Psychological Capital and Well-being

CONCEPTUAL REVIEW

Psychological Capital and Well-being Carolyn M. Youssef-Morgan1 & Fred Luthans2*† 1

Bellevue University, Bellevue, NE, USA University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, USA

2

Received 22 October 2014; Accepted 22 October 2014 Keywords Psychological capital; Physical health; Psychological well-being

*Correspondence Fred Luthans, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, USA. † E-mail: fl[email protected] Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/smi.2623

Although important and of undeniable significance, decades of extensive research on mental illness and dysfunctional behavior in psychology, sociology and other foundational behavioral science disciplines have generally ignored or failed to contribute to the better understanding of the role that human strengths, flourishing and optimal functioning have for overall well-being. Similarly, the study of work stress, burnout, conflict, dysfunctional attitudes, counterproductive behaviors and other negative constructs that have preoccupied organizational behavior and human resources management scholars and practitioners have also not necessarily shed additional light on the characteristics of exceptional performers or the dynamic processes that facilitate excellence in the workplace. This realization motivated positive psychologists and positive organizational behavior (POB) scholars to launch new and exciting streams of research that focus on positivity in its own right, rather than simply extrapolating existing mainstream research. This essay focuses on one of these streams of research, namely psychological capital or simply PsyCap. We use this stream of research as an example and illustration of positive research in terms of rigor and relevance. We present conceptual frameworks in which positivity, particularly PsyCap, can promote well-being, both at and beyond the workplace.

Positivity, positive organizational behavior and psychological capital Drawing from a wide range of definitions, we define positivity in general as ‘an integrated system of antecedents, processes, practices and outcomes that can be readily identified and agreed upon by diverse observers and stakeholders as uniquely surpassing standards of adequate functioning and adding sustainable value to 180

both the individual and the context’ (Youssef-Morgan & Luthans, 2013, p. 149). Within this ‘umbrella concept’ of positivity, which spans a variety of positive approaches, including positive traits, states, processes, dynamics, perspectives and outcomes at various levels of analysis (Cameron & Spreitzer, 2012), we define POB 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 in today’s workplace’ (Luthans, 2002b, p. 59). The focus of POB is on individual-level psychological resources that are positive, theory-based and research-based, measurable, state-like or open to development, and related to desired attitudinal, behavioral and especially performance outcomes in the workplace (Luthans, 2002a; Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007, 2015). This set of criteria was selected to ensure that POB can meet the scientific rigor of academic research, as well as the practical relevance and utility of evidence-based effective practice (e.g. see Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006). Initially, four psychological resources met this set of criteria, namely hope, efficacy, resilience and optimism (Luthans, 2002a). We used the acronym ‘HERO within’ (e.g. see Luthans 2012) to represent these four resources and their importance and relevance in producing exceptional capabilities and outcomes in individuals. Other relevant psychological resources such as creativity, flow, courage, gratitude, forgiveness, mindfulness, emotional intelligence, authenticity and spirituality have also been investigated and found to vary in their degree of fit with these criteria (Luthans, Youssef-Morgan, & Avolio, 2015). Thus, while the list of psychological resources may not be exhaustive, the inclusion criteria that were set early on in the emergence of POB provide an Stress and Health 31: 180–188 (2015) © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

C. M. Youssef-Morgan and F. Luthans

ongoing high standard for the rigor and relevance of its constituent resources. Integrating the ‘HERO within’ resources, a higherorder construct was empirically supported, whereas the whole was a better predictor of job satisfaction and performance than each of the components that make it up (Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007). We refer to this higher-order construct as PsyCap, which we define as ‘an individual’s positive psychological state of development that is characterized by: (1) having confidence (efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (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 et al., 2015). The basic underlying theoretical thread connecting hope, efficacy, resilience and optimism is a ‘positive appraisal of circumstances and probability for success based on motivated effort and perseverance’ (Luthans et al., 2007, p. 550), and an internalized sense of agency, control and intentionality (Youssef & Luthans, 2013, Youssef-Morgan & Luthans, 2013). In other words, as chances of success are consistently appraised in a positive light and perceived to be within reach and control, this promotes a positive outlook, choice to pursue challenging goals, and investment of energy and resources in pursuit of those goals despite obstacles and setbacks. Beyond the convergent validity among the four PsyCap constituent resources, importantly there is also considerable empirical evidence of discriminant validity (Alarcon, Bowling, & Khazon, 2013; Bryant & Cvengros, 2004; Gallaghar & Lopez, 2009; Magaletta & Oliver, 1999; Rand, Martin, & Shea, 2011). This warrants the additional utility and contribution of each resource to the synergistic whole that is PsyCap (Luthans, Avolio, Avey & Norman, 2007). However, for greater understanding, we will now turn to a brief overview of each of the ‘HERO within’ resources that make up PsyCap.

The ‘HERO within’ resources Hope is based on positive psychologist Rick Snyder’s (2000) extensive theory-building and research. It is defined as ‘a positive motivational state that is based on an interactively derived sense of successful (1) agency (goal-directed energy) and (2) pathways (planning to meet goals)’ (Snyder, Irving, & Anderson, 1991, p. 287). The pathways components of hope distinguish it from efficacy and other primarily agentic resources. In line with the inclusion criteria presented earlier, hope is related to performance in various domains, including the workplace (e.g. Stress and Health 31: 180–188 (2015) © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Psychological Capital and Well-being

Peterson & Byron, 2008; Youssef & Luthans, 2007). It has been conceptualized and measured as both a dispositional trait and a state (Snyder et al., 1996) that can be developed through goal setting, contingency planning and other recognized ‘preparedness’ mechanisms (Luthans et al., 2015). Efficacy is based on Albert Bandura’s (1997) extensive research and social cognitive theory. It can be defined as ‘one’s belief about his or her ability to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action necessary to execute a specific action within a given context’ (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998b, p. 66). Research strongly supports a positive relationship between efficacy and performance (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998a; Bandura, 2012). Well-established efficacy development approaches include mastery experiences, vicarious learning/modeling, social persuasion, and physiological and psychological arousal (Bandura, 1997). Resilience is ‘the developable capacity to rebound or bounce back from adversity, conflict and failure or even positive events, progress and increased responsibility’ (Luthans, 2002a, p. 702). Its theory, research and measurement are drawn from clinical and developmental psychology. Unique to resilience is that it serves as a reactive function after challenges and setbacks are encountered. Resilience can be developed through the enrichment of physiological, cognitive, affective and social assets, the management of risk factors, and the facilitation of various adaptational processes (Masten, 2001; Masten, Cutuli, Herbers, & Reed, 2009). Whether in the lives of at-risk children or youth, or in the workplace, resilience has been shown to relate to various performance outcomes (Youssef & Luthans, 2007). Optimism is a generalized positive outlook or expectancy (Carver, Scheier, Miller, & Fulford, 2009), as well as an attributional style that explains positive events in terms of personal, permanent and pervasive causes, and negative events as external, temporary and situation-specific (Seligman, 1998). Similar to hope, optimism has been conceptualized and measured as both a dispositional trait (Scheier & Carver, 1987) and a state that can be learned and developed (Seligman, 1998). Relationships between optimism and desirable outcomes, including those in the workplace, have been empirically demonstrated (Seligman, 1998; Youssef & Luthans, 2007).

Psychological capital characteristics and relevance to well-being Well-being is commonly used interchangeably with happiness. Although there are many formal definitions and common usages of happiness, at least in the academic domain, well-being is becoming more generally recognized as a broader, more umbrella-like 181


construct that encompasses one’s feelings and perceptions of emotional well-being (positive and negative affect, life satisfaction, and happiness), psychological well-being (self-acceptance, personal growth, purpose in life, environmental mastery, autonomy and positive relations with others), social well-being (social acceptance, actualization, contribution, coherence and integration) ( e.g. see Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999; Keyes & Magyar-Moe, 2003), as well as physical and mental well-being (freedom from diagnosable physical and mental illnesses). We will primarily use the term well-being instead of happiness unless the reference we are drawing from uses happiness. Well-being (and also frequently happiness in the literature) is associated with a wide range of positive outcomes such as physical and psychological health (Ryff & Singer, 2003), personal striving, coping with stress (Diener & Fujita, 1995; Emmons, 1992; Folkman, 1997; Fordyce, 1988) and satisfaction with important life domains (Diener, 2000; Diener et al., 1999). Importantly, drawing from cross-sectional, longitudinal and experimental evidence, Lyubomirsky, King and Diener’s (2005) widely recognized meta-analysis also supported a causal relationship from well-being (and happiness) to success in numerous areas of life, rather than the other way around. In addition to the general value of well-being, it has become increasingly important in the workplace because of the substantial quantifiable cost savings associated with employee well-being (Cascio & Boudreau, 2011). For example, the happy–productive worker hypothesis has received considerable support (e.g. see Wright & Cropanzano, 2004). Judge and colleagues also showed life satisfaction and well-being as causal antecedents of job satisfaction (Judge & Watanabe, 1993), which in turn is related to work performance (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001). Several important characteristics of PsyCap (and the inclusion criteria for its constituent resources) make it particularly relevant for well-being. As discussed earlier, POB and PsyCap emphasize the criteria of being positive, theory-based and research-based, measurable, state-like or open to development, and related to desired attitudinal, behavioral and especially performance outcomes in the workplace. Before we present our conceptual frameworks specifically linking PsyCap to well-being, we briefly discuss the following areas of commonality and relevancy between PsyCap and well-being. Positivity Focusing on positive constructs such as PsyCap is likely to lead to strides in the study and understanding of well-being in the workplace. This is because similar to many positive constructs, well-being is not simply the polar opposite of ‘ill-being’, some other negative 182


construct such as depression or burnout, or even some neutral or ‘average’ state. Average employees can produce average performance, which is no longer adequate in today’s hyper-competitive business environment. Organizations that emphasize the well-being of their employees as a strategic priority do so because they understand and appreciate that positivity can lead to categorically different processes and outcomes (Cameron & Caza, 2004). A positive approach can lead to extraordinary results, not ‘average’ or even ‘above average’ performance. Positive organizational scholars utilize terms such as ‘dramatic’, ‘spectacular’, ‘surprising’, ‘positively deviant’ and ‘departure from the norm’ (Cameron 2008; Spreitzer & Sonenshein, 2003) to describe the uniqueness and discontinuity (i.e. not ‘more of the same’) at this level of performance. In this type of organizational environment, PsyCap can present a unique approach to leveraging employee positivity and well-being toward that exceptional level of performance. Unlike the narrower focus of the more problem-oriented psychological and organizational research, positivity also emphasizes a broader, wholeperson perspective, which is particularly relevant to well-being. Theory, research and measurement Positive Organizational Behavior and PsyCap emphasize sound theory, rigorous research and valid measurement to overcome the inherent weaknesses of the popular self-help literature such as its reliance on unfounded claims and anecdotal evidence. Similarly, well-being researchers place significant emphasis on rigorous empirical research in order to distinguish their scientific work from Pollyannaish positivity, ‘happyology’ and other positive but somewhat extreme perspectives (e.g. hedonism). Thus, conceptual models linking PsyCap to well-being are likely to meet the scientific standards of evidence-based management research and practice. The emphasis of positive psychology from the beginning has been a reliable and valid measurement (e.g. see Lopez & Snyder, 2003 for a comprehensive review of positive psychological assessments), and PsyCap is no exception. More specifically, there are currently at least three validated PsyCap measures: the most widely used (a recent comprehensive review found the majority of PsyCap studies, Newman, Ucbasaran, Zhu & Hirst, 2014) and psychometrically validated (Dawkins, Martin, Scott & Sanderson, 2013; Luthans, Avolio, Avey & Norman, 2007) 24-item Psychological Capital Questionnaire (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007 and available free for research through www.mindgarden.com), a 12-item short version (see Avey, Avolio, & Luthans, 2011, for validation and also available free from Mind Garden) and an implicit Psychological Capital Questionnaire (Harms & Luthans, 2012 and available free from this citation). PsyCap Stress and Health 31: 180–188 (2015) © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


measures have also been shown to be adaptable to nonwork domains such as health, relationships (Luthans, Youssef, Sweetman, & Harms, 2013) and education (Luthans, B., Luthans, K. & Avey, 2014; Luthans, B., Luthans, K., & Jensen, 2012). These measures have also been shown to predict measured well-being (Avey, Luthans, Smith & Palmer, 2010; Luthans et al., 2013; Roche, Haar & Luthans, 2014). State-like and open to development Unlike personality traits and other individual dispositions, PsyCap resources are state-like, and thus open to development and management in the workplace. We depict the trait-state continuum along the two extremes of fixed traits that are genetically determined or ‘hard-wired’ (e.g. intelligence) and ‘pure’ states, which are highly volatile (e.g. pleasure, transient moods and emotions). Between these two extremes, we place trait-like characteristics such as personality, which are quite stable in working adults but may still show some lifespan development, and state-like resources such as PsyCap, which are relatively malleable but not as volatile as ‘pure’ states (Luthans & Youssef, 2007; Luthans et al., 2015). This state-like nature makes PsyCap an optimal resource for workplace development, because it combines malleability with relative stability to yield a reasonable return on development. Empirical studies to-date support this developmental potential of PsyCap, which has been found to be feasible through relatively short training micro-interventions (Luthans, B., Luthans, K., & Avey, 2014; Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman, & Combs, 2006; Luthans, Avey, Avolio, & Peterson, 2010; Luthans, Avey, & Patera, 2008). PsyCap’s state-like nature has also been supported through longitudinal research (Peterson, Luthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, & Zhang, 2011). In line with happiness and well-being research, which offers a split between fixed traits (about 50%), intentional activity (about 40%) and circumstances (only 10%) (Lyubormirsky, 2007), we do not deny the importance of traits. In fact, each of PsyCap’s constituent resources is known to have a trait baseline or ‘set point’. We also acknowledge the role of contextual factors in facilitating or hindering PsyCap development (Avolio & Luthans, 2006; Luthans et al., 2015). We believe that the integral role of PsyCap resides in the 40% of positivity that can be controlled through intentional activity. In addition, emerging neuroscience research is showing that positivity and negativity can be traced to the prefrontal cortex, which is beginning to indicate some realistic plasticity (Davidson, 2012). There is also evidence for (a) ‘differential susceptibility’ (variations in plasticity across individuals), (b) ‘vantage sensitivity’ (heightened sensitivity to positive influences) and (c) ‘diatheses–stress’ (heightened sensitivity to negative events), which challenge the notion of a fixed trait-state mix (Pluess & Belsky, 2013). Stress and Health 31: 180–188 (2015) © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


Performance impact Although positivity and well-being are important and valuable in their own right, in today’s business environment tight budgets and competition for scarce resources make it necessary to quantify the dollar return on human resources in general, and particularly training and development investments (e.g. Fitz-Enz, 2009; Hubbard, 2010; Kravetz, 2004). Although employers now widely acknowledge the importance of and return on investment in their employees’ wellbeing, there is far less agreement on the credibility and validity of the interventions that claim to boost well-being (Cascio & Boudreau, 2011). The clearly demonstrated impact that PsyCap has on desired outcomes is well-positioned to address this gap. For example, meta-analysis of 51 studies supported significant relationships between employees’ PsyCap and a wide range of work-related outcomes, including both general well-being and job satisfaction, as well as numerous tangible performance outcomes (Avey, Reichard, Luthans & Mhatre, 2011). These impressive results for the positive impact of PsyCap have been verified by the recent comprehensive review by Newman and colleagues (2014). Although experimental research is needed, there is beginning longitudinal support for the causal direction from PsyCap to well-being (Avey et al., 2010).

Conceptual models of psychological capital and well-being We have recently proposed some conceptual models that have potential implications for linking PsyCap to well-being. The first of these models was presented in our chapter in the Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology and Work and is shown in Figure 1. This offers a ‘big picture’ approach to PsyCap and addresses several challenges in PsyCap research, and positive psychology in general, namely (1) a balance between positive and negative constructs, (2) a wide range of traits and states, (3) multiple levels of analysis and (4) multiple outcomes (Youssef & Luthans, 2010). Well-being fits within the attitudinal outcomes, driven by individual traits and states, as well as contextual antecedents. In turn, well-being can drive individual behaviors, as well as tangible outcomes at various levels of analysis. However, to better understand positivity and well-being, we propose it should not be isolated from a balanced understanding of negativity and negative constructs and processes. For example, Cameron (2008) explains the role of both positivity and negativity in promoting positive change in organizations. Our second conceptual framework, which we presented in the Oxford Handbook of Happiness, 183



Figure 1 Youssef-Morgan and Luthans integrated conceptual framework of positive psychological capital (PsyCap) and workplace outcomes

emphasizes the specific mechanisms linking PsyCap to happiness and well-being. PsyCap is proposed to trigger cognitive, affective, conative and social mechanisms, leading to happiness and well-being (Youssef & Luthans, 2013). The cognitive mechanism occurs through PsyCap’s ‘positive appraisal of circumstances and probability for success’ (Luthans et al., 2007, p. 550), which shape how we interpret situations. Based on positive psychology research through the years, we propose positive interpretations and appraisals boost effort, motivation and perseverance. The affective mechanism occurs through the wide range of positive

Figure 2 Youssef-Morgan and Luthans holistic model of positivity at work and beyond

184

states generated by PsyCap, which can be instrumental in broadening one’s thought-action repertoires and building physical, psychological and social resources (e.g. see Fredrickson, 2009). The underappreciated and seldom recognized conative mechanism occurs through the agentic thinking and efficacious goal pursuit that is promoted through PsyCap. As Bandura (2001, 2008, 2012) indicates, this conative mechanism leads to intentional actions and a sense of control. Finally, the social mechanism can occur through the increased attraction, improved relationships, and enriched networks and connections that positivity in general can bring about (Dutton & Ragins, 2006). Together, we propose that these theoretical mechanisms underlying PsyCap can help explain and lead to greater happiness and improved well-being of employees in today’s workplace. The third model, which we presented in Advances in Positive Organizational Psychology, is shown in Figure 2 (Youssef-Morgan & Luthans, 2013). This model builds on the previous two models, particularly the agency, malleability and social mechanisms underlying PsyCap. However, this model expands the role of PsyCap beyond the workplace, to the domains of health and relationships. Reciprocal relationships are proposed across life domains, where each domain causally influences and is causally influenced by the others over time. Importantly, satisfaction with important life domains such as work, relationships and health are instrumental for overall well-being. Stress and Health 31: 180–188 (2015) © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.



Figure 3 Psychological capital (PsyCap) and well-being study relationships

To test this model, we conducted a study that empirically found the relationships shown in Figure 3 (Luthans et al., 2013). Specifically, domain-specific Health PsyCap and Relationships PsyCap were found to relate to relevant objective outcomes. For example, significant negative relationships were found between Health PsyCap and cholesterol levels and with Body Mass Index and a significant positive relationship between Relationship PsyCap and time spent with family and friends. In addition to these objective outcomes, satisfaction appraisals were also strongly related with these important life domains. In turn, it was found that domain-specific satisfaction led to higher overall wellbeing, which led to higher overall PsyCap (Luthans et al., 2013).

Mechanisms linking psychological capital to well-being As outlined earlier, we propose that several theoretical mechanisms can help explain the importance of PsyCap for well-being. First, well-being is primarily shaped by our cognitive and affective appraisals of life in general and of specific life domains, events and circumstances (Bakker & Oerlemans, 2012; Diener, Oishi, & Lucas, 2009). As we have indicated, an integral thread that runs through PsyCap and its constituent resources is the formation of positive appraisals of past, present and future events. More specifically, in PsyCap, positive appraisals are based on positive explanatory Stress and Health 31: 180–188 (2015) © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

styles of the past (optimistic attributions), motivated effort and perseverance in the present (efficacy, resilience and hope agency), and positive expectancies (optimistic outlook) and intentional goal pursuit (hope pathways) for the future. Together, we propose that these positive appraisals yield greater well-being. Second, satisfaction with important life domains represents an integral component of well-being (Diener, 2000; Diener et al., 1999). PsyCap has been shown to predict satisfaction with important life domains such as work, relationships and health (Luthans et al., 2013). Over time, satisfaction with important life domains can additively and interactively lead to improved well-being. This is because of the recognized inter-domain spillover and crossover effects, as well as the informative feedback, motivation and support that can be drawn from high PsyCap domains to help the development and growth in low PsyCap domains. The result is optimal allocation of resources and an overall sense of mastery, control and importantly well-being (Youssef-Morgan & Luthans, 2013). Third, there is another reason well-being goes beyond the additive, or even the synergistic integration of domain-specific satisfaction appraisals. Well-being is shaped by retained memories of various life events. These retained memories have been demonstrated to be both qualitatively and quantitatively different from real-time experiences (Kahneman, 2011; Kim-Prieto, Diener, Tamir, Scollon, & Diener, 2005). Positivity in general, and we propose PsyCap in particular, can facilitate the attention, interpretation and memory 185



retention processes necessary for domain-specific experiences and satisfaction to render a lasting impact on well-being (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2008; Lyubomirsky, 2001). The fourth mechanism linking PsyCap to well-being is based on resource theories. According to these theories, cognitive evaluations of availability of resources are often used as indicators of global assessments of wellness (Wright & Hobfoll, 2004). PsyCap since its original conceptions has been considered a psychological resource (Luthans et al., 2015). Therefore, a perceived abundance of PsyCap can facilitate well-being appraisals (Avey et al., 2010). This is also in line with Fredrickson’s (2003) broaden-and-build theory, where positivity and PsyCap can help build a reservoir of psychological resources. These resources can be used to cope with and overcome challenges, setbacks and times of negativity that may drain these resource reservoirs. Regularly replenished resources, through PsyCap development and management, can help balance and optimize positivity and negativity (Cameron, 2008), leading to higher well-being. Relatedly, a fifth mechanism through which PsyCap can boost well-being is that PsyCap can help mitigate the prevalent negativity bias (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer & Vohs, 2001; Cameron, 2008). This can occur through a combination of the mechanisms discussed earlier, including positive appraisals, increased satisfaction with a critical mass of important life domains, retention of positive memories and regularly replenished reservoirs of psychological resources. For example, PsyCap can mitigate the damaging effects of unrealistic goals and expectations. In the workplace, these unrealistic goals and expectations can lead to workaholism and burnout, instead of engagement and satisfaction (Bakker & Oerlemans, 2012). The damaging physical and psychological effects of unrealistic healthrelated goals (e.g. extreme weigh loss in record time), which are in many cases promoted through deceptive marketing, are also widely recognized (Polivy and Herman, 2002; Snyder & Rand, 2003). In relationships, a negative bias and unrealistic expectations have also proved to be detrimental (Gottman, 1994; Seligman, 2002; Lyubomirsky, 2013). Finally, PsyCap can help overcome not only negativity bias, but also hedonic adaptation, which can be detrimental to well-being. For example, one of the key mechanisms recently proposed by Sheldon, Boehm and Lyubomirsky (2013) for preventing hedonic

REFERENCES

adaptation and sustaining well-being is simply variety. Actively pursuing and making progress on a wide range of important life goals can help resist hedonic adaptation and sustain well-being (Diener et al., 2009). Because intentional goal pursuit is an integral component of PsyCap, and especially when the multidomain linkages of PsyCap are considered, it provides the necessary goal variety and agentic pursuit of challenging goals to lastingly and regularly boost well-being over time.

Conclusion and future directions Hope, efficacy, resilience and optimism when integrated into the core construct of PsyCap offer a viable set of resources and mechanisms that can promote well-being. Being positive, theory-based and researchbased, measurable, state-like or open to development and related to desired outcomes, PsyCap meets the scientific criteria of rigor and relevance, and the practical need for evidence-based effective applications. Research already supports a positive relationship between PsyCap and well-being (Avey et al., 2010, 2011; Luthans et al., 2013; Roche, Haar & Luthans, 2014). Future research should not only seek to replicate these findings but also empirically examine the conceptual mechanisms proposed in this article. Although plausible and based on sound established theories, these mechanisms still need to be operationalized and experimentally tested in various settings over time to better understand their dynamics, relative contributions and potential discontinuities. In terms of practical applications, well-being is gaining deserved increased attention in the workplace, and expenditures on well-being initiatives reflect this added emphasis. However, without an evidence-based approach, selecting the right interventions can be challenging, and valuable resources can be wasted on ineffective or even counterproductive practices. The research support that PsyCap has received to date in cross-sectional, longitudinal and experimental studies indicates its viability as an evidence-based approach to increasing well-being. The state-like nature of PsyCap makes it particularly relevant for developmental interventions, and its performance impact makes it attractive to bottom-line oriented decision makers, thus aligning employee well-being with workplace initiatives, culture, goals and strategies.

follower positivity and performance. The Leadership

psychological capital on employee attitudes, behav-

Quarterly, 22, 282–294.

iors, and performance. Human Resource Development

Alarcon, G. M., Bowling, N. A., & Khazon, S. (2013).

Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., Smith, R. M., & Palmer, N. F.

Great expectations: A meta-analytic examination of

(2010). Impact of positive psychological capital on

Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. (2006). The high impact

optimism and hope. Personality and Individual Differ-

employee well-being over time. Journal of Occupa-

leader: Moments matter in accelerating authentic lead-

ences, 54, 821–827.

tional Health Psychology, 15, 17–28.

Quarterly, 22, 127–152.

ership development. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., & Luthans, F. (2011). Experi-

Avey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. H.

Bakker, A. B., & Oerlemans, W. G. M.. (2012). Subjec-

mentally analyzing the impact of leader positivity on

(2011). Meta-analysis of the impact of positive

tive well-being in organizations. In K. Cameron &

186

Stress and Health 31: 180–188 (2015) © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.



G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of posi-

Dutton, J. E., & Ragins, B. R. (Eds.). (2006). Exploring

Luthans, B. C., Luthans, K. W., & Avey, J. B. (2014).

tive organizational scholarship (pp. 178–189). New

positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical

Building the leaders of tomorrow: The development

York: Oxford University Press.

and research foundation. London: Psychology Press.

of academic psychological capital. Journal of Leader-

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Emmons, R. A. (1992). Abstract versus concrete goals: Personal striving level, physical illness, and psycho-

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.

logical well-being. Journal of Personality and Social

The impact of business school students’ psychological

Psychology, 62, 292–300.

capital on academic performance. Journal of Educa-

Fitz-Enz, J. (2009). The ROI of human capital: Measuring

Bandura, A. (2008). An agentic perspective on positive psychology. In S. J. Lopez (Ed.). Positive psychology: Exploring the best in people (pp. 167–196). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

the economic value of employee performance. New

ceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38, 9–44. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370.

tion for Business, 87, 253–259. Luthans, F. (2002a). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior Journal of Organiza-

York: AMACOM. Folkman, S. (1997). Positive psychological states and coping with severe stress. Social Science and Medicine,

Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of per-

ship and Organizational Studies, 21, 191–199. Luthans, B. C., Luthans, K. W., & Jensen, S. M. (2012).

tional Behavior, 23, 695–706. Luthans, F. (2002b). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths.

45, 1207–1221. Fordyce, M. W. (1988). A review of research on the

Academy of Management Executive, 16(1), 57–72.

happiness measures: A sixty second index of happi-

Luthans, F. (2012). Psychological capital: Implications

ness and health. Social Indicators Research, 20,

for HRD, retrospective analysis, and future direc-

355–381.

tions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23,

Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). Positive emotions and up-

1–8.

Bryant, F. B., & Cvengros, J. A. (2004). Distinguishing

ward spirals in organizations. In K. S. Cameron, J.

Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Norman, S. M., &

hope and optimism. Journal of Social and Clinical Psy-

E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organiza-

Combs, G. J. (2006). Psychological capital develop-

chology, 23, 273–302.

tional scholarship (pp. 63–175). San Francisco:

ment: Toward a micro-intervention. Journal of Orga-

Berrett-Koehler.

nizational Behavior, 27, 387–393.

Cameron, K. S. (2008). Paradox in positive organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 7–24.

Fredrickson, B. L. (2009). Positivity. New York: Crown/

Cameron, K. S., & Caza, A. (2004). Contributions to the

Gallaghar, M. W., & Lopez, S. J. (2009). Positive expec-

discipline of positive organizational scholarship.

tancies and mental health: Identifying the unique

American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 731–739.

contributions of hope and optimism. Journal of Posi-

Cameron K. S., & Spreitzer, G. M. (Eds.). (2012). Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship.

tive Psychology, 4, 548–556.

impact of positive psychological capital. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21, 41–66. Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Patera, J. L. (2008). Experimental analysis of a web-based training interven-

Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., & Peterson, S. (2010). The development and resulting performance

Random House.

tion to develop positive psychological capital. Academy of Management Learning and Education,

Carver, C., Scheier, M., Miller, C., & Fulford, D.

Harms, P., & Luthans, F. (2012). Measuring implicit

(2009). Optimism. In S. Lopez & C. R. Snyder

psychological constructs in organizational behavior:

Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B. & Norman, S. M.

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology, 2nd

An example using psychological capital. Journal of

(2007). Psychological capital: Measurement and rela-

ed. (pp. 303–312). New York: Oxford University

Organizational Behavior, 33, 589–594.

tionship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel

Hubbard, D. W. (2010). How to measure anything: Find-

Press. Cascio, W. F., & Boudreau, J. W. (2011). Investing in people: Financial impact of human resource initiatives (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Davidson, R. (2012). The emotional life of your brain. New York: Hudson/Penguin.

ing the value of “intangibles” in business (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., Sweetman, D., & Harms, P.

tionship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psy-

(2013). Meeting the leadership challenge of employee

chological Bulletin, 127, 376–407.

well-being through relationship PsyCap and health

(2013). Building on the positives: A psychometric re-

job satisfaction-life satisfaction relationship. Journal

view and critical analysis of the construct of psycho-

of Applied Psychology, 78, 939–948.

capital.

Journal

of

Occupational

and

321–349.

(2001). The job satisfaction–job performance rela-

Judge, T. A., & Watanabe, S. (1993). Another look at the

Organizational Psychology, 86, 348–370.

Psychology, 60, 541–572. Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 33,

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E. & Patton, G. K.

Dawkins, S., Martin, A., Scott, J., & Sanderson, K.

logical

7, 209–221.

PsyCap. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 20, 114–129. Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psy-

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

chological capital: Developing the human competitive edge. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of

Keyes, C., & Magyar-Moe, J. (2003). The measure-

Luthans, F., Youssef-Morgan, C. M., & Avolio, B.

happiness and a proposal for a national index. Amer-

ment and utility of adult subjective well-being. In

(2015). Psychological capital and beyond. New York:

ican Psychologist, 55, 34–43.

S. Lopez, & C. R. Snyder, (Eds.), Positive psycholog-

Oxford University Press.

Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2008). Happiness:

ical assessment: A handbook of models and measures

Lyubomirsky, S. (2001). Why are some people happier

Unlocking the mysteries of psychological wealth. Mal-

(pp. 411–425). Washington, D.C.: American Psy-

than others? The role of cognitive and motivational

den, MA: Blackwell.

chological Association.

processes in well-being. American Psychologist, 56,

Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1995). Resource, personal striv-

Kim-Prieto, C., Diener, E., Tamir, M., Scollon, C. N., &

ing, and subjective well-being: A monothetic and idi-

Diener, M. (2005). Integrating the diverse definitions

ographic approach. Journal of Personality and Social

of happiness: A time-sequential framework of subjec-


tive well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6,

Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2009). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and life satisfac-

D.

York: Penguin. Lyubomirsky, S. (2013). The myths of happiness. New York: Penguin.

261–300. Kravetz,

239–249. Lyubomirsky, S. (2007). The how of happiness. New

(2004).

Measuring

human

capital:

Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The ben-

tion. In S. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford hand-

Converting workplace behavior into dollars. Mesa, AZ:

efits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead

book of positive psychology, 2nd ed. (pp. 187–194).

KAP.

to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855

Lopez, S., & Snyder, C. R. (Eds.). (2003). Positive psy-

Magaletta, P. R. & Oliver, J. M. (1999). The hope con-

Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L.

chological assessment: A handbook of models and mea-

struct, will and ways: Their relations with self-

(1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of prog-

sures. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological

efficacy, optimism and well-being. Journal of Clinical

ress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.

Association.


New York: Oxford University Press.


187



Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience pro-

Ryff, C., & Singer, B. (2003). Flourishing under fire: Re-

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998a). Self-efficacy and

cesses in development. American Psychologist, 56,

silience as a prototype of challenged thriving. In C.

work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psycho-

227–239.

Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychol-

Masten, A. S., Cutuli, J. J., Herbers, J. E., & Reed, M. G. J. (2009). Resilience in development. In S. J. Lopez &

ogy and the life well-lived (pp. 15–36). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psy-

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. (1987). Dispositional opti-

chology 2nd ed. (pp. 117–131). New York: Oxford

mism and physical well-being: The influence of gen-

University Press.

eralized outcome expectancies on health. Journal of

Newman, A., Ucbasaran, Zhu, F., & Hirst, G. (2014). Psychological capital: A review and synthesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, S120–S138. Peterson, S. J., & Byron, K. (2008). Exploring the role of hope in job performance: Results from four studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 785–803.

Personality, 55, 169–210. Pocket Books.

tional Dynamics, 26, 62–74. Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2004). The role of look at an age-old quest. Organizational Dynamics, Wright, T. A., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2004). Commitment, psychological well-being and job performance: An

York: Free Press. Sheldon, K. M., Boehm, J., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2013).

examination of conservation of resources (COR) the-

Variety is the spice of happiness: The hedonic adapta-

ory and job burnout. Journal of Business and Manage-

O., & Zhang, Z. (2011). Psychological capital and em-

A. C. Ayers (Eds.), Oxford handbook of happiness (pp.

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton R. I. (2006). Evidenced-based man-

motivational and behavioral approaches. Organiza-

33, 338–351.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness. New

tion prevention model. In S. A. David, I. Boniwell, &

proach. Personnel Psychology, 64, 427–450.

theory and self-efficacy: Going beyond traditional

psychological well-being in job performance: A fresh

Seligman, M. E. P. (1998). Learned optimism. New York:

Peterson, S. J., Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. ployee performance: A latent growth modeling ap-

logical Bulletin, 124, 240–261. Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998b). Social cognitive

901–914). New York: Oxford University Press. Snyder, C. R. (2000). Handbook of hope. San Diego: Ac-

ment, 9, 389–406. 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.

ademic Press. Snyder, C. R., Irving, L., & Anderson, J. (1991). Hope

Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2010). An integrated

Pluess, M., & Belsky, J. (2013). Vantage sensitivity: Indi-

and health: Measuring the will and the ways. In C.

model of psychological capital in the workplace.

vidual differences in response to positive experiences.

R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of social

In A. Linley, S. Harrington, & N. Garcea (Eds.),

Psychological Bulletin, 139, 901–916.

and clinical psychology (pp. 285–305). Elmsford, NY:

Oxford handbook of positive psychology and work

agement. Harvard Business Review, 84(1), 63–74.

Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (2002). If at first you don’t succeed: False hopes of self-change. American Psychologist, 57, 677–689.

(pp. 277–288). New York: Oxford University Press.

Pergamon. Snyder, C. R., & Rand, L. L. (2003). The case against false hope. American Psychologist, 58, 820–822.

Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2013). Developing psychological capital in organizations: Cognitive, affec-

Rand, K. L., Martin, A. D., & Shea, A. (2011). Hope,

Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T.

tive, conative, and social contributions of happiness.

but not optimism, predicts academic performance

F., Babyak, M. A., & Higgins, R. L. (1996). Develop-

In S. A. David, I. Boniwell, & A. C. Ayers (Eds.), Ox-

of law students beyond previous academic achieve-

ment and validation of the state hope scale. Journal

ford handbook of happiness (pp. 751–766). New York:

ment. Journal of Research in Personality, 45,

of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 321–335.

Oxford University Press.

Spreitzer, G., & Sonenshein, S. (2003). Positive devi-

Youssef-Morgan, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2013). Psycho-

Roche, M., Haar, J., & Luthans, F. (2014). The role of

ance and extraordinary organization. In K. Cameron,

logical capital theory: Toward a positive holistic

mindfulness and psychological capital on the well-

J. K. Dutton & R. Quinn (Eds.). Positive organiza-

model. In A. Bakker (Ed.), Advances in positive orga-

being of leaders. Journal of Occupational Health Psy-

tional scholarship (pp. 207–224). San Francisco:

nizational psychology (pp. 145–166). Bingley, UK:

chology, in press.

Berrett Koehler.

Emerald.

683–686.

188
