Self-related structures are commonly used in the psychology literature to explain the control and regulation of behavior (see Bandura, 1991). Aspects of the self are generally thought to serve a variety of functions and to affect a broad range of phenomena, including motivation, perception, and behavior (e.g., Boldero & Francis, 2002). However, the origin and nature of self-structures that allow willful control over behavior are not entirely clear (Cross & Markus, 1990). Our research was concerned with the individual self, as opposed to collective aspects of the self, because we targeted the individual intention-behavior relationship. Both trait aspects of the self and self-relevant cognition (although not entirely separable) appear to be important in motivation (Conner & Abraham, 2001). Indeed, the self is believed to have a significant role in any event that requires effort or is difficult. These situations motivate action only when there is some internal connection to the self (James, 1983). When this connection is made, it becomes self-relevant and concrete, rather than a vague possibility. The person is then able to incite the self to action. As Mischel, Cantor, and Feldman (1996) note, “self-regulation requires not only a representation of the goal or standard, but also of the self as striving to attain it”. We consider both a trait-based aspect of the self (willpower: “I can fulfill my intent because of who I am”) and self- relevant cognition (perceived behavioral control: “my ability in this situation to fulfill my intent”) to further develop our understanding of these self-influences in the movement from intention to action.

Willpower Recent consensus in the Big Five personality literature suggests that of these five general traits, conscientiousness exhibits the most consistent effects on behavior (Barrick, Mount, & Strauss, 1993). In our study, we wished to isolate the component of conscientiousness that related only to willpower, defined as consistency, determination, and persistence, in order to specifically examine the intent/behavior relationship. Our concept is closer to that of the work ethic (e.g., Nord, Brief, Atieh, & Doherty, 1988), in that it is not directly about achieving specific goals, but rather about doing what one said one would do, and working hard regardless of the outcome. Willpower is an elusive concept that has not been independently contained within one trait name, while at the same time appearing to be central to task performance. In general, constructs such as conscien- tiousness either do not capture the exact notion of willpower, or represent multiple dimensions that may limit our ability to interpret observed relationships. In the tradition of William James (1983), our view is that willpower is a primary component of conscientiousness, and should help an individual meet role expectations and exert extra effort toward actions that are not immediately desirable. High willpower individuals have high levels of determination to complete tasks both assigned to or chosen by them, and increased ability to ignore competing tendencies.

In the personality literature, numerous willpower-related constructs appear. We place the willpower construct within the Big Five, and conceptualize it as a component of conscientiousness, excluding other subdimensions to allow us to better understand the role of self-construal in linking intention to behavior. Conscientiousness indicates that an individual high in this trait is organized, reliable, hardworking, self-disciplined, punctual, scrupulous, neat, ambitious, persevering, purposeful, strong-willed, and determined (Costa & McCrae, 1985). Although these traits have been grouped together, they are not all necessarily related to willpower, for example, neatness, punctuality, organization, and achievement. Moon (2001) notes that dictionary definitions of conscientiousness do not actually include achievement components, and recent researchers have identified at least two subdimensions of conscientiousness, relating on the one hand to order, duty, responsibility, or dependability, and to achievement strivings on the other (e.g., Mount & Barrick, 1995; Stewart, 1999). Isolation of components of factors of the Big Five may explain some anomalous results noted in the conscientiousness literature (Moon). This two-part conceptualization of conscientiousness allows for the separation of ambition and achievement orientation from persistence-related traits, and provides us with a factor somewhat closer to our concept of willpower.

Examining the two subtraits of dependability and achievement not only increased predictive validity for job performance over a single conscientiousness trait, but also demonstrated that the subtraits were related to performance at different stages in employees’ tenure (Stewart, 1999). Dependability also related positively to job proficiency in a health care setting, while the achievement subtrait related positively to job proficiency among managers (Hough, 1992). Thus, some authors have argued that subtraits are utilized more effectively to understand performance processes in greater detail. However, this common two- part distinction still contains multiple components in that the dependability component includes moral obligation, order, and organization in addition to persistence.

Few researchers have examined how conscientiousness-related constructs affect the intention-behavior relationship. Prior research was primarily concentrated in the health domain. Consistent with our conceptualization, Rhodes, Courneya, and Hayduk (2002) observed a conscientiousness moderation effect on the intention- behavior relationship such that a stronger positive relationship was observed between intention and exercise behavior for students high in conscientiousness. Conner and Abraham (2001) examined conscientiousness, PBC, intention, and exercise behavior; but they research did not investigate a potential moderated intention-behavior relationship. Lastly, in one study it was noted that lay-people specifically use the willpower construct to describe why they have been successful, or what it would take to be successful, in executing intentions to stop smoking (Williams, Lewis-Black, Johnson, & Adams-Campbell, 2001).

Researchers support an intention/behavior relationship (e.g., Ajzen, 1991). However, it is unclear how self-structures influence this part of the motivation process. Our unitary conceptualization of willpower suggests that moderation effects should be central to the role of willpower in motivation. Willpower is not a type of ambition, moral obligation, or predisposition toward specific behaviors, for example, neatness or achievement, or a given strategy. All such components of conscientiousness-related traits might well be hypothesized to have direct effects on intentions or behavior, but without these components, we anticipated that willpower would strengthen the intention-behavior relationship, not directly alter intentions or behavior.
Hypothesis 1: Willpower will moderate the intention-behavior relationship. When willpower is high, the relationship will be more strongly positive than when willpower is low.

Perceived Behavioral Control Perceived behavioral control is identified in Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behavior as one component affecting intent, which in turn leads to behavior. PBC has been studied in both the psychology and management literatures as part of the motivational process (e.g., Cordano & Frieze, 2000; Terry & O’Leary, 1995). Judgments of PBC are influenced by perceptions of available resources, opportunities, and anticipated obstacles, and thus are broader than self-efficacy, which focuses on the actor’s self-perceived abilities (Bandura, 1991). Some evidence has suggested that while self-efficacy may relate more strongly to intentions, PBC relates more strongly to behavior (Terry & O’Leary). Our focus was somewhat different in that we looked specifically for differences between people in likelihood of carrying out intentions, rather than trying to directly predict intention or behavior with PBC.

Perceived behavioral control is a powerful construct for thinking about a moderating role of self-cognition in such workplace topics as compensation and training. Compensation plans that tie rewards to outcomes over which individuals feel little control (e.g., stock price) tend to have unclear motivational impact (e.g., Lawler, 1981). Often, training in “softer” interpersonal skills fails because despite forming intentions to do so, individuals see no way to actually implement change given the context in which they work (e.g., Dyer, 1995). Note that these examples do not deal with self-efficacy issues per se, because individuals may well feel that they can execute the appropriate behavior. Rather, external factors are perceived as preventing such execution, resulting in low PBC beliefs.

A small number of studies was located in which the possibility was addressed that PBC acts as a moderator in the intention-behavior relationship (see Armitage & Conner, 2001, for a meta-analytic review). Despite inconsistent findings, results gained in studies such as that by Terry and O’Leary (1995) indicate that PBC interacts with intentions. Armitage and Conner located 9 out of 19 studies in which this this interaction effect was examined and it was found that high PBC individuals were more likely to carry out their intent. This is consistent with the idea that an individual must be not only motivated to carry out an intention, but that he or she must also perceive volitional control over the action. Intentions tend to be formed around what is desirable, but whether control is obtained over the desirable is problematic (e.g., Cordano & Frieze, 2000). While all individuals form intentions, those high in PBC perceive, and may in fact have, more control over behavior, leading in turn to persistence and realization of anticipated outcomes.
Hypothesis 2: PBC will moderate the intention-behavior relationship. When PBC is high, the relationship will be more strongly positive than when PBC is low.

A key aspect of a dynamic view of effective behavior is an understanding of how individuals attribute causality for what has occurred (Weiner, 1985). We hypothesize that how individuals process feedback following behavior should also be affected by both willpower and PBC. In our view, consistent with Kelly’s (1955) perspective on self-construal as the mediator between behavior and behavioral change, systematic differences in interpretation of feedback are part of the self-system that over time evolves or maintains a stronger or weaker connection between intention and behavior as individuals revise their self-schemas in view of ongoing experiences (Mischel et al., 1996).

If a discrepancy occurs between feedback and what is expected, some type of response will result (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Feedback indicates whether or not expectations for behavior have been met, and determines the acceptability of the outcome. When individuals receive feedback, they make attributions regarding the fit between expectations and reality. These attributions play a role in how future similar situations are interpreted, and thus are an important aspect of the motivational process (Weiner, 1992). Prior researchers have investigated the role of controllability in attributions’ effects on motivation. Although our work was focused on expectations, as opposed to imposing labels of success or failure that our respondents (especially in a course grade context) might not accept, research in this area has typically utilized a success/failure framework. Deiner and Dweck (1978) found that when students received failure feedback and attributed the failure to stable factors such as ability, they assumed that outcomes were uncontrollable. When they attributed their failure to effort instead, they maintained a sense of personal control. Researchers have also shown direct effects of variables such as need for achievement on controllable attributions (e.g., Heckhausen, 1987). Such findings might be taken to imply that controllable or effort attributions should be more prevalent among high willpower or PBC individuals. However, main effects are not consistent with unitary views of the self- structure constructs we examine here, or with prevailing notions of the self-serving bias, which would suggest that we all tend to attribute met or overmet expectations to our own agency (Miller & Ross, 1975).

The possibility that high willpower and PBC individuals would articulate more controllable attributions regardless of whether or not expectations were met is based on self-perceptions, and tendency toward consistency in self-construal (e.g., Markus & Wurf, 1987). However, prior research on attributions for others’ behavior implies that actor conscientiousness level may lead to different attributions in cases of poor performance (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001). LePine and Van Dyne hypothesize that in making attributions for coworker poor performance, perceptions of low conscientiousness lead to attributions of control over the performance outcome, for example, that the actor did not exert enough effort. Analogously, in the context of self-attributions, we would anticipate that individuals who have low willpower or PBC are also likely to attribute unmet expectations to effort – in this case a lack thereof – on their part. These individuals would be less likely to attribute met or overmet expectations to their effort because they do not perceive themselves as being the types of persons who persist with their intention to behave (willpower), or as able to persist in the current situation (PBC). Thus, an overmet expectation is seen less as a result of their effort (e.g., stock price increased despite my failure to increase widgets produced). In fact, they may see themselves as having exceeded expectations in spite of themselves. When expectations are not met (stock price fails to increase), they interpret the cause partially as their failure to exert the effort to fulfill their intentions.

Consistent with this argument, we expected individuals higher in willpower or PBC to show a positive, rather than negative, effort attribution/met expectation relationship. Individuals high in either willpower or PBC should believe that outcomes that meet or exceed their expectations are under their control (caused by their effort) because they are successful self-regulators, or are in a situation in which they have control (e.g., Cross & Markus, 1991). Less than expected outcomes should be attributed to unanticipated, less controllable, causes. Typically, they can follow through on their intentions; thus, something beyond their control causes less than expected results. For example, a high willpower or PBC individual will fulfill his/her intention to produce an increased number of widgets, and if the company stock price decreases, then he/she will attribute this to causes that are not effort related. If the stock price does increase, the individual attributes this in part to his/her productive behavior. This pattern of results would imply that attributions are an important outcome of the self-system that shapes future beliefs about motivation and the intention/behavior relationship (Mischel et al., 1996).
Hypothesis 3: Willpower will moderate the relationship between the extent to which expectations are met following behavior and effort attributions such that the relationship will be positive when willpower is high, and negative when willpower is low.
Hypothesis 4: PBC will moderate the relationship between the extent to which expectations are met following behavior and effort attributions such that the relationship will be positive when PBC is high, and negative when PBC is low.

Our setting was the college classroom. Students’ reports of how much they intended to study for course examinations (effort intentions) and their corresponding studying behavior were collected for two examinations. For the first examination only, after receipt of grade feedback, students made attributions about the role effort played in whether or not their expectations regarding grades were met.

Control Variables Control variables were age, current credit hours, average weekly work hours, and number of dependents living at home, measured at Time 1. These variables represented potential influences on ability to follow through on intentions.

Willpower A willpower measure was adapted from the NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1985) after pretesting a large pool of items that fit the willpower definition, both designed by the authors and taken from existing instruments. A factor analysis was performed on this item pool to obtain a willpower scale. For inclusion, the item loading had to be at least .40 with no other loading greater than .30. Consistent with our conceptualization of will-power as a conscientiousness subtrait, the final scale contained a total of 11 items: 9 from the NEO scale and 2 devised for this study (alpha = .85). Other items related to desire for control and were not used.

Perceived Behavioral Control PBC was assessed with 7 items adapted from Ajzen and Madden (1986). Participants indicated their level of agreement with each statement on perceptions of the control they had over their studying behavior (alpha = .65).

Effort intentions Levels of effort intentions were obtained at both Times 2 and 4 a few days before the scheduled examinations. Levels of effort intentions were assessed by the item “I intend to study a total of hours the last two days before the exam”. The correlation of the Time 2 and 4 measures was .51 (p < .001), indicating some level of test-retest reliability.

Behavior Behavior was self-reported before receipt of the examination grade at Times 3 and 5. Participants completed the sentence, “The last two days before the examination, I studied for a total of hours”. The Time 3 and 5 correlation (first and second tests) was .71 (p < .001), indicating substantial behavioral stability between examinations.

Met expectations and effort attributions At Time 3, met expectations were assessed by asking “To what extent did your examination grade meet your expectations?” (1 = much lower than I expected to 7 = much higher than I expected). Also, attributions were measured by agreement with the statement “I did not study as much or as hard as I should have,” reverse scored).

For some of these single-item measures, (intentions and behavior), there was no feasible way to ask alternative questions about the constructs. Thus, for these two constructs, we include the relationship between Examination 1 and 2 measures to provide test-retest reliability. Other items were cut because pretests indicated that the surveys overall were very long, and recent researchers have shown that single-item measures can function well in lieu of scales (e.g., Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy, 1997). However, results regarding attributions should be regarded with caution.

All measures were obtained from the participants. However, they took two substantially different forms (self-reports of hours to be, or actually, studied, Likert-type scales), and further, it is unclear how consistency effects could account for these moderation results (see Crampton & Wagner, 1994 for further discussion of consistency bias).

Hypotheses 3 and 4 proposed moderating influences of willpower and PBC on the relationship between the extent to which student expectations were met and effort attributions made for those met expectations. Both variables were expected to produce a positive relationship between the extent to which expectations were met and attributions to effort when their levels were high, and a negative relationship when they were low. Results of the hierarchical regressions indicate that the change in R2 for Step 5 was significant, F(2, 218) = 5.99, p < .01. When entered together, the willpower interaction demonstrated a significant independent effect (B = .99, p < .05), whereas the PBC/met expectations interaction failed to reach significance (B = .60, ns). Main effects for both met expectations (B = -1.66, p < .01) and willpower (B = -.39, p < .05) were also significant in the final model.

Our results are supportive of a view of motivation strongly influenced by aspects of the self-system. Willpower and PBC both had influences on the intention-behavior relationship, but for each of the two this was only at one time period providing partial support for both Hypotheses 1 and 2. Attributions regarding met expectations were uniquely affected by willpower – supporting Hypothesis 3 – but were not affected significantly by PBC when willpower was included in the analysis, failing to support Hypothesis 4. Both personality and self-relevant cognition affected whether or not intentions were carried out, and personality affected post behavior attributions to effort.

For the first examination of the semester, personality (high willpower) was found to strengthen the relationship between intentions and behavior. These findings are consistent with the work of Moon (2001), in that a unitary subtrait of conscientiousness had important influences on individual task behavior. In particular, in our research we address the process whereby this unidimensional aspect of conscientiousness has an impact in motivation. Individual differences in willpower have implications as to whether or not individuals will, in fact, carry out stated intentions. Planning, trust, coordination, teamwork, and ultimately job performance, are all fundamentally affected by whether organizational members can be counted upon to do what they say (e.g., Lewicki & Bunker, 1996). Further understanding of the willpower subtrait should help identify people who will complete action consistent with stated intentions.

The partial support found for PBC as a moderator of the intention/behavior relationship (Hypothesis 2) suggests that PBC may be more relevant in situations where the actor has acquired some familiarity with specific situational contingencies. While willpower, a personality trait, was dominant in influencing the intention/behavior relationship at Time 1, PBC dominated at Time 2. These results indicate that some experience is necessary in specific situations for the development or increased accuracy of PBC beliefs, and that PBC dominates personality effects as situational knowledge increases. Generalizations based on “who I am” may be most powerful initially, to be replaced by cognition about “how I relate to this situation”. It may also be possible to identify situations in which willpower and PBC have unique effects. For example, willpower may be more important when behavior is substantially at the discretion of participants, while an independent effect for the PBC/intention interaction may be more likely in situations where perceptions of interdependence or access to needed resources are more problematic (see also Armitage & Conner, 2001, for further discussion of the relationship between PBC and actual control, and how it may affect the role of PBC in the intention-behavior link).

With regard to attributions to effort following feedback, Hypothesis 3 received partial support. Low-willpower participants tended to make less effort-oriented attributions when they encountered overmet expectations than when they did not meet their expectations. This is consistent with the notion that these individuals found it surprising to do better than expected, and did not attribute this to their effort. Low-willpower participants would be less likely to perceive themselves as having fulfilled their intentions to study, could blame unmet expectations on their lack of effort, and would be less likely to attribute overmet expectations to their efforts. Inconsistent with Hypothesis 3, participants higher in willpower were relatively indifferent to the extent to which their expectations were met in making attributions for outcomes. For this group, effort (or lack thereof) may always be perceived as a central cause of outcomes based on self-concept. That is, fulfilling intentions may be conceptualized as the avenue to meeting expectations, and post hoc, if expectations are not met, the assumption is made that not enough effort was expended. Such a pattern is congruent with a consistency view of the self (Markus & Wurf, 1987).

Hypothesis 4 was not supported. The results for the PBC/met expectations interaction, identical to those for willpower, were significant only when this interaction was entered separately in Step 5. Here, the willpower interaction accounted for any variance explained by the PBC interaction. Because attributions were measured subsequent to Examination 1, the lack of independent effect for the PBC interaction may have been caused by lack of information for formulating control beliefs.

Practically, an individual who attributes causes for positive events to controllable dimensions (e.g., effort) should be more likely to attempt to exert control over these outcomes, resulting in more effective performance. Training, team problem solving, or personal counseling can all benefit from a focus on understanding our tendencies to attribute outcomes to different causes (Weiner, 1992). High-willpower individuals may need to consider other determinants in a model of outcomes (i.e., other attributions such as strategy or external conditions). Here, the individual may benefit from learning to work “smarter, not harder”. Low-willpower individuals may learn that, typically, their intentions are not fulfilled, and controlling their behavior may be the appropriate training focus.

Participants here tended to assign less effort-based cause for overmet expectations, and may have found it surprising to exceed expectations. On average, they assigned this event to causes beyond their own effort. Thus, we do not believe that this result has any implications for our conclusions, because the negative main effect must be considered in the context of the significant willpower inter- action, and is likely to be the result of grading expectation structures (Gellatly, 1996).

Of necessity, in this study we relied on self-report data. However, several factors reduce this concern. First, some questions were reports of behavior or projected behavior, not attitude or personality scales. In addition, to avoid consistency bias, efforts were taken to separate in time administration of different survey sections. Finally, there was no reason to suspect that consistency bias should produce moderation effects. We do not believe that students would consider inflation of either intended or actual hours of study as socially desirable beyond conversations with their instructor, and they did not report this information to their instructor.

The perceptual nature of our measures may also be subject to critique. Self- reports of success or failure in meeting expectations, or of control over a situation, are not objective statements of reality. Our interest, however, was in exactly these perceptions, as part of the self-system, not in what others’ views were, nor in whether the student had truly done well or poorly in examinations. Other researchers have approached similar problems using and validating self- report as an important avenue for understanding human experience (e.g., Breaugh & Becker, 1987).

Unfortunately, not all measures included multiple items, given constraints either of study administration or construct nature. It is not clear, however, why the use of some single-item measures would produce these results. Attribution findings, in particular, should be viewed with caution, although evidence does suggest that single-item measures can be used appropriately (e.g., Wanous et al., 1997).

The undergraduate sample may limit generalizability of the results. However, at a minimum, we can generalize to a significant segment of the educational environment and working population. By requesting data from many evening and weekend classes, participation was obtained from nontraditional and older students as well as “typical” college students. The sample was reasonably representative of the population on gender, race, and hours employed, and was considerably older than typical undergraduate samples. Tasks had substantive outcomes for participants. Students were asked about their intentions and behavior regarding an important component of their lives – their student roles. Other researchers of individual differences and task performance have utilized student samples with some success (e.g., Gellatly, 1996), while alternatively, motivational constructs in test-taking situations similar to those described here have been studied in the work environment (Sanchez, Truxillo, & Bauer, 2000). Given the basic nature of the motivational process, this research should be a useful component in broader explorations of the intention-behavior linkage and its relationship to self-structures.

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453-474.

Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499.

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 248-287.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 111-118.

Boldero, J., & Francis, J. (2002). Goals, standards, and the self: Reference values serving different functions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 232-241.

Breaugh, J. A., & Becker, A. S. (1987). Further examination of the Work Autonomy Scales: Three studies. Human Relations, 40, 381-399.

Conner, M., & Abraham, C. (2001). Conscientiousness and the theory of planned behavior: Toward a more complete model of the antecedents of intentious behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1547-1561.

Cordano, M., & Frieze, I. H. (2000). Pollution reduction preferences of U.S. environmental managers: Applying Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 627-641.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). Concurrent validation after 20 years: Implications of personality stability for its assessment. In J. N. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 4, pp. 31-54). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Crampton, S. M., & Wagner, J. S. (1994). Percept-percept inflation in micro-organizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67-76.

Cross, S. E., & Markus, H. R. (1990). The willful self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 726-742.

Cross, S. E., & Markus, H. R. (1991). Possible selves across the life span. Human Development, 34, 230-255.

Deiner, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in performance, strategy, and achievement cognitions following failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 451-462.

Dyer, W. G. (1995). Team building: Current issues and new alternatives (3rd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132.

Gellatly, I. R. (1996). Conscientiousness and task performance: Test of a cognitive process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 474-482.

Heckhausen, H. (1987). Causal attribution patterns for achievement outcomes: Individual differences, possible types and their origins. In F. Weinert & R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hough, L. M. (1992). The “Big Five” personality variables: Construct confusion-description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139-155.

James, W. (1983). Principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kelly, G. (1955). A theory of personality: The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). Effects of feedback intervention on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284.

Lawler, E. E. (1981). Pay and organization development. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Peer responses to low performers: An attributional model of helping in the context of groups. Academy of Management Review, 26, 67-84.

Lewicki, R., & Bunker, B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 114- 139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Markus, H., & Ruvolo, A. (1989). Possible selves: Personalized representations of goals. In L.A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337.

Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82, 313-325.

Mischel, W., Cantor, N., & Feldman, S. (1996). Principles of self-regulation: The nature of willpower and self-control (pp. 329-360). In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. New York: Guilford.

Moon, H. (2001). The two faces of conscientiousness: Duty and achievement striving in escalation of commitment dilemmas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 533-540.

Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The Big Five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resource management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13, 153-200.

Nord, W. R., Brief, A., Atieh, J., & Doherty, E. (1988). Work values and the conduct of organizational behavior. In L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Pinder, C. (1984). Work motivation: Theory, issues, and applications. Glenview, IL: Foresman.

Rhodes, R., Courneya, K., & Hayduk, L. (2002). Does personality moderate the theory of planned behavior in the exercise domain? Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24, 120-132.

Sanchez, R., Truxillo, D., & Bauer, T. (2000). Development and examination of an expectancy- based measure of test-taking motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 739-750.

Stewart, G. L. (1999). Trait bandwidth and stages of job performance: Assessing differential effects for conscientiousness and its sub-traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 959-968.

Terry, D. J., & O’Leary, J. E. (1995). The theory of planned behavior: The effects of perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 199-220.

Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single tem measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247-252.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548-573.

Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories, and research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2001). The development of achievement motivation. San Diego: Academic Press.

Williams, C. D., Lewis-Black, O., Johnson, K., & Adams-Campbell, L. (2001). Environmental influences, employment status, and religious activity predict current cigarette smoking in the elderly. Addictive Behaviors, 26, 297-301.