Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7046261

Proactivepersonalityandsuccessfuljobsearch:Afieldinvestigationwithcollegegraduates

ArticleinJournalofAppliedPsychology·June2006

ImpactFactor:4.31·DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.717·Source:PubMed

CITATIONS

112

READS

664

5authors,including:

DouglasJBrown

UniversityofWaterloo

37PUBLICATIONS1,139CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

PaulE.Levy

UniversityofAkron

65PUBLICATIONS2,700CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

Allin-textreferencesunderlinedinbluearelinkedtopublicationsonResearchGate,

lettingyouaccessandreadthemimmediately.

Availablefrom:PaulE.Levy

Retrievedon:17May2016

Proactive Personality and the Successful Job Search: A Field InvestigationWith College Graduates

Douglas J. BrownUniversity of Waterloo

Richard T. CoberBooz Allen Hamilton

Kevin KaneUniversity of Waterloo

Paul E. LevyUniversity of Akron

Jarrett ShalhoopJeanneret & Associates

The current article tests a model of proactive personality and job search success with a sample of 180graduating college students. Using structural equation modeling, the authors tested a theoretical modelthat specified the relations among proactive personality, job search self-efficacy, job search behaviors,job search effort, and job search outcomes. Job seekers were surveyed at 2 separate points in time, once3–4 months prior to graduation and once 2–3 months following graduation. The results suggest thatproactive personality (a) significantly influenced the success of college graduates’ job search, (b) waspartially mediated through job search self-efficacy and job search behavior, and (c) was independent ofself-esteem and conscientiousness. The findings are discussed in terms of their general implications forunderstanding the nature of the process through which distal personality factors, such as proactivepersonality, affect the nature and success of an individual’s job search.

Keywords: proactive personality, job search, social–cognitive theory, self-efficacy

The inability to find employment results in stress, depression,anxiety (Wanberg & Kanfer, 1999), and feelings of stigmatiza-tion (Kulik, 2000). One population for which unemployment isparticularly problematic is recent college graduates. Young jobseekers perceive that there are numerous employment barriersthat impede their ability to meet career goals (Swanson &Tokar, 1991), and national (for more information, see the Bu-reau of Labor Statistics Web site: www.bls.gov) and interna-tional surveys (Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges andUniversities, 2002) suggest that younger workers have diffi-culty obtaining employment. Given the critical nature of one’sfirst job, the negative ramifications associated with unemploy-ment, and the difficulties confronted by younger workers, it

seems practically important that researchers identify who is atrisk and the processes that mediate these effects. In the currentarticle, we examine one possible dispositional antecedent, pro-active personality.

A growing literature has shown that proactive personality is animportant antecedent of workplace adjustment and performance(e.g., Seibert, Kraimer & Crant, 2001). At a general level, proac-tive personality has been defined as a dispositional tendency totake personal initiative across a range of activities and situations(Crant, 2000). Because a job search is largely self-directed andprovides substantial individual latitude as to whether action shouldbe initiated, individual proactivity may be particularly relevant forunderstanding how a job search unfolds. Moreover, given thedegree of autonomy that exists during a job search, the investiga-tion of personality may be quite informative, as individual differ-ences predict outcomes best under these conditions (Barrick &Mount, 1993). Despite logical linkages, proactive personality hasreceived limited attention within the job search context (Claes &De Witte, 2002). In the current article, we extend prior work bytesting a model of proactive personality, job search behavior, andjob search success (see Figure 1). As such, the present study is aresponse to calls for investigators to model the antecedents andconsequences of job search behavior (Saks & Ashforth, 1999;Wanberg, Watt, & Rumsey, 1996) as well as the underlyingmechanisms that connect proactive personality with organization-ally relevant outcomes (Crant & Bateman, 2004). To provide aframework for understanding our predictions, we first reviewliterature on proactive personality, self-efficacy, and job search

Douglas J. Brown and Kevin Kane, Department of Psychology, Uni-versity of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada; Richard T. Cober, BoozAllen Hamilton, McLean, Virginia; Paul E. Levy, Department of Psychol-ogy, University of Akron; Jarrett Shalhoop, Jeanneret & Associates, Hous-ton, Texas.

A previous version of this article was presented at the 19th AnnualConvention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,Chicago, April 2004. This research was funded by a grant from the Societyfor Human Resource Management Research Foundation. We thank LisaKeeping, Chet Robie, Lance Ferris, and Shawn Komar for their helpfulcomments on an earlier version of this article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to DouglasJ. Brown, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada. E-mail: djbrown@watarts.uwaterloo.ca

Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association2006, Vol. 91, No. 3, 717–726 0021-9010/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.717

717

behaviors. Following this, we report the results from a two-wavestudy that tests a model of job search using a sample of 180 collegejob seekers.

Proactive Personality and Self-Efficacy

Proactive personality is premised on the observation that theenvironment is jointly determined by both the person influencingthe situation and the situation influencing the person (Bowers,1973). In effect, the person and environment continuously impactone another (Bandura, 1986), which suggests that individuals arenot simply “passive recipients of environmental presses” (Buss,1987, p. 1220) but instead exert influence over the environmentsthat they inhabit (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Nowhere is this ideabetter captured than in Bandura’s work, which suggests that humanactivity is agentic and intentionally driven by people in an attemptto “make things happen” (Bandura, 2001, p. 1). In effect, agencyembodies the “endowments, belief systems, self-regulatory capa-bilities and distributed structures and functions through whichindividuals exercise personal influence over their surroundings”(Bandura, 2001, p. 2).

Building from prior thinking on human agency (Bandura, 2001),Crant and his colleagues (e.g., Bateman & Crant, 1993; Crant,2000) have embarked on a program of research that has examinedhow individual variability in agency, a construct that they labeledproactive personality, impacts workplace outcomes. Conceptually,Crant has defined proactive personality as a “relatively stabletendency to effect environmental change” (Bateman & Crant,1993, p. 104) and has indicated that it is “relatively unconstrainedby situational forces” (Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999, p. 417).Coinciding with previous theoretical work, empirical investiga-tions have demonstrated not only that proactive individuals aremore successful but also that they respond more adaptively to theirenvironments. In this regard, prior research has shown that proac-tive personality is related to commissions (Crant, 1995), entrepre-neurship (Becherer & Maurer, 1999), salary and promotions (Seib-ert et al., 1999), team performance (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999),

company sales (Becherer & Maurer, 1999), and career initiative(Seibert et al., 2001). Such work seems to suggest that proactivepersonality is a significant and robust predictor of career success.

To date, researchers have made very few efforts to assesswhether proactive personality influences preemployment out-comes. In fact, only one study has directly examined whether anyrelation exists between proactive personality and job search out-comes (Claes & De Witte, 2002). In a cross-sectional study, Claesand De Witte found that proactive personality was positivelyrelated to the number of job search behaviors reported by collegestudents. In related work, Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng, and Tag(1997) found that personal initiative, a construct that is conceptu-ally similar to proactive personality, was significantly related tothe speed with which unemployed individuals obtained employ-ment. Thus, although it seems reasonable to posit that proactivepersonality is related to job search behaviors and outcomes, directevidence is limited, and no research has modeled the underlyingprocess.

Bandura’s (2001; Bandura & Locke, 2003) social–cognitivetheory suggests that humans are evaluative, proactive regulators ofactions and that human agency is dependent on self-efficacy.Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s beliefs regarding his or herability to accomplish an action or behavior. Ultimately, the stron-ger an individual’s efficacy beliefs are, the more likely he or sheis to persist and perform successfully within a domain. In effect,social–cognitive theory suggests that self-efficacy is the mostproximal regulator of human cognitive, motivational, affective,behavioral, and decisional processes (Bandura, 1986). Coincidingwith this thinking, researchers generally agree that distal person-ality constructs impact relevant work behaviors through proximalmotivational constructs, such as self-efficacy (Kanfer, 1992). Inline with this thinking, Frese and Fay (2001) have argued that theimpact of proactive personality on behavior and outcomes ismediated through domain-specific orientations, such as self-efficacy. In effect, Frese and Fay suggested that general disposi-tional tendencies to feel a sense of agency across situations spill

Conscientiousness

Self-Esteem

ProactivePersonality

Self-Efficacy

Job SearchBehavior

Job SearchEffort

Job SearchOutcome

Figure 1. Hypothesized model.

718 RESEARCH REPORTS

over into specific domains, coloring an individual’s self-efficacyjudgments. On the basis of this logic, we hypothesize that proac-tive personality will be positively related to an individual’s jobsearch self-efficacy (Hypothesis 1).

Prior meta-analyses have shown that, regardless of the setting orthe methodology used, self-efficacy is a proximal, robust, andconsequential antecedent of behavior across multiple spheres ofhuman activity (Holden, 1991; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Re-search has consistently revealed that an individual’s self-efficacyexpectations are associated with increased effort, persistence, andgoal-directed activity (Bandura, 1986). Coinciding with this re-search, self-efficacy is a significant antecedent of job search be-havior, job search effort, and job search outcomes (Eden & Avi-ram, 1993; Kanfer & Hulin, 1985; Saks & Ashforth, 1999, 2000).On the basis of these findings, we hypothesize the following: Jobsearch self-efficacy will be positively related to job search behav-ior (Hypothesis 2), job search effort (Hypothesis 3), and job searchoutcomes (Hypothesis 4).

Job Search Behavior and Effort

The employment outcomes that result from a job search aredirectly related both to the job search behaviors that a job seekerperforms and the amount of effort that a job seeker exerts in his orher job search (Blau, 1993). Conceptually, job search behaviorrefers to the specific activities that an individual engages in toacquire knowledge about labor market alternatives (Bretz, Boud-reau, & Judge, 1994). These activities include preparatory behav-iors that are related to gathering job search information and iden-tifying potential leads during the planning phase of a job search(e.g., reading wanted ads) and active behaviors that are related tothe actual job search (e.g., submitting resumes; Blau, 1993). In-vestigators who have examined job search behavior have sug-gested that preparatory and active job search behaviors are prox-imal antecedents to employment outcomes (Kanfer, Wanberg, &Kantrowitz, 2001; Saks & Ashforth, 1999) and that the frequencyof job search behaviors should translate into an increase in thenumber of job interviews and job offers received by an individual(Saks & Ashforth, 2000).

Empirical work has shown job search effort to be related to yetdistinguishable from job search behavior (Blau, 1993). Unlike jobsearch behavior, which gauges the frequency with which individ-uals engage in specific activities, job search effort assesses thegeneral level of effort or intensity that individuals invest in theirjob search. In essence, job search effort provides a more generalindication of the time, effort, and focus that job seekers directtoward their job search. In terms of theory, Schwab, Rynes, andAldag (1987) have hypothesized that the more job search effort anindividual exerts, the more opportunities and job offers he or sheshould receive. In line with this prediction, research by Saks andAshforth (2000) has indicated that job search effort is a proximalantecedent of the number of interviews obtained and one’s em-ployment status (Saks & Ashforth, 2000). On the basis of thisliterature, we hypothesize that job search behavior will be posi-tively related to job search outcomes (Hypothesis 5), as will jobsearch effort (Hypothesis 6).

Mediational Hypotheses

Given the general distinction between distal and proximal an-tecedents (Kanfer, 1992), Bandura’s (2001) work, and theoreticalwork on proactivity (Frese & Fay, 2001), we conceptualize theimpact of proactive personality to be indirect, operating throughproximal antecedents (e.g., self-efficacy). In addition, on the basisof social–cognitive theory, we also conceptualize job search self-efficacy to have an indirect influence through job search effort andjob search behavior. On the basis of this thinking, we predictindirect effects of proactive personality on job search behavior(Hypothesis 7), proactive personality on job search effort (Hypoth-esis 8), proactive personality on job search outcomes (Hypothesis9), and self-efficacy on job search outcomes (Hypothesis 10).

Additional Distal Antecedents: Conscientiousness andSelf-Esteem

In addition to proactive personality, we also model conscien-tiousness and self-esteem because of their well-established rela-tions with job search processes (Kanfer et al., 2001). Conceptually,conscientiousness has been defined as the extent to which anindividual is hardworking, achievement oriented, and persevering(Barrick & Mount, 1991). Prior research into conscientiousnesshas shown that it is moderately associated with proactive person-ality (r � .43; Bateman & Crant, 1993) and that it is a significantprecursor to several key job search outcomes and processes (Kan-fer et al., 2001). Given the empirical overlap between proactivepersonality and conscientiousness (Bateman & Crant, 1993) and itsrelation to job search outcomes (e.g., Kanfer et al., 2001), weincorporated conscientiousness into our model. On the basis ofprevious findings, we hypothesize that there will be a significantdirect effect of conscientiousness on self-efficacy (Hypothesis 11),an indirect effect of conscientiousness on job search behavior(Hypothesis 12), an indirect effect of conscientiousness on jobsearch effort (Hypothesis 13), and an indirect effect of conscien-tiousness on job search outcomes (Hypothesis 14).

Self-esteem refers to the positivity of an individual’s globalself-evaluation. Relative to individuals with low self-esteem, indi-viduals with high self-esteem regard themselves highly and feelsatisfied with their attributes. Generally speaking, self-esteem is anessential precursor to effective functioning (Kunda, 1999). Withinthe job search context, researchers have found self-esteem to bepositively related to the number of offers received, satisfactionwith the job search, job search self-efficacy, and job offers prior tograduation (e.g., Ellis & Taylor, 1983; Saks & Ashforth, 1997).Moreover, meta-analytic findings (Kanfer et al., 2001) suggest thata significant relation exists between self-esteem and job searchbehavior such that self-esteem is positively related to job searchbehaviors among job seekers. On this basis, we hypothesize thatthere will be a significant direct effect of self-esteem on self-efficacy (Hypothesis 15), an indirect effect of self-esteem on jobsearch behavior (Hypothesis 16), an indirect effect of self-esteemon job search effort (Hypothesis 17), and an indirect effect ofself-esteem on job search outcomes (Hypothesis 18).

Full Mediation Versus Partial Mediation

To this point, we have set forth a model in which the impact ofthe distal dispositional variables (e.g., proactive personality) on job

719RESEARCH REPORTS

search behavior, job search effort, and job search outcomes is fullymediated. Although full mediation is plausible, previous theoreti-cal work in the proactive personality literature is equivocal on thisissue. For example, whereas Frese and Fay’s (2001) model im-plicitly suggests that proactive personality’s influence on out-comes is fully mediated through psychological orientations, suchas self-efficacy, Crant (2000) has proposed that direct relationsexist between proactive personality and its consequences. Simi-larly, one might reasonably suggest that conscientiousness andself-esteem have direct relations with many of the endogenousvariables included in our model. On the basis of this thinking, wealso assess the plausibility of partial mediation. In particular, weexpect that evidence for partial mediation will be evident betweenproactive personality and job search behavior, job search effort,and job search outcomes (Hypothesis 19); conscientiousness andjob search behavior, job search effort, and job search outcomes(Hypothesis 20); and self-esteem and job search behavior, jobsearch effort, and job search outcomes (Hypothesis 21).

Method

Participants

We recruited 497 graduating students from a midwestern university toparticipate in this study. One hundred eighty-three students completed bothsurveys (37% response rate). An initial examination for univariate andmultivariate outliers revealed three univariate outliers on the job offersvariable (i.e., more than 4.75 standard deviations above the mean; Tabach-nick & Fidell, 1996). Given that outliers can have undue influence, creatingboth Type I and Type II errors, and that the number of outliers was small(1.6% of the sample), we deleted these cases and tested our hypotheses onthe remaining 180 participants.

Procedure

We administered surveys in two waves, 3–4 months prior to graduation(Time 1) and 2–3 months following graduation (Time 2). Participantsreceived $5 in compensation at Time 1 and were entered into a $50drawing at Time 2. The first survey included the following: (a) theProactive Personality Scale (Bateman & Crant, 1993), (b) a conscientious-ness scale, (c) a self-esteem measure, (d) a job search self-efficacy scale,and (e) demographic items. Participants also provided their date of grad-uation and follow-up contact information. The Time 2 survey includedmeasures of job search effort, job search behavior, and job search out-comes. To maximize our Time 2 response rate, we followed the proceduresoutlined by Dillman (2000). Initially, we sent all participants a reminderpostcard set to coincide with their graduation date. Next, we mailedparticipants a survey with a self-addressed return envelope. Those who hadnot responded within 2 weeks received a second survey package. A weeklater, we sent a reminder E-mail with a link to an online version of thesurvey.1

Measures

Proactive personality. We used Bateman and Crant’s (1993) 10-itemProactive Personality Scale. Participants indicated their agreement on a7-point scale (strongly disagree � 1 to strongly agree � 7). An exampleitem is, “If I see something I don’t like, I fix it.”

Conscientiousness. We assessed conscientiousness with Goldberg’s(1999) 10-item scale. For each item, participants indicated their agreementon a 5-point scale (strongly disagree � 1 to strongly agree � 5). Anexample item is, “I am always prepared.”

Self-esteem. We assessed self-esteem with a 10-item measure (Rosen-berg, 1965). Participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale (stronglydisagree � 1 to strongly agree � 5). An example item is, “At times I thinkI am no good at all.”

Job search self-efficacy. We assessed job search self-efficacy with atwo-item measure that we adapted from Ellis and Taylor (1983). Partici-pants indicated their agreement with each item on a 5-point scale (stronglydisagree � 1 to strongly agree � 5). These items were as follows: “Myqualifications for employment are better than most people,” and “Organi-zations generally view people like me as good candidates for employment.”

Job search behavior. We used a modified version of Blau’s (1993,1994) 12-item Job Search Behavior Scale.2 For each item, participantsindicated the frequency with which they had performed each behavioralong a 5-point scale ranging from 1 � never (0 times) to 5 � veryfrequently (at least 10 times). An example item is, “prepared or revisedyour resume.”

Job search effort. We assessed job search effort with Blau’s (1993)four-item scale. Participants indicated their agreement with each item on a6-point scale (strongly disagree � 1 to strongly agree � 6). An exampleitem is, “devoted much effort to looking for jobs.”

Job search outcomes. We asked participants to report two job searchoutcomes at Time 2: (a) the number of follow-up interviews received, and(b) the total number of job offers received.

Analytic Strategy

We tested the hypothesized model and paths using AMOS 5.0 (Ar-buckle, 2003). On the basis of previous recommendations (Hall, Snell, &Foust, 1999), we formed item parcels to create three indicators each forproactive personality, conscientiousness, self-esteem, and job search be-havior. We created item parcels for these four constructs to reduce thesample size to parameter ratio, as this ratio impacts the standard errors andstability of the estimates. Because self-efficacy and job search outcomewere composed only of two items each and job search effort was composedonly of four items, we used each item as a separate indicator for these threeconstructs. Following the recommendations of Anderson and Gerbing(1988), we tested our proposed model using a two-stage analytic proce-dure. In the first step we fitted a measurement model to the data, and in thesecond step we tested the underlying structural model. In evaluating the fitof each of the tested models, we used the following: (a) chi-squaregoodness of fit to degrees of freedom ratio, (b) Tucker–Lewis index (TLI;Tucker & Lewis, 1973), (c) root-mean-square error of approximation(RMSEA; Steiger, 1990), (d) standardized root-mean-square residual(SRMR; Bentler, 1990), and (e) the comparative fit index (CFI). Previouswork suggests that satisfactory model fit is indicated by TLI and CFIvalues no smaller than .90, RMSEA values no higher than .08, SRMRvalues no higher than .10, and a chi-square goodness of fit to degrees of

1 One hundred thirty-nine of our participants completed the paper ver-sion, and 41 completed the online version of the survey. Comparisonsbetween the paper and online survey groups revealed that there were nosignificant differences on any of the focal variables examined in this study(e.g., proactive personality, job search behavior, job offers).

2 We made two minor adjustments to enhance the scale’s applicabilityfor our sample. First, because Blau (1993) originally developed his itemsto assess job search behavior among currently employed individuals, wedeemed several of his items to be inappropriate and, as such, deleted them(e.g., “Listed yourself as a job applicant in a newspaper, journal, orprofessional association”). Second, recent technological advances haveincreased job seekers’ reliance on the Internet (Cober, Brown, Levy,Keeping, & Cober, 2003). Because Blau’s scale does not assess Internet jobsearch behavior, we added three items to tap these activities (e.g., “Visiteda company’s employment website”).

720 RESEARCH REPORTS

freedom ratio no greater than 2 (Bentler, 1990; Browne & Cudeck, 1993).Additionally, we followed Hu and Bentler’s (1998, 1999) advice andassessed model fit using a combination of SRMR (recommended value �.08 or lower) and CFI and TLI (recommended values � .95 or higher).

To assess the significance of our hypothesized paths and test mediation,we used bootstrapping procedures (Shrout & Bolger, 2002).3 Unlike tra-ditional methods, which assume mathematical distributions, bootstrappingis a nonparametric approach to hypothesis testing whereby one estimatesthe standard errors empirically using the available data (Mooney & Duval,1993). Operationally, in bootstrapping multiple samples are drawn, withreplacement, from the original data set, and the model is reestimated oneach sample, which results in a number of path estimates that is equal to thenumber of samples drawn from the original data set. Following currentrecommendations, we resampled 1,000 times and used the percentilemethod to create 95% confidence intervals (Mooney & Duval, 1993). Inthe percentile method, the sample estimates are ordered from lowest tohighest, and the estimates corresponding with the upper and lower 2.5% ofthe bootstrap distribution are used to create the 95% confidence interval.

Results

Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, alphas, and inter-correlations.4 It is notable that proactive personality was signifi-cantly related to job search self-efficacy, job search behavior, jobsearch effort, the job search outcome variables, and conscientious-ness. This pattern of relations both provides preliminary evidencethat proactive personality is an important precursor to an effectivejob search and replicates its relation with other dispositional vari-ables (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Finally, Table 1 also reveals thatjob search self-efficacy was significantly related to both of the jobsearch outcome variables.

Table 2 displays the standardized factor loadings for the indi-cators used in the measurement model. Table 3 displays the fitstatistics for the measurement model. Overall, the hypothesizedmeasurement model fit the data quite well when evaluated in termsof the recommended cutoffs or the combination cutoff approach(Hu & Bentler, 1998, 1999). For purposes of comparison, wecontrasted the hypothesized measurement model with two con-strained nested models in which certain factors were set to load ona single factor. In particular, we created a one-factor model, inwhich all of the hypothesized factors were set to load on a single

underlying factor, and a three-factor model. We created the three-factor model by having the individual-differences constructs loadon a single factor, having job search behavior and job search effortload on a single factor, and including the job search outcomefactor. In addition, we also compared the fit of the hypothesizedmeasurement model with the less constrained independencemodel. In each case, the hypothesized measurement model fit thedata better than any of the alternatives, both in terms of the fitstatistics and when directly contrasted with a change in chi-squaretest.

Given the acceptable fit of the measurement model, we testedour structural model (see Figure 1). Overall, the fit indexes suggestthat adequate fit was achieved both when we evaluated the modelagainst the recommended cutoffs and when we used the combina-tion cutoff approach (Hu & Bentler, 1998, 1999). Moreover, it isnoteworthy that, despite being more constrained than the measure-ment model, the structural model did not differ significantly in

3 In the current article, we tested our hypotheses with bootstrappingprocedures because the sampling distribution associated with indirect ef-fects is known to be nonnormal (Bollen & Stine, 1990), which compro-mises the statistical power of traditional parametric tests (Shrout & Bolger,2002). To avoid this difficulty, several authors have recommended thatresearchers use nonparametric bootstrapping procedures when examiningindirect effects because no assumptions regarding the underlying samplingdistribution are required (see Bollen & Stine, 1990; Shrout & Bolger,2002).

4 Given that only a subset of our original sample returned both surveys,it was possible that our final sample was biased as a result of the selectivereturn of the Time 2 survey. Because biased returns can undermine externalvalidity, we initially conducted t tests to ascertain whether our final groupof job seekers (N � 180), on whom we tested the hypotheses, differedsignificantly from the participants who did not complete the Time 2 survey(n � 314). That is, we examined whether the two groups differed on anyof the individual differences that we collected at Time 1. No differencesemerged between the two groups in terms of proactive personality,t(492) � 1.32, p �.10; conscientiousness, t(492) � �0.83, p � .10;self-esteem, t(492) � 1.15, p � .10; or job search self-efficacy, t(492) ��0.04, p � .10. These data suggest that the final sample was representativeof the initial sample that we recruited for this study.

Table 1Descriptive Statistics, Zero-Order Correlations, and Alphas

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Gender 0.57 0.50 —2. Self-esteem 5.07 0.68 .12 .833. Conscientiousness 3.92 0.58 .05 .48** .834. Proactive

personality 3.86 0.52 �.02 .39** .42** .875. Job search self-

efficacy 4.62 0.89 �.02 .41** .38** .44** .706. Job search

behavior 3.07 0.73 .00 .07 .18* .19* .13† .837. Job search effort 4.27 1.11 �.06 �.01 .16* .16* .09 .62** .848. No. second-round

interviews 1.29 1.44 �.05 .11 .11 .21** .18* .37** .20** —9. No. job offers 0.88 0.99 .06 .11 .13† .22** .19* .19* .09 .48** —

Note. N � 180. Alphas are on the diagonal. Gender is coded such that 0 � female and 1 � male.† p � .10. * p � .05. ** p � .01.

721RESEARCH REPORTS

terms of its fit (��2 � 12.07, p � .10). The findings for thehypothesized direct and indirect relations are presented in Table 4.As shown in Table 4, all of the hypotheses dealing with proactivepersonality, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and job search behaviorreceived some support, whereas the hypothesized relations for jobsearch effort and conscientiousness received no support. To furtherassess whether the hypothesized indirect effects were fully orpartially mediated, we tested several additional models, each in-cluding a distinct direct path (see Table 5). In the top row of Table5, the results of the hypothesized structural model are presented.Each subsequent row presents the results of a less constrainedmodel that included an additional direct path. In no case did theinclusion of a direct path improve the fit of the hypothesizedmodel, which suggests that the effect of the distal constructs wasfully mediated. Overall, these results suggest that there was noevidence for any of the partial mediation hypotheses (Hypotheses19, 20, and 21).

Discussion

To design interventions that benefit job seekers, it is importantfor researchers to identify and model the key antecedents, mech-anisms, and outcomes associated with the job search process. Inthe current article, we have tested a model that incorporates think-ing from social–cognitive theory, work on human agency, and thedistinction between distal and proximal predictors. In particular,our model links distal job seeker personality characteristics, jobseeking self-efficacy, and job search behavior with job searchoutcomes. Our findings reveal that proactive personality may be animportant but previously neglected antecedent to a successful jobsearch. In this regard, proactive personality was significantly re-lated to job search self-efficacy, which in turn predicted job searchbehavior and job search effort. Moreover, job search behavior andjob search self-efficacy were significantly related to the outcomesobtained by a job seeker following his or her job search. In linewith prior research, our results suggest that the impact of proactivepersonality was fully mediated by the behavioral and cognitiveconstructs included in our model (e.g., Seibert et al., 2001). Fi-nally, it is noteworthy that our findings reaffirm self-esteem as animportant dispositional antecedent of self-efficacy and the overallsuccess of a job seeker’s job search.

Additionally, our findings reaffirm the central role that jobseeker self-efficacy plays in an effective job search. Numerousprior studies have demonstrated that higher levels of job searchactivity are related to an individual’s job search self-efficacy (e.g.,Eden & Aviram, 1993; Kanfer & Hulin, 1985; Saks & Ashforth,1999). Similarly, our study indicates that job search self-efficacywas related to an individual’s job search behavior and job searchoutcomes and marginally related to the amount of effort exertedduring a job search. Beyond replicating prior work, our studyextends the extant literature by positioning self-efficacy within abroader nomological network of antecedents and consequences. Inthis regard, Frese and Fay (2001) have theorized that the relationsbetween proactive personality and proactive behaviors (e.g., jobsearch behaviors) are mediated through context-specific orienta-tions, such as self-efficacy. Our findings seem to support Frese andFay’s framework within a job search setting. As such, not only isself-efficacy an important antecedent of job search processes, itmay also assist researchers in understanding why distal personalityconstructs relate to job search variables.

Table 2Measurement Model Indicator Loadings

Indicator Loading

Proactive Personality 1 .711Proactive Personality 2 .875Proactive Personality 3 .795Conscientiousness 1 .785Conscientiousness 2 .860Conscientiousness 3 .798Self-Esteem 1 .824Self-Esteem 2 .816Self-Esteem 3 .821Self-Efficacy 1 .742Self-Efficacy 2 .736Job Search Behavior 1 .644Job Search Behavior 2 .777Job Search Behavior 3 .834Job Search Effort 1 .431Job Search Effort 2 .862Job Search Effort 3 .950Job Search Effort 4 .808Outcome 1 .591Outcome 2 .805

Note. All loadings were significant at p � .01.

Table 3Model Fit Statistics

Model �2 df ��2 �2/df TLI RMSEA CFI SRMR

Hypothesized seven-factormeasurement model 232.35** 149 1.56 .937 .056 .951 .049

Independence model 1,884.35** 190 1,652.00** 9.92 .223 .273One-factor measurement model 1,221.24** 170 988.89** 7.18 .307 .186 .380 .216Three-factor measurement model 649.48** 167 417.13** 3.89 .676 .127 .715 .072Hypothesized structural model 244.42** 158 12.07 1.55 .939 .055 .949 .056

Note. N � 180. In the three-factor and seven-factor models, the relation among the latent constructs were freely estimated. The three-factor modelconsisted of an individual-differences factor, a job search behavior/effort factor, and a job search outcome factor. We calculated change in chi-square byindependently contrasting the independence model, the one-factor measurement model, the three-factor measurement model, and the hypothesized structuralmodel against the hypothesized seven-factor measurement model. TLI � Tucker–Lewis Index (Tucker & Lewis, 1973); RMSEA � root-mean-square errorof approximation (Steiger, 1990); CFI � comparative fit index; SRMR � standardized root-mean-square residual.** p � .01.

722 RESEARCH REPORTS

It is curious that conscientiousness was not a significant predic-tor in our model. In line with prior reviews (Kanfer et al., 2001),the zero-order relations between conscientiousness and many ofthe process and outcome variables were significant or marginallysignificant. However, our structural equation model analyses sug-gest that conscientiousness was not a unique distal antecedent ofjob search processes or outcomes beyond proactive personality andself-esteem. In part, this finding may reflect the fact that therelations between traits and performance are dependent on thedomain relevance of the trait in question (Stewart & Barrick, 2004;Tett & Burnett, 2003). Although it is true that conscientiousness isamong the best predictors of broad performance outcomes, itsrelation within a domain can be overshadowed by narrower andmore domain-relevant traits (Stewart & Barrick, 2004). In fact,prior research has shown that when proactive personality is do-main relevant, it incrementally predicts beyond conscientiousness,but the reverse is not true (Crant, 1995). Given the highly unstruc-tured nature of a job search, the need for job seekers to initiate

action to effect environmental change (i.e., move from unemploy-ment to employment), and the overlap between proactive person-ality and conscientiousness, it is possible that conscientiousnesswas supplanted by proactive personality. Given that previous workhas operationalized conscientiousness broadly, one avenue of fu-ture job search research may be to consider narrower facets ofconscientiousness (e.g., achievement) that may be more relevant tothe job search domain.

Implications

Our findings advance the job search literature insofar as theyhave extended what is known about the antecedents and conse-quences of the job search process. As some authors have sug-gested, “relatively little progress” (Saks & Ashforth, 1999, p. 336)has been made along this front. Our study not only tests the role ofa personality variable, proactive personality, that has receivedmarginal attention in past job search research, it has also demon-

Table 4Standardized Direct and Indirect Effects and the Associated 95% Confidence Intervals

Predictor

Outcome

Self-efficacy Job search behavior Job search effort Job search outcome

Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect Direct Indirect

Proactive personality H1: .37**(.11, .57)

H7: .08*(.00, .19)

H8: .06†(�.01, .15)

H9: .12*(.01, .25)

Self-esteem H15: .28*(.02, .52)

H16: .06†(�.01, .15)

H17: .04(�.01, .12)

H18: .09*(.01, .21)

Conscientiousness H11: .17(�.09, .45)

H12: .04(�.02, .13)

H13: .03(�.01, .11)

H14: .06(�.03, .17)

Self-efficacy H2: .21*(.00, .40)

H3: .16†(�.02, .34)

H4: .24*(.01, .46)

H10: .08(�.02, .19)

Job search behavior H5: .54**(.26, .85)

Job search effort H6: �.20(�.50, .06)

Note. The upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval (shown in parentheses) were based on the findings from a bootstrapping analysis usingthe percentile method. H � Hypothesis.† p � .07. * p � .05. ** p � .01.

Table 5Comparison of Direct Effect Models Against the Hypothesized Structural Model

Model �2 df ��2 �2/df TLI RMSEA CFI SRMR

Hypothesized structural model 244.42** 158 1.55 .939 .055 .949 .056Freed path

Proactive personality 3 job search behavior 242.17** 157 2.25 1.54 .939 .055 .950 .055Proactive personality 3 job search effort 244.41** 157 0.01 1.56 .938 .056 .948 .055Proactive personality 3 job search outcome 242.63** 157 1.79 1.55 .939 .055 .949 .055Self-esteem 3 job search behavior 243.94** 157 0.48 1.55 .938 .056 .949 .055Self-esteem 3 job search effort 242.69** 157 1.73 1.55 .939 .055 .949 .055Self-esteem 3 job search outcome 244.33** 157 0.09 1.56 .938 .056 .948 .056Conscientiousness 3 job search behavior 243.24** 157 1.18 1.55 .938 .055 .949 .056Conscientiousness 3 job search effort 243.97** 157 0.45 1.55 .938 .056 .949 .055Conscientiousness 3 job search outcome 244.28** 157 0.14 1.56 .938 .056 .948 .056

Note. N � 180. TLI � Tucker–Lewis Index (Tucker & Lewis, 1973); RMSEA � root-mean-square error of approximation (Steiger, 1990); CFI �comparative fit index; SRMR � standardized root-mean-square residual.** p � .01.

723RESEARCH REPORTS

strated the variable’s distinct role from other well-established jobsearch antecedents and positioned it within a coherent, theoreti-cally derived framework. Practically, our results indicate thatmany job seekers could benefit from training interventions that aredesigned to enhance their level of proactivity. Although the vastmajority of previous research has conceptualized proactive per-sonality as a stable individual difference, recent data indicate thattraining interventions can alter proactive personality (Kirby,Kirby, & Lewis, 2002). Although previous research has demon-strated the benefits of using training interventions with unem-ployed populations (e.g., Eden & Aviram, 1993), the use of pro-active training interventions is limited. Thus, a practical extensionof our findings might be to examine whether training interventionscan mitigate the negative consequences that arise from scoring lowalong the proactive personality continuum.

Beyond contributing to the job search literature, our findingsmay also inform why proactive individuals succeed. A growingbody of work attests to the fact that proactive personality is arobust predictor of career success following organizational entry(Crant, 2000). To date, researchers largely have focused on dem-onstrating simple main effects, and only recently has interestshifted toward investigating the underlying process (Crant & Bate-man, 2004). Our study contributes to the growing body of process-oriented work (e.g., Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003) andextends it by suggesting that the benefits that derive from proac-tivity may originate prior to organizational entry. As our findingssuggest, proactive individuals may have more employment optionsavailable, which may allow them not only to select more satisfyingjobs but also to select organizations that better fit their personalpreferences and values. Researchers who have examined theposthire consequences associated with person–organization fithave demonstrated that it can positively impact employee attitudes,commitment, and turnover intentions (Cable & Judge, 1996). Al-though the link between proactive personality and posthire conse-quences through fit is speculative, it is consistent with recent workthat has shown that job search behavior and posthire outcomes aremediated through fit (Saks & Ashforth, 2002).

Limitations and Future Research

One limitation of the current investigation is that we collectedall data from a single source, which raises the possibility thatcommon method variance (CMV) influenced our findings. Fol-lowing previous procedures, we took several steps to reduce theplausibility of CMV (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,2003). In terms of procedure, we collected our data across multiplewaves, used varied scale anchors, and used negatively wordeditems. With respect to statistics, we assessed CMV with the Har-man one-factor test, which suggested that it was not an issue.5

Although it is not possible to definitively rule out CMV (Podsakoffet al., 2003), the procedural and statistical steps taken suggest thatit is unlikely that CMV impacted our findings substantially.

In recent years, there have been several calls for researchers torecognize the contextual constraints that limit the generalizabilityof their findings (Johns, 2001). One contextual factor that shouldbe considered in future research is the general economic contextthat exists at the time that a job seeker initiates his or her jobsearch. Our data collection occurred between 2001 and 2002, atime during which unemployment among younger workers was on

the rise (Chen, 2003). Whether the relations reported in this articleand the job search literature in general are bounded by the broadereconomic conditions confronted by job seekers is a question thatdeserves further empirical scrutiny (Feldman, 2002).

Future research should also examine whether our findings gen-eralize beyond college students to better established job seekers.Today, the traditional conceptualization of careers, which wascharacterized by sequential movement within a single organiza-tion, has been challenged by scholars who contend that today’scareers are best viewed as boundaryless (Arthur & Rousseau,1996). To the extent that boundaryless careers require movementwithin and across firms, we anticipate that proactive personalityshould remain a particularly potent contributor to an individual’soverall career success, an idea borne out by recent research (Seib-ert et al., 1999). In addition, it may also be interesting to examinewhether societal biases exacerbate the impact of proactive person-ality for particular segments of society. In fact, being proactivemay be particularly important for individuals from traditionallydisadvantaged and stigmatized job seeker groups (e.g., job seekerswith disabilities).

Future research should also examine the relation between pro-active personality and job search processes across cultures. It iswidely recognized that situations can constrain the expression ofpersonality (Mischel, 1977; Weiss & Adler, 1984). Strong situa-tions, versus weak, create relatively uniform, normative expectan-cies for individuals regarding what is and is not appropriate be-havior. Triandis (1989) has noted that cultural differences existalong a tight to loose continuum, which refers to the extent towhich cultures pressure individuals to conform to in-group normsand expectancies. Applying this thinking, one might expect thatthe relations between proactive personality and job search pro-cesses are culturally bound. Although this idea has not receiveddirect scrutiny, related work has shown that cultural expectationsand norms may moderate the expression of proactive behavior(Frese, Kring, Soose, & Zempel, 1996). More generally, we urgeresearchers to consider possible situational moderators of proac-tive personality.

Despite its relatively recent introduction to the organizationalliterature, the available data indicate that proactive personality mayhave considerable utility for understanding organizationally rele-vant outcomes and processes (e.g., job search). That being said,future work examining the relations between proactive personalityand related dispositional constructs is still needed, both to sharpenour understanding and to ensure that the variable’s introduction

5 We note that, despite its widespread application, researchers havequestioned the usefulness of the Harman one-factor test as a statisticalindicator of CMV (Podsakoff et al., 2003). On the basis of the recommen-dations of an anonymous reviewer, we conducted a supplementary analysisto further assess the impact of CMV. In this regard, we adapted themethodology used by Simons and Roberson (2003) to control for CMV inour substantive model. In essence, the approach involves the inclusion inthe substantive model of a conceptually uninvolved latent variable that isallowed to cross-load onto all of the relevant substantive indicators, ineffect controlling for CMV. In the current case, a measure of racial comfortwas available from the Time 1 survey. Rerunning our structural equationmodel with a control for the uninvolved latent variable did not change thesubstantive conclusions regarding our direct and indirect effects. Interestedreaders may contact Douglas J. Brown for the findings from these analyses.

724 RESEARCH REPORTS

has not created unnecessary conceptual confusion. On this latterpoint, the distinction between proactive personality and personalinitiative appears particularly deserving of greater attention. De-spite previous theoretical arguments distinguishing the two con-structs, personal initiative, which refers to long-term, goal-oriented, persistent, self-starting behavior, seems to share someconceptual overlap with proactive personality (Crant, 2000; Frese& Fay, 2001). Similarly, the extent to which proactive personalitydiffers from achievement striving also warrants additional consid-eration. Although prior work suggests that proactive personality,achievement striving, and personal initiative are related yet distinctconstructs (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Frese & Fay, 2001), only alimited number of studies have simultaneously considered thesevariables. As such, future research using multitrait–multimethoddesigns as well as incremental validity studies may be particularlybeneficial for clarifying the boundaries between proactive person-ality and other related constructs.

Conclusion

Academic interest in the investigation of job search behavior hasincreased dramatically in recent years. Despite growing interest,few studies have considered the antecedents or consequences ofthe job search process (Saks & Ashforth, 1999). This study hasexamined the distal and proximal predictors of a successful jobsearch with a sample of college job seekers. The model supportedby our data may prove helpful for career counselors trying toidentify and intervene with those job seekers who are least likelyto engage in constructive job search practices or find a job in atimely manner. The model presented in the current article suggeststhat, to some extent, the success or failure of an individual’s jobsearch depends on his or her level of proactivity. As such, the datareported in the current article may be particularly valuable forcareer counselors and job seekers, as they provide important in-sight into the antecedents and mechanisms that may underlie asuccessful job search experience.

References

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling inpractice: A review and recommended two-step approach. PsychologicalBulletin, 103, 411–423.

Arbuckle, J. L. (2003). AMOS 5.0. Chicago: SmallWaters Corporation.Arthur, M. B., & Rouseau, D. M. (1996). The boudaryless career. New

York: Oxford University Press.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social

cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective.

Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.Bandura, A., & Locke, E. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects

revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 87–99.Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimen-

sions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44,1–26.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of therelationship between the Big Five personality dimensions and job per-formance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 111–118.

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component oforganizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organi-zational Behavior, 14, 103–118.

Becherer, R. C., & Maurer, J. G. (1999). The proactive personality dispo-

sition and entrepreneurial behaviour among small company presidents.Journal of Small Business Management, 38, 28–36.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psy-chological Bulletin, 122, 238–246.

Blau, G. (1993). Further exploring the relationship between job search andvoluntary individual turnover. Personnel Psychology, 46, 313–330.

Blau, G. (1994). Testing a two-dimensional measure of job search behav-ior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59, 288–312.

Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. (1990). Direct and indirect effects: Classical andbootstrap estimates of variability. Sociological Methodology, 20, 115–140.

Bowers, K. S. (1973). Situationism in psychology: An analysis and cri-tique. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 307–336.

Bretz, R. D., Boudreau, J. W., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Job search behaviorof employed managers. Personnel Psychology, 47, 275–301.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing modelfit. In K. A. Bollen & S. J. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equationmodels (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Buss, D. M. (1987). Selection, evocation, and manipulation. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 53, 1214–1221.

Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choicedecisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Hu-man Decision Processes, 67, 294–311.

Chen, C. Y. (2003, June 23). Grads aren’t seeing green: The class of ‘03is facing the worst job market in a decade. Fortune, 147(12). Availablefrom http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/06/23/344590/index.htm

Claes, R., & De Witte, H. (2002). Determinants of graduates’ preparatoryjob search behaviour: A competitive test of proactive personality andexpectancy-value theory. Psychologica Belgica, 42, 251–266.

Cober, R. T., Brown, D. J., Levy, P. E., Keeping, L. M., & Cober, A. J.(2003). Organizational Web site content and style as determinants oforganizational attraction. International Journal of Selection and Assess-ment, 11, 158–169.

Crant, J. M. (1995). The Proactive Personality Scale and objective jobperformance among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology,80, 532–537.

Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Man-agement, 26, 435–462.

Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2004, August). The central role ofproactive behavior in organizations. Paper presented at the meeting ofthe Academy of Management, New Orleans, LA.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored designmethod (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Eden, D., & Aviram, A. (1993). Self-efficacy training to speed reemploy-ment: Helping people to help themselves. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 78, 352–360.

Ellis, R. A., & Taylor, M. S. (1983). Role of self-esteem within the jobsearch process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 632–640.

Feldman, D. C. (2002). Stability in the midst of change: A developmentalperspective on the study of careers. In D. C. Feldman (Ed.), Workcareers (pp. 3–26). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performanceconcept for work in the 21st century. Research in Organizational Be-havior, 23, 133–187.

Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The conceptof personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in twoGerman samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychol-ogy, 70, 139–161.

Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative atwork: Differences between East and West Germany. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 39, 37–63.

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). International personality item pool: A scientific

725RESEARCH REPORTS

collaboratory for the development of advanced measures of personalityand other individual differences. Retrieved January 2001 from http://ipip.ori.org/ipip/

Hall, R. J., Snell, A. F., & Foust, M. S. (1999). Item parceling strategies inSEM: Investigating the subtle effects of unmodeled secondary con-structs. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 233–256.

Holden, G. (1991). The relationship of self-efficacy appraisals to subse-quent health related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Social Work in HealthCare, 16, 53–93.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structuremodeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification.Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariancestructure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc-tural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

Johns, G. (2001). In praise of context. Journal of Organizational Behavior,22, 31–42.

Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Wanberg, C. R. (2003). Unwrapping theorganizational entry process: Disentangling multiple antecedents andtheir pathways to adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 779–794.

Kanfer, R. (1992). Work motivation: New directions in theory and re-search. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review ofindustrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 1–53). Chichester,England: Wiley.

Kanfer, R., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). Individual differences in successful jobsearches following lay-off. Personnel Psychology, 38, 835–847.

Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C. R., & Kantrowitz, T. M. (2001). Job search andemployment: A personality-motivational analysis and meta-analytic re-view. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 837–855.

Kirby, E. G., Kirby, S. L., & Lewis, M. A. (2002). A study of theeffectiveness of training proactive thinking. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 32, 1538–1549.

Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Anteced-ents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of ManagementJournal, 42, 58–74.

Kulik, L. (2000). Jobless men and women: A comparative analysis of jobsearch intensity, attitudes toward unemployment and related responses.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 487–500.

Kunda, Z. (1999). Social cognition: Making sense of people. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Mag-nusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Currentissues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Mooney, C. Z., & Duval, R. D. (1993). Bootstrapping: A nonparametricapproach to statistical inference. In M. S. Lewis Beck (Ed.), Quantitativeapplications in the social sciences (Vol. 95, pp. 1–72). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. (2002). Employ-ment profile: A summary of the employment experience of 2000–2001college graduates six months after graduation. Toronto, Ontario, Can-ada: Author.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of theliterature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,88, 879–903.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self image. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press.

Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). A longitudinal investigation of therelationships between job information sources, applicant perceptions offit, and work outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 50, 395–426.

Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1999). Effects of individual differencesand job search behaviors on the employment status of recent universitygraduates. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 335–349.

Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2000). Change in job search behaviors andemployment outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 277–287.

Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2002). Is job search related to employmentquality? It all depends on the fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,646–654.

Schwab, D. P., Rynes, S., & Aldag, R. J. (1987). Theories and research onjob search choice. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Man-agement, 5, 129–166.

Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personalityand career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 416–427.

Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactivepeople do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality andcareer success. Personnel Psychology, 54, 845–874.

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and non-experimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psycho-logical Methods, 7, 422–445.

Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care aboutfairness: The effects of aggregate justice perceptions on organizationaloutcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 432–443.

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-relatedperformance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240–261.

Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: Aninterval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25,173–180.

Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Four lessons learned from theperson-situation debate: A review and research agenda. In B. Schneider& D. B. Smith (Eds.), Personality and organizations (pp. 61–85).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Swanson, J. L., & Tokar, D. M. (1991). College students’ perceptions ofbarriers to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38,92–106.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics.New York: Harper Collins.

Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionistmodel of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500–517.

Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing culturalcontexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506–520.

Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximumlikelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10.

Wanberg, C. R., & Kanfer, R. (1999). Unemployed individuals: Motives,job-search competencies, and job-search constraints as predictors of jobseeking and reemployment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 897–910.

Wanberg, C. R., Watt, J. D., & Rumsey, D. J. (1996). Individuals withoutjobs: An empirical study of job-seeking behavior and reemployment.Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 76–87.

Weiss, H. M., & Adler, S. (1984). Personality and organizational behavior.Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 1–50.

Received April 14, 2004Revision received February 8, 2005

Accepted February 21, 2005 �

726 RESEARCH REPORTS