APPROACH OR AVOIDANCE (OR BOTH?): INTEGRATING CORE SELF‐EVALUATIONS WITHIN AN APPROACH/AVOIDANCE FRAMEWORK

By D. L. Ferris, CHRISTOPHER R. Rosen, Russell E. Johnson, Douglas J. Brown, Stephen D. Risavy, D. Heller. 2011

214 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9921b3f398527756c8c30d24b6dda054807159bd

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Empowering leadership and employee creativity: A dual‐mechanism perspective (2018, methodology): “In turn, they are less concerned about avoiding failures or negative outcomes and are more inclined to embrace uncertainty and take risks in the process of generating and testing creative ideas (Ferris et al., 2011).”
Fuzzy Profiles (2018, background): “…have also sought to better understand the overall meaning of CSE, with some suggesting that it may simply reflect a broader conceptualization of emotional stability (Bono & Judge, 2003), self-esteem (Johnson et al., 2008), or approach/avoidance motivation (Ferris et al., 2011; Ferris et al., 2013).”
Core Self-Evaluations and Employee Voice Behavior (2017, methodology): “In summary, consistent with the extant research relating CSE to employee performance (Chang et al., 2012; Ferris et al., 2011; Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2011; Neubert et al., 2008), the expectation is for CSE to relate to voice behavior.”
The Psychology of Middle Power: Vertical Code-Switching, Role Conflict, and Behavioral Inhibition (2017, background): “…have begun to integrate work on approach/avoidance and regulatory focus theories with work on core self-evaluations (CSE; Ferris et al., 2013; Ferris et al., 2011; Johnson, Rosen, & Levy, 2008), the “fundamental premises that individuals hold about themselves and their functioning in the…”
Turnover intention: the effects of core self-evaluations, proactive personality, perceived organizational support, developmental feedback, and job complexity (2015, background): “Individuals with high core self-evaluations concentrated more on the positive aspects of their environment and less on negative aspects (Ferris et al. 2011), and thus were more satisfied with their working conditions.”
Workplace Bullying: Considering the Interaction Between Individual and Work Environment (2015, background): “The biological model of approach/avoidance motivation suggests that individuals will derive approach motivation to those situations that present benefits to them, while deriving avoidance motivation to situations that they perceive will result in negative consequences (Ferris et al. 2011).”
Core Self-Evaluations (2012, background): “For example, there is evidence that individuals high in CSE are sensitive to positive stimuli and insensitive to negative stimuli (Ferris et al., 2011).”
Daily within-person effects of job autonomy and work engagement on innovative behaviour: The cross-level moderating role of creative self-efficacy (2017, background): “, a dispositional sensitivity to positive/negative environmental stimuli; Elliot, 1999) may underlie higher order organizational personality constructs such as core self-evaluations (Ferris et al., 2011) but also affective-motivational experiences like work engagement (Denunzio & Naidoo, 2013; Schau”
Ostracism and prosocial behavior: A social dilemma perspective. (2013, background): “…have produced fairly uniform results regarding the negative effects of ostracism, one notable exception lies in the relation of ostracism to prosocial behaviors – behaviors that are intended to benefit another individual, group, or organization (Brief & Motowildo, 1986; Ferris et al., 2011).”
Linking core self-evaluation and emotional exhaustion with workplace loneliness: does high LMX make the consequence worse? (2019, methodology): “…to mitigate negative effects of workplace loneliness, recruiters may wish to consider CSE as an important parameter in their selection processes (Ferris et al., 2011; Judge, Van Vianen, & De Pater, 2004) as individuals with high CSE are less likely to experience loneliness at the workplace.”
Day-level fluctuations in stress and engagement in response to workplace incivility: A diary study (2014, methodology): “The approach/avoidance theoretical framework (Elliot & Thrash, 2002) has been applied to explaining CSE, with the suggestion by Ferris et al. (2011) that those with high levels of CSE have a strong approach temperament (sensitive to positive stimuli) and weak avoidance temperament (insensitive to…”