginning to emerge (Avey, Wernsing,
& Luthans, 2008). Given that the work of Fredrickson has heightened awareness of the significant role that positive emotions have in “achieving psychological growth and improved well-being over time” (Fredrickson, 2001, p. 218), a theory integrating both positive emotions and psychological capital may be useful in advancing research in each respective area. For instance, although the important outcomes associated with positive emotions as both a source and marker of psychological well-being are quite apparent and have been empirically demonstrated (e.g., Fredrickson, 2003; Fredrickson
& Losada, 2005), there is still the question of the source of positive emotions. When integrating positive expectancies and attributions (psychological capital) with positive emotions, Lazarus’s (1991, 1993) cognitive mediational theory of emotions provides a strong theoretical link. The cognitive meditational theory argues that some level of cognitive appraisal (often automatic and nonconscious) precedes emotional response. This theory would argue that an individual’s habits of thinking, akin to hope, efficacy, optimism, resilience, or psychological capital in this case, are a potential source of positive emotions. Based on cognitive mediational theory, overall psychological capital would be expected to contribute to positive emotions. To further support this assertion, we now explain how each component of psychological capital can serve as a source of positive emotions.
Positive emotions are a function of preceding stimuli in the form of “personally meaningful circumstances” and such success episodes, which are a result of a set of cognitions and behaviors that individuals choose to employ of their own volition, provide individuals with significant “personally meaningful circumstances” and form the basis of positive emotions.
The psychological capital component of efficacy lends individuals the conviction about their abilities to be able to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action to be able to complete a given task. It makes them believe that they possess the capacity to accomplish the task at hand, which is a necessary first step toward any goal-directed behavior (Bandura, 1997). These positive expectations for success and competence are appraisals that generate positive feelings such as excitement, joy, and pride.
When efficacy is coupled with hope, which involves expending goal-directed energy and seeking out multiple pathways to accomplish a given task, their beliefs about their ability to be successful are further strengthened through the addition of specific tools and methods (multiple pathways) that they can use to successfully complete the task. In addition to believing that they can succeed, these individuals understand and are aware of the pathways that will help them get there. These kinds of appraisals can result in people feeling determined and energized about their goals.

220
Thus, individuals who are highly efficacious, hopeful, optimistic, and resilient are not only more likely to succeed at the things that they endeavor to achieve, but also because of positive appraisals they are likely to experience more positive emotions. Therefore, individuals high in psychological capital experience more such success episodes than those who are low, and they experience more positive emotions in the process of pursuing goals as well as the satisfaction and contentment that follows from successful goal attainment. Given this discussion on the relationship between psychological capital and positive emotions, the following hypotheses are advanced:
Hypothesis 3a: An individual’s level of psychological capital is positively related to level of positive emotions. Hypothesis 3b: An increase in psychological capital is positively related to level of positive emotions.

Stress and Positive Emotions
Lazarus (1966) defined stress as an outcome that results when individuals perceive the demands of an external situation to be beyond their perceived ability to cope. Embedding it in a work-related context, Parker and DeCotiis (1983) described job-related stress as an inconvenient and disturbing mindset experienced by individuals when they are “required to deviate from normal or self-desired functioning in the work place as the result of opportunities, constraints, or demands relating to potentially important work related outcomes” (p. 165). There exists ample research support linking negative outcomes associated with job stress, such as failing individual health and illness (Kram & Hall, 1989) and reduced individual performance and organizational effectiveness (Jamal, 1990; Motowidlo, Packard, & Manning, 1986), with increased organizational health care costs (Manning, Jackson, & Fusilier, 1996).
In an attempt to alleviate the ill-effects of stress, organizational researchers have focused on the importance of the role of positive emotions in adapting to and coping with stress
(e.g., Folkman, 1997; Fredrickson et al., 2003; Ong, Bergeman,
Bisconti, & Wallace, 2006; Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004;
Zautra, Johnson, & Davis, 2005). Lazarus, Kanner, and
Folkman (1980) suggested that positive emotions help individuals under stress by providing a psychological timeout.
Thus, experiencing positive emotions offers a moment away from current stressors. Additionally, positive emotions can help individuals sustain their coping strategies under stress.
This results in an increase in the amount of effort exerted by individuals to adapt and cope with stress.
Fredrickson (1998, 2001) argued that under conditions of extreme stress, positive emotions help individuals build and restore the personal resources that have been depleted as a result of stress. They assist in adaptive recovery by releasing the ill-effects that are generated as a consequence of the

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(2) discrediting thoughts and feelings that produce negative emotions. Thus, they help strengthen the capacity of individuals to successfully adapt to and persist in coping with stress. Zautra,
Smith, Affleck, and Tennen (2001) presented a dynamic model of affect to explain the role played by positive emotions in adapting to stress. According to their proposed model, positive emotions aid in reducing negative emotions associated with situations of intense stress and help individuals cope. Based on the above discussion, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 4a: An individual’s level of positive emotions is negatively related to level of stress.
Hypothesis 4b: An increase in positive emotions is negatively related to level of stress.

Anxiety and Positive Emotions
Researchers describe anxiety in multiple ways. Words such as dread, fear, phobia, fright, panic, apprehensiveness, and angst have been used to represent the construct of anxiety.
Barlow (2002) described anxiety as a future-oriented state in which individuals experience feelings of uncontrollability and unpredictability over dangerous events or over their emotional responses to such events. Baruch and Lambert (2007) described anxiety as an effect that results from a combination of negative affect and physiological arousal. Thus, it is fairly evident that anxiety is not a simple unidimensional concept but is one that involves multiple dimensions and complexities (Hallam, 1992).
The ill-effects of anxiety have been widely documented in
research.
Kennerley (1995) highlighted how prolonged anxiety can result in hypersensitivity and chronic worrying and have an adverse impact on individuals in the workplace. For example, individuals experiencing prolonged anxiety are susceptible to problems like difficulty in being able to concentrate, and anxiety can have undesirable effects on their memory, perception, and sleep (Kennerley, 1995). Lazarus and Folkman (1984) presented a model of anxiety in which they suggested that anxiety is affected by an interaction between the appraisal of external and internal processes. According to their model, internal processes such as learnt beliefs are responsible for determining whether external stressors in the environment are perceived as threats or benign experiences. In this way, cognitive appraisals produce perceptions of uncontrollability and corresponding feelings of anxiety.
Conversely, positive emotions have a wide range of documented beneficial effects on individuals (see reviews by
Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005; Pressman & Cohen,
2005). When people experience positive emotions, they are inclined to think, feel, and act in ways that promote resource building and action toward goals (Elliot & Thrash,
2002;
Lyubomirsky, 2001). Additionally, in such cases, their perceptions of the circumstances they encounter are desirable and they experience a state of satiation in which everything seems

221

Avey et al. to be going well (Cantor et al., 1991; Carver & Scheier, 1998).
This gives them an opportunity to expand their resources, build meaningful relationships, and enhance their range of skills for future use. Thus, the presence of positive emotions prevents individuals from experiencing feelings of uncontrollability and unpredictability, which are the basic characteristics of anxiety. Hence, our next hypotheses are the following:
Hypothesis 5a: An individual’s level of positive emotions is negatively related to level of anxiety.
Hypothesis 5b: An increase in positive emotions is negatively related to level of anxiety.

Positive Emotions and Well-Being
Individual health and well-being are important in any human endeavor, whether that be the workplace, school, or home activities. As described earlier, well-being refers to the state of “optimal psychological functioning” experienced by individuals (Ryan & Deci, 2001, p. 142). Diener and Lucas (2000), in their research on emotions and well-being, found that individuals experience a state of well-being when they feel more positive emotions and less negative emotions. Furthermore, well-being has been linked with a wide variety of positive outcomes (see Pressman & Cohen, 2005). Lyubomirsky et al.
(2005) suggested that individuals high in well-being are more likely to be successful in activities such as securing job interviews, getting evaluated more positively by supervisors, and in better managing their jobs. Such individuals are also less likely to exhibit counterproductive workplace behavior and job burnout. Therefore, we conclude with the following:
Hypothesis 6a: An individual’s level of positive emotions is positively related to level of well-being.
Hypothesis 6b: An increase in positive emotions is positively related to level of well-being.
As noted earlier, individuals high in psychological capital are likely to perceive and experience a greater number of success episodes than individuals who are low in psychological capital. These success episodes act as stimuli, or objects, which form the basis for positive emotions. Additionally, high psychological capital (i.e., high levels of efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience) prohibits individuals from perceiving that the demands of the external situation are beyond their perceived ability to cope. This is likely to result in lower stress.
Similarly, because individuals with high levels of psychological capital have the necessary capacities to successfully manage and cope with their external environment, they are less likely to experience feelings of uncontrollability and unpredictability in their emotional responses to their environment. This leads them to experience lesser anxiety. This summary leads to our final hypothesis:

Hypothesis 7: Positive emotions, stress, and anxiety fully mediates the relationship between psychological capital and well-being.

Method
Study 1
To first establish a link between psychological capital in the workplace and well-being in the workplace and the initial test of Hypothesis 1, we conducted a study using working adults.
Participants were social networks of university contacts from a large Midwestern university and recruited via e-mail. The
1,316 respondents were all working adults and ranged in age from 19 to 78 years with an average of 41.4 years (average organization tenure of 8.6 years). Participants included
533 males (59% females) and ranged in industry with the largest groups coming from services (n = 202), general manufacturing (n = 165), financial (n =114), health care (n = 108), and education (n = 70).
Participants completed instruments at two points in time with demographics controls and the psychological capital instrument (α = .94; Luthans et al., 2007) at Time 1, followed
2 weeks later by the psychological well-being instrument
(α = .79; Goldberg, 1972) at Time 2 (both instruments are discussed below).

Results of Study 1
Regression analyses were used to validate the relationship between psychological capital and well-being. With wellbeing set at the criterion, demographic covariates of age, gender, and firm tenure were entered into Step 1. Next, the predictor psychological capital was entered in the regression model at Step 2. Results support our first hypothesis and show that psychological capital added significant variance to the model and was a significant predictor of employee well-being, β = .54, p < .001 (ΔR2 = .29, p < .001). After the results of
Study 1, we designed a longitudinal study to test our hypotheses about the underlying mediating mechanisms linking psychological capital and well-being.

Study 2
To conduct this study, 172 college seniors from a large Midwestern university completed survey instruments at 12 points in time over approximately 4 months. Participants were provided a link to a website where they completed the informed consent form and the survey measures. Each person completed the same web survey every 7 to 10 days. The timing of measurements was matched to the event of completing a collegelevel course, with evenly spaced survey measures and some variation due to holidays and absences. At the conclusion of

222 the study, approximately half of the participants verbally indicated that they worked in an organization at least 20 hours per week. The average age was 21.6 years, and there were 60 females and 107 males (6 individuals did not list gender). Given the focus of this study was examining constructs over time, this sample was selected as they were a convenient source to minimize attrition that often occurs in longitudinal studies. Participants were of professional working age and approximately half of the sample worked at least 20 hours per week.

Measures
Psychological capital was measured with the 24-item Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ) developed by Luthans and colleagues (Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman, & Combs,
2006; Luthans et al., 2007). This instrument includes 6 items for each of the components of efficacy, hope, resilience, and optimism for a total of 24 items. Example items are “I feel confident analyzing a long-term problem to find a solution”
(efficacy), “There are lots of ways around any problem”
(hope), “I usually take stressful things at work in stride”
(resilience), and “When things are uncertain for me at work
I usually expect the best” (optimism). For questions that indicated “at work” for the referent, participants were instructed to consider their place of work if they had one. If not, they were to use their role as a student as the referent. At all time points the PCQ was found to be reliable (α > .70). In addition, previous research has found the confirmatory factor analytic structure of the PCQ to fit well across several samples (e.g.,
Avey et al., 2010; Luthans et al., 2006; Luthans et al., 2007).
The PCQ-24 is available at www.mindgarden.com and free for research use.
Positive emotions were measured with the positive worded items from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Scale
(PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Participants were asked the frequency with which they felt the emotions listed over the last week. Emotions were amusement, gratitude, contentment, compassion, interest, love, awe, joy, and pride. At all time points this instrument was found to be reliable (α > .70).
Stress and anxiety were measured with the appropriate items from the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress scale (Lovibond &
Lovibond, 1995). This instrument included 7 stress items and
7 anxiety items. The items described several symptoms of both stress and anxiety and asked participants to rate the frequency that they experienced these sensations in the last week. Example items are “I found it difficult to relax” (stress) and “I experienced breathing difficulty (e.g., excessively rapid breathing, breathlessness in the absence of physical exertion)” (anxiety). At all time points this instrument was found to be reliable (α > .70).
Given the strong correlation between stress and anxiety, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to ensure the constructs were psychometrically discriminant. Using

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(2) maximum likelihood techniques with the Mplus software suite, each item was fit to its respective latent construct. With two exceptions (Anxiety Items 1 and 2 = .55 and .58, respectively), all the items loaded on the respective latent construct greater than .70. Overall, fit indices suggest adequate fit to the data with a comparative fit index (CFI) = .97, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .03, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .06. Next, we fit all items to a single stress/anxiety latent. Fit indices from this second model were CFI = .93, SRMR = .06, and RMSEA = .11.
A chi-square difference test between the models showed the model with stress and anxiety as separate factors fit the data the best (Δχ2 = 726.05 [1], p < .001). Thus, overall evidence suggested the model with a distinct factor for stress and for anxiety fit the data the best and provided support that participants discriminated between the two constructs and their measures. Finally, well-being was measured with the General Health
Questionnaire (GHQ; Goldberg, 1972). This instrument is a commonly accepted instrument to measure well-being (e.g.,
Creed, Machin, & Hicks, 1999; McKee-Ryan, Song, Wanberg,
& Kinicki, 2005; Spector, Zapf, Chen, & Frese, 2000), which asks participants to rate the frequency with which they experience certain symptoms and episodes. Sample items are to what extent have you “been able to concentrate on what you’re doing?” and “lost much sleep over worry?” At all time points this instrument was found to be reliable (α > .70).

Results of Study 2
Descriptive statistics are provided in Table 1. Measurement scale internal reliabilities were estimated for each scale and each measurement occasion using coefficient alpha and showed high internal reliabilities and strong consistency across time: overall reliabilities are shown for each scale in Table 1.
All means and correlations are in the expected direction, and all correlations are statistically significant. Furthermore, with the exception of stress and anxiety, as evidenced by correlations well below the standard cutoff for collinearity (.80), each variable in this study emerged as relatively distinct.
To test Hypothesis 2, that psychological capital has greater stability over time than positive emotions, we estimated the intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC(1), for psychological capital and positive emotions, which were .78 and .63, respectively. The ICC(1) indicates that the average correlation of occasions within person for psychological capital is .78 and that 78% of the variation is due to between-person individual differences, and thus 22% is due to within-person variation over time. Positive emotions, as expected, had a lower ICC, as emotions demonstrate less stability over time: 63% of the variation in positive emotions is due to between-person differences and 37% is due to within-person variation over time.
To test if these intraclass correlations were significantly

223

Avey et al.
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, Correlations, and Intraclass correlation coefficients (N = 172)
Variables
1. Psychological capital
2. Positive Emotions
3. Stress
4. Anxiety
5. Well-being
Intraclass correlation coefficient

M

SD

1

2

4.48
4.13
2.94
2.44
2.58

.57
.94
1.04
.94
.32

.93
.39**
−.38**
−.34**
.28**
.78

.92
−.22**
−.15**
.33**
.63

3

.90
.72**
−.25**
.65

4

5

.88
−.17**
.66

.76
.34

Note: Average coefficient alpha internal reliabilities appear in the diagonal in boldface.
**p < .01 (two-tailed).

different, confidence intervals were estimated using SAS
NLMIXED procedure. The 95% confidence intervals for these
ICCs did not overlap (.74-.82 vs. .57-.68, respectively), suggesting that the proportion of variance due to between-person differences significantly varies between psychological capital and positive emotions. These results support Hypothesis 2.
To test Hypotheses 3 to 7, we used random coefficient modeling (RCM; Bliese & Ployhart, 2002; Ployhart & Vandenberg,
2010; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002; Singer & Willett, 2003) using SAS Mixed procedures to estimate the effects of psychological capital on positive emotions over time. In the current study, time (12 occasions) is nested within person, therefore violating assumptions of independence used in ordinary least squares regression. RCM can account for the nesting of time within people by decomposing additional variance components and allows for estimating the effects of change over time.
In these analyses, time was coded so that the initial occasion was set to zero and thus the intercept in all models is interpreted as baseline initial status at the first measurement occasion.
Group mean centering was used to estimate the effects of between-person differences and within-person change separately (Singer & Willett, 2003). To create the Level 1 withinperson effect for positive emotions, for example, each person’s overall mean for positive emotions is subtracted from that person’s score at that occasion. To create the Level 2 betweenperson effect, the grand mean of positive emotions is subtracted from each person’s overall mean for positive emotions. Therefore, the Level 2 between-level effect represents the average level of that variable for each person across time (e.g., average level of positive emotions), and the Level 1 within-person effect represents the level of change at that occasion from that person’s average (e.g., how different an individual’s level of positive emotions is at the first occasion from their overall average). Although we made no hypotheses about linear trends in any variable over time, it is necessary to control for any observed trends in the dependent variables of each model. As such, linear trends were accounted for by modeling time as a predictor (i.e., a control variable) before adding other substantive predictors. Hypotheses 3a and 3b proposed positive relationships between psychological capital and positive emotions.

For positive emotions, there was a small yet significant positive fixed effect for time (β = .02, p <.01). Furthermore, additional testing shows there was also significant random linear variation in positive emotions. A restricted maximum likelihood (REML) deviance comparison based on −2 Residual Log Likelihood between nested models (df = 2) shows a value of 50, whereas the cutoff value from an adjusted chi-square difference table in Fitzmaurice, Laird, and Ware (2004) is 7 for a significance level of .05. Therefore, time (a fixed and random linear effect) was included as a control variable in subsequent modeling.
Mixed-models parameter estimates show significant and positive effects of psychological capital on positive emotions.
First, the level of psychological capital is positively related to level of positive emotions. On average, a one point higher level of psychological capital for an individual corresponds with a 0.68 higher level of positive emotions (p < .0001), thus supporting Hypothesis 3a. Furthermore, a one point increase in an individual’s psychological capital score above their average level is associated with 0.27 higher level of positive emotions (p < .0001), thus supporting Hypothesis 3b.
To investigate Hypotheses 4a and 4b, we examined the relationship between positive emotions and stress over time.
Following the same procedures above for random coefficients modeling (Bliese & Ployhart, 2002), we first calculated the
ICC for stress, which was .65, indicating that 65% of the variation is between-person and 35% is within-person variance. We controlled for any linear trend in stress over time by including, in this case, a random quadratic model of time.
This model was chosen based on model comparisons for fixed effects (significance tests using t values) and random effects
(significance tested using REML deviance comparisons for nested models based on −2 Residual Log Likelihood).
Next, estimating the mixed models of interest, we found that the average level of positive emotions had a significantly negative relationship with stress, indicating that higher mean levels of positive emotions are associated with lower mean levels of stress (β = −.256, p < .0001). Additionally, a one point increase in positive emotions (withinperson effect) was associated with a 0.191 lower level of stress (p < .0001). These results provide support for Hypotheses 4a and 4b.

224
For Hypotheses 5a and 5b, we examined the nature of anxiety over time and its relationship to positive emotions using the same procedures as above. Anxiety had an ICC of .67, indicating that 67% of the variation is accounted for between-persons and 33% of the variation is within-persons.
First, we controlled for linear trends in anxiety over time by including a random linear model for time (β = −.02, p < .001;
REML deviance difference of 122 compared with cutoff of
7 for df = 2 for p < .05).
The level of positive emotions was significantly negatively related to the level of anxiety (β = −.16, p < .05). Additionally, an individual’s one point increase in positive emotions corresponded with a 0.08 lower level of anxiety (p < .05).
These findings support Hypotheses 5a and 5b.
To investigate Hypotheses 6a and 6b, we first examined the nature of well-being over time as measured by the GHQ
(Goldberg, 1972). Well-being had an ICC(1) of .35 indicating that 35% of the variation in well-being is accounted for between-persons and 65% of the variation is within-persons.
First, we controlled for any linear trend in well-being over time by including a random linear model for time (β = −.005, p < .05; significant REML deviance difference of 48 compared with cutoff of 7 for df = 2 for p < .05).
The level of positive emotions significantly predicted the level of well-being (β = .19, p < .0001). Additionally, a one point increase in positive emotions was associated with a 0.13 higher level of well-being (p < .0001). These findings support
Hypotheses 6a and 6b.
Hypothesis 7 suggests that positive emotions, stress, and anxiety act not only as proximal outcomes but also as mediators of the relationship between psychological capital and well-being over time. To test this multiple mediator model,
Preacher and Hayes (2008; Hayes, 2009) argue that Sobel tests are only appropriate for large samples where assumptions of multivariate normal distribution are valid and power is high. We followed their recommendation and used their bootstrapping program in SAS to obtain estimates for direct and indirect effects and confidence intervals for significance testing. Results suggest a significant partial mediation of the effect of psychological capital on well-being (0.15 total effect vs. 0.07 direct effect). Positive emotions and stress were significant indirect mediators between psychological capital and well-being (p < .0001); however, anxiety did not explain any additional variance (p > .05) beyond that accounted for by stress and positive emotions. Therefore, we found partial support for Hypothesis 7 since there was partial mediation between psychological capital and well-being, and one of the mediators was not a significant contributor.

Discussion
The purpose of these studies was to test a theoretical framework proposing that psychological capital affects well-being via the mediating mechanisms of positive emotions, stress,

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(2) and anxiety. Although research on psychological capital has significantly grown in academic and professional outlets such as Journal of Management, Personnel Psychology, and
The Leadership Quarterly, this study represents the first longitudinal analysis of psychological capital (i.e., indicated by hope, efficacy, optimism, and resilience) and potential mediating process variables. Results are important to the research streams of POB and applied positive psychology in several ways. First, additional evidence emerges that psychological capital varies over time and is potentially malleable to some degree. Specifically, 22% of the variance in psychological capital over 4 months is due to within-person variation across occasions. This is consistent with previous work in psychological capital, which has demonstrated the ability of interventions to experimentally produce an increase in individuals’ psychological capital (Luthans, Avey, & Patera, 2008). Most important, this variation shows systematic relationships with other variables as expected. For example, within-person change in psychological capital is significantly and positively related to positive emotions and well-being. Taken together, these findings provide converging evidence that the development of psychological capital is theoretically and practically plausible. In addition, a second point of discussion concerns a positive relationship over time between psychological capital and positive emotions. Avey et al. (2008) argued that psychological capital can be a source of positive emotions in the workplace.
Although their study was not an experimental intervention, when considered in the cognitive mediational theoretical framework, the longitudinal results of this current study provide early support that a positive change in psychological capital does correspond with a positive change in positive emotions.
This understanding is critical to advancing the research of psychological capital and its effects given Sutton and Staw’s
(1995) assertion that theory is built by examining the microprocesses and mediating mechanisms behind why and how relationship exist between variables. By considering positive emotions as a mediating and perhaps causal mechanism in the relationship between psychological capital and well-being, the theory behind how and why psychological capital affects outcomes is likely to be further informed.
A third point of discussion addresses the implications of these results. Although a demonstrated relationship between psychological capital and positive emotions over time is theoretically interesting, it lacks practical meaning in and of itself. However, results from remaining hypotheses provide practical insight into the benefits of psychological capital and positive emotions over time. Specifically, positive emotions were found to decrease both stress and anxiety over time. In addition to reduced stress and anxiety, results indicate that psychological capital, through positive emotions and reduced stress, are positively related to well-being. Each of these outcomes, although important in and of themselves, have been found to be related to employee performance and

225

Avey et al. turnover (Avey et al., 2009; Mulki, Jaramillo, & Locander,
2008; Wright & Cropanzano, 2004).
Overall, these results coupled with the longitudinal research design suggest that positive cognitions and emotions significantly relate to individuals’ self-reported psychological and physiological results over time. Although prior research has demonstrated the link between positive emotions and well-being (Tugade, Fredrickson, & Barrett, 2004), connecting this relationship with psychological capital offers the opportunity to understand how well-being could be enhanced in the workplace. Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) discussed external events as one source of emotions, and this research seeks to further identify and explain the capacities and resources that an individual may possess that can be developed to generate more positive emotions and well-being. We suggest this research lends support that positivity matters to enhancing individuals’ lives in terms of stress, anxiety, and psychological well-being.

Limitations
One central purpose of this study was to understand the relationships presented in this model over time. However, although the focus has been on the strengths of a longitudinal design, there are limitations to the current study that should be noted.
Although Study 1 used a large heterogeneous sample of working adults, the second study was limited in terms of external validity because of the use of a collegiate student sample. This sample has been also referred to as “emerging adults” (Arnett,
2000) given that in 12 to 24 months these individuals will be
“working adults” in industry and many already had part-time and full-time employment. Although the sample was certainly appropriate to test these hypotheses given that students no doubt experience the thinking habits associated with psychological capital, as well as positive emotions, stress, anxiety, and well-being, there is a significant threat of external validity in terms of generalizing to working adults and outside the
“lab” setting of the participants. These limitations of external validity could be exacerbated with another potential limitation in the internal validity due to Hawthorne effects. The repeated measurement of participants’ psychological capital over time could have affected the data. Also, demand effects based on the relationship between students and their teachers could have influenced students’ responses. Ideally, future research would include an experimental control group(s) to compare population parameters and other baseline comparisons over time.
Therefore, we suggest caution with generalizing the longitudinal and mediation findings beyond the collegiate setting.
A second limitation with regard to Study 2 is the nature of the referent points for responses to survey items. At the conclusion of the study, we asked participants to indicate verbally or through a show of hands how many used an organizational referent or a student role referent. Given that about half indicated each referent, there is a meaningful limitation in the data

such that relations among variables both in terms of strength and direction could vary based on the context of the cognitive appraisal. Thus, future research ought to account for unique contextual circumstances that may moderate the relations among these variables.
A third potential limitation is the common method bias
(e.g., Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).
Although there is a potential threat that using a common method may inflate relationships (e.g., regression beta weights) artificially, the longitudinal design allowed the ability to focus on the change (often called delta) in construct X to predict the level of construct Y. By also examining the change in the relationships versus the single construct score, results were less likely to be due to common method bias alone.

Implications
A primary practical implication of this study is the concept of psychological capital development to increase positive emotions, stress, anxiety, and well-being. Theoretical assertions (Luthans et al., 2006) and empirical evidence (Luthans et al., 2008) demonstrate that psychological capital can be developed in working adults. Given the results from this study, it would be expected that an increase in psychological capital can lessen the burden of stress and anxiety as well as improve the general well-being of an individual.
Beyond this practical implication of development, there is also a significant research implication of considering psychological capital in the framework of cognitive mediational theory. Specifically, given that POB is focused on the application of human resource strengths at work, results from this research may compel researchers to consider the implications of the cognitive mediational theory framework for examining the relationship between human resource strengths (including psychological constructs) and organizational outcomes.
Future research should consider the implication of including both cognitive and affective constructs in research models.
The research using this perspective may be richer than previous studies by accounting for cognitive appraisals, emotive responses, and behavioral outcomes in one model.

Conclusion
Overall, the utilization of a longitudinal design in this study yielded important new findings for understanding the role of positive psychological constructs, positive emotions, and stress on well-being. As the demand for individual effectiveness continues to grow in today’s turbulent international and economic environments, understanding and managing the relief of stress and anxiety will be an important concept for all people. Given that positive psychology set out to determine how people succeed and flourish in their daily lives, the positive perspective in this study coupled with the longitudinal research design has enabled a broader understanding for both

226 researchers and practitioners to influence change in positivity and stress for individual effectiveness and well-being.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Note
1. We follow Fredrickson’s (2001; Tugade, Fredrickson, &
Barrett, 2004) theory and definition for positive emotions and acknowledge there are other treatments of emotions that discuss distinctions between emotional reactions, affect, mood, temperaments (cf. Batson, Shaw, & Oleson, 1992; Brody, Hall, Lewis,
& Haviland, 1993).

References
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist,
55, 469-480.
Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Jensen, S. (2009). Psychological capital:
A positive resource for combating stress and turnover. Human
Resource Management, 48, 677-693.
Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2010). The additive value of psychological capital in predicting workplace attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Management, 36, 430-452.
Avey, J. B., Patera, J. L., & West, B. J. (2006). The implications of positive psychological capital on employee absenteeism.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13, 42-60.
Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive employees help positive organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44,
48-70.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York,
NY: Freeman.
Barlow, D. H. (2002). Anxiety and its disorders: The nature and treatment of anxiety and panic (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Baruch, Y., & Lambert, R. (2007). Organizational anxiety: Applying psychological concepts into organizational theory. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 22, 84-99.
Bliese, P. D., & Ployhart, R. E. (2002). Growth modeling using random coefficient models: Model building, testing, and illustrations. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 363-388.
Block, J., & Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and ego-resiliency: Conceptual and empirical connections and separateness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 349-361.
Cameron, K., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003). Positive organizational scholarship. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(2)
Cantor, N., Norem, J., Langston, C., Zirkel, S., Fleeson, W., &
Cook-Flannagan, C. (1991). Life tasks and daily life experience.
Journal of Personality, 59, 425-451.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self regulation of behavior. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. S. (2002). Optimism. In C. R. Snyder
& S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology
(pp. 231-243). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Creed, P. A., Machin, M. A., & Hicks, R. E. (1999). Improving mental health status and coping abilities for long term unemployed youth using cognitive-behavior therapy based interventions.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 963-978.
Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (2000). Subjective emotional well-being.
In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions
(pp. 325-337). New York, NY: Guilford.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach–avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82,
804-818.
Fineman, S. (2006). On being positive: Concerns and counterpoints.
Academy of Management Review, 31, 270-291.
Fitzmaurice, G., Laird, N., & Ware, J. (2004). Applied longitudinal analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Folkman, S. (1997). Positive psychological states and coping with severe stress. Social Science & Medicine, 45, 1207-1221.
Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions?
Review of General Psychology, 2, 300-319.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions.
American Psychologist, 56, 218-226.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). Positive emotions and upward spirals in organizations. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.),
Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 241-261). San Francisco,
CA: Barrett-Koehler.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. American Psychologist,
60, 678-686.
Garmezy, N. (1971). Vulnerability research and the issue of primary prevention. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 41, 101-116.
Garmezy, N. (1974). The study of competence in children at risk for severe psychopathology. In E. J. Anthony & C. Koupernik
(Eds.), The child in his family: Vol. 3. Children at psychiatric risk (pp. 77-97). New York, NY: Wiley.
Goldberg, D. P. (1972). The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. London, England: Oxford University Press.
Hallam, R. (1992). Counselling for anxiety problems. London,
England: Sage.
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs,
76, 408-420.
Hobfoll, S. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6, 307-324.
Jamal, M. (1990). Relationship of job stress and Type-A behavior to employees’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment,

Avey et al. psychosomatic health problems, and turnover motivation.
Human Relations, 43, 727-738.
Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N., (1999). Well-Being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. New York, NY: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Kennerley, H. (1995). Managing anxiety: A training manual.
Oxford, England: Oxford Medical.
Kram, K. E., & Hall, D. T. (1989). Mentoring as an antidote to stress during corporate trauma, Human Resource Management,
24, 493-510.
Law, K. S., Wong, C., & Mobley, W. H. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs. Academy of Management
Review, 23, 741-755.
Lazarus, R. S. (1966). Psychological stress and the coping process.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Lazarus, R. S. (1993). From psychological stress to the emotions:
A history of changing outlooks. Annual Review of Psychology,
44, 1-21.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping.
New York, NY: Springer.
Lazarus, R. S., Kanner, A., & Folkman, S., (1980). Emotions:
A cognitive-phenomenological analysis. In R. Plutchik &
H. Kellerman (Eds.), Theories of emotion (pp. 189-217).
New York, NY: Academic Press.
Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative emotional stress: Comparison of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS) with the with the Beck depression and anxiety inventories. Behaviour, Research and Therapy, 33, 335-343.
Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23,
695-706.
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Norman, S. M., & Combs, G.
M. (2006). Psychological capital development: Toward a microintervention. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 387-393.
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Patera, J. L. (2008). Experimental analysis of a web-based training intervention to develop positive psychological capital. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7, 209-221.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and job satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 60, 541-572.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Li, W. (2005). The psychological capital of Chinese workers: Exploring the relationship with performance. Management and Organization
Review, 1, 247-269.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 33, 321-349.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Psychological capital: Developing the human competitive edge. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Lyubomirsky, S. (2001). Why are some people happier than others?
The role of cognitive and motivational processes in well-being.
American Psychologist, 56, 239-249.

227
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L. A., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803-855.
Manning, M. R., Jackson, C. N., & Fusilier, M. R. (1996). Occupational stress, social support, and the costs of health care,
Academy of Management Journal, 39, 738-750.
Masten, A. S., & Reed, M. G. J. (2002). Resilience in development. In C.R. Snyder & S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 74-88). Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
McKee-Ryan, F. M., Song, Z., Wanberg, C. R., & Kinicki, A. J.
(2005). Psychological and physiological well-being during unemployment: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 53-76.
Motowidlo, S. J., Packard, J. S., & Manning, M. R. (1986). Occupational stress: Its causes and consequences for job performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 618-629.
Mulki, J. P., Jaramillo, J. F., & Locander, W. B. (2008). Effect of ethical climate on turnover intention: Linking attitudinal- and stress theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 559-574.
Nelson, D., & Cooper, C. L. (Eds.). (2007). Positive organizational behavior: Accentuating the positive at work. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Ong, A. D., Bergeman, C. S., Bisconti, T. L., & Wallace, K. A.
(2006). Psychological resilience, positive emotions, and successful adaptation to stress in later life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 730-749.
Parker, D. F., & DeCotiis, T. A. (1983). Organizational determinants of job stress, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
32, 16-177.
Ployhart, R. E., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2010). Longitudinal research:
The theory, design, and analysis of change. Journal of Management, 36, 94-120.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. C., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P.
(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple meditator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
Pressman, S. D., & Cohen, S. (2005). Does positive affect influence health? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 925-971.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models:
Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being.
In S. Fiske (Ed.), Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141-166.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1998). Learned optimism. New York, NY: Pocket
Books.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.

228
Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 249-276.
Snyder, C. R., Irving, L. M., & Anderson, J. R. (1991). Hope and health. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology (pp. 295-305). Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
Spector, P. E., Zapf, D., Chen, P. Y., & Frese, M. (2000). Why negative affectivity should not be controlled in job stress research: Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 79-95.
Stajkovic, A. D. (2006). Development of a core confidence-higher order construct. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1208-1224.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-self efficacy and workrelated performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
124, 240-261.
Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 371-384.
Tugade, M. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86,
320-333.
Tugade, M. M., Fredrickson, B. L., & Barrett, L. (2004). Psychological resilience and positive emotional granularity. Journal of
Personality, 72, 1161-1190.
Turner, N., Barling, J., & Zaharatos, A. (2002). Positive psychology at work. In C. R. Snyder & S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 715-728). Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 678-691.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The
PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54, 1063-1070.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). An affective events approach to job satisfaction. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1-74.
Wright, T. A. (2003). Positive organizational behavior: An idea whose time has truly come. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
24, 437-442.

Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 18(2)
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2004). The role of psychological well being in job performance. Organizational Dynamics, 33,
338-351.
Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational behavior in the workplace: The impact of hope, optimism, and resilience. Journal of Management, 33, 774-800.
Zautra, A. J., Johnson, L. M., & Davis, M. C. (2005). Positive affect as a source of resilience for women in chronic pain. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 212-220.
Zautra, A., Smith, B., Affleck, G., & Tennen, H. (2001). Examinations of chronic pain and affect relationships: Application of a dynamic model of affect. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 69, 786-795.

Bios
James B. Avey holds a PhD in Leadership and Organizational
Behavior from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. He is an assistant professor of management at Central Washington University and
Director of the Northwest Center for Organizational Research. His research on positive psychological capital, ethical leadership and psychological ownership has appeared in outlets such as Personnel
Psychology, Journal of Management, Human Resource Management,
Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies and The Leadership
Quarterly.
Taras S. Wernsing received her PhD from University of Nebraska.
She is interested in developing theory-based models of leadership development and testing them in various leadership and crosscultural contexts. Her current research investigates the role and process of self-awareness in developing leadership expertise.
Ketan H. Mhatre is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Psychology at Claremont McKenna College in Claremont, California. He earned his Master of Management Studies from Mumbai University and his PhD in Organizational Behavior and Leadership from the
University of Nebraska. He did his postdoctoral work at Kravis
Leadership Institute at Claremont McKenna College for a year and a half before assuming the Visiting Assistant Professor’s position at Claremont McKenna College.