25092857

A Longitudinal Study of the Relationships among Job Search Self-Efficacy, Job Interviews, and Employment Outcomes Author(s): Lisa
M. Moynihan, Mark V. Roehling, Marcie A. LePine and Wendy R. Boswell Source: Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Dec., 2003), pp. 207-233 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25092857 . Accessed: 10/09/2013 05:11
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business and Psychology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 121.54.54.33 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 05:11:51 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal
of Business
and Psychology,
Vol.
18, No.
2, Winter
2003
(?2003)
A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS AMONG JOB SEARCH SELF-EFFICACY, JOB INTERVIEWS, AND EMPLOYMENT OUTCOMES
Lisa M. Moynihan
London Business School
Mark V. Roehling
Michigan State University
Marcie Wendy
A. LePine
of Florida
University
R. Boswell
University
Texas A&M
ABSTRACT:
This study investigates the relationships among job search self efficacy beliefs, number of job interviews participated in, and job search outcomes using data collected from graduating college job seekers at multiple points in their respective job searches. Results indicate that job search self-efficacy is posi tively related to number of total offers and number of offers from a preferred job search self-efficacy beliefs moder employer. Consistent with our hypothesis,
ate the relationship between number of interviews and number of offers, indicat
ing that highly into job offers. KEY WORDS:
confident
job seekers were more
efficient
in converting
interviews
job search self-efficacy;
job choice; job offers.
Address to Lisa Moynihan, London Business correspondence School, Organizational Behavior NW1 4SA. E-mail: Department, Park, London, Regent's lmoynihan@london.edu. This in part by a grant from the Center for Advanced Human study was supported Resource We thank Mahmut Ben Dunford, Cornell and Quin Studies, University. Bayazit, on an earlier etta Roberson for their helpful comments draft of this article.
207
0889-3268/03/1200-0207/0 ? 2003 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
208
JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY
There is a continuing need for research the role of indi investigating vidual in explaining search and outcomes differences job strategies & Caldwell & Brasher (Barber, 1998; Chen, 1999; 1998; Saks & Burger, the Fuller of search 1999). process may help Ashforth, understanding job avenues and training the most fruitful of counseling for a job identify on job seekers' that need by focusing seeker. This study seeks to address beliefs. Self-efficacy beliefs involve individuals' of self-efficacy judgments courses their capabilities and execute of action required to to organize attain designated 1986, 1997). Task spe (Bandura, types of performance can perform given cific self-efficacy reflects how well one believes he/she the social context and particular task (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Those sense of self-efficacy will in a particular situation who have a strong and effort to the demands demon devote their attention of the situation, strate greater and when faced with and difficult obstacles confidence, re will Job search and harder situations, try longer. self-efficacy persist to an individual's fers specifically belief that he or she is capable of per a desired out the behaviors for obtaining employment forming requisite come (Kanfer & Hulin, & Nesdale 2000). 1985; Pinter, to investigating the Previous research has taken a broad approach em and search search among job behaviors, self-efficacy, relationships job are assessed, outcomes. the Although ployment specific search behaviors or are to sometimes form assessments one, specific typically aggregated or variables two, general job search behavior (e.g., "job search behaviors," is and "active" job search behaviors). Job search self-efficacy "preparatory" on all search behaviors. to have the same influence assumed implicitly With that job few exceptions 1983), it is expected (e.g., Ellis & Taylor, effect on job search behaviors, search self-efficacy has only a main, positive in turn, have a positive and that search behaviors, effect on employment & outcomes 1999,2000; Schwab, Aviram, 1993; Saks & Ashforth, (e.g., Eden of the relationship 1987). This conceptualization among Rynes, & Aldag, outcomes and employment job search behaviors, job search self-efficacy, the dominant view in the literature reflects (Figure 1). a more than previous focused The present study adopts approach on It search research. focuses search self-efficacy's job self-efficacy job in the typical job search to one specific and critical activity relationship to two distinct and their joint relationship the job interview, process,
1 Search Self-Efficacy, Outcomes Number
Figure Prevailing View of Relationships of Interviews, ~ _ ? A |f
Job Among and Employment
? . ? Job Search aeii-iLHicacy
Job Search Behaviors: I . . . Preparatory behaviors Ffr p. med App|icatio|ls Interviews (etc)
Quantity Quality
Employment ** * Outcomes: of Job Offers of Job Offers
L. M. MOYNIHAN, M. V. ROEHLING, M. A. LEPINE, AND W. BOSWELL
209
outcomes and a measure of the (number of offers received employment the Its is to propose and test of offers received). purpose quality primary the nature of those relationships. As explained be hypotheses regarding we not set in the 1 do of low, expect (i.e., relationships Figure depicted we do not expect the number in by job seekers of interviews participated on employment to mediate the influence of job search self-efficacy out that job seekers' and beliefs comes). Rather, we hypothesize self-efficacy the number in interact of interviews that they participate to influence their employment outcomes is (Figure 2). This basis for this hypothesis set forth in detail in the next section. A secondary the relationships of this study is to investigate purpose leader among job seeker "objective qualifications" (GPA, work experiences, and employment outcomes. We hypoth ship roles), job search self-efficacy, are related esize that objective to job search qualifications positively we the extent to which and evaluate the lack of controls for self-efficacy, a threat to the valid in previous studies constitutes objective qualifications their of that inference search to more leads ity job positive self-efficacy outcomes. This is employment accomplished job seekers' by measuring re to a greater extent than previous qualifications job search self-efficacy search and assessing their relationships to both job search self-efficacy and outcome variables. are The hypotheses and research question employment data collected seekers from investigated using longitudinal job graduating from college (MBAs, graduate and undergraduates). students,
DEVELOPMENT OF PRIMARY HYPOTHESES: LITERATURE REVIEW, THEORY, AND SPECIFIC HYPOTHESES

Review of Relevant Literature research has consistently found job related to employment outcomes such 2
Self-Efficacy, Outcomes Number of Interviews,
With few exceptions, previous search self-efficacy to be positively
Figure
Predicted Relationships Among and Job Search Employment Job Search Self-Efficacy
~ Number , ^ . Interviews
~ of 1-' ~~~| -?*-fe ~ ~. \ A?. Employment w Outcomes: - , . w Quantity of Job Offers Quality of Job Offers
210
or reemployment as employment status (Caplan, Vinokur, Price, & van of 1985), and number Ryn, 1989; Ellis & Taylor, 1983; Kanfer & Hulin, offers received (Ellis & Taylor, 1983; Saks & Ashforth, by job seekers & Hartman, examin research 1984). In contrast, 2000; Strumpf, Austin, the and between search various ing relationship job job self-efficacy search behaviors has yielded The relevant results. very mixed findings are summarized a wide range in Table 1. The reviewed studies employ of measures, from assessments of specific search behaviors of (number measures number of interviews to that in), job applications, participated a wide assess or general from reading range of search activities, help wanted in Ta ads to interviewing for a job. The mixed results disclosed to vary systematically with ble 1 appear the type of search behavior(s) to be most Job search consis appears being investigated. self-efficacy to measures of preparatory search behaviors. tently related Preparatory search behaviors to identify potential involve gathering information job a book about getting a the help wanted leads (e.g., reading ads, reading a friend or relative about possible 1994). job, talking with leads; Blau, on our review, the only three studies Based that assess job search self measures to of preparatory search behaviors efficacy relationship specific & Ashforth, found Saks 1999; (Blau,1994; relationships significant Saks & Ashforth, 2000). At the other extreme, fail to provide evidence the reviewed studies that job search to measures active self- efficacy is related of specific, occur relatively search behaviors that typically later in the job search was to preparatory Job search self-efficacy behaviors). process (compared not related to number Kanfer & of jobs applied for (Ellis & Taylor, 1983; or in & number interviews of (Saks 1985), Ashforth, Hulin, participated of the relationship between 2000). The remaining investigations job mea search self-efficacy and search behaviors involve either aggregated sures of active out resumes, search behaviors contacting (e.g., sending an employment in a job interview; agency, Blau, 1994), or participating that include of search behavior both items assessing general measures The results and active search behaviors. of these remaining preparatory are almost studies they find, or fail to evenly split in terms of whether re Job search is sometimes find, significant self-efficacy relationships. lated to measures search behaviors, of active and general but sometimes all search activities it is not (see Table 1). Combining into one scale may on or reduce the effect of search "cancel out" job self-efficacy potentially conceptually Why Not Saks not distinct search activities.
a Main
Effect
on Number
of Interviews?
significantly
and Ashforth's related
was that job search self-efficacy (2000) finding in by job to number of interviews participated
Table 1
Summary of Findings Pertaining to the Relationship Between Self-Efficacy Beliefs
Self-Efficacy
Sample Ellis & Taylor (1983) 86 business istered schools with students the ofStudy regMeasure self-es"Task-specific teem" (which later studies fice. JJSE). equate to final First
Procedure
survey co before weeks interviewing
placement
survey 2 weeks befor tion. Terminated completed
Kanfer
& Hulin
(1985)
26 terminated employees in pated outplacement
hospital that particithe program.
Task-specific JSSE.
measure
of
em a
hospital's
after shortly tion. .51,
Approximately
later, semistru we interviews ducted Caplan, Price, Vinokur, & van 928 recently unemployed solicited adults Ryn Task-specific JSSE. measure pants of in Field experiment; the
(1989) state through
employ-
tal
ment compensation
condition
of- training fices.Posttests months.
in jo at
Table
1 (Continued)
Sample Eden & Aviram (1993)
Study General
Self-Efficacy Measure Field
Procedure
"voca66 unemployed tional workers."
self-efficacy pants
(GSE).
experiment; in the ex
tal condition training Posttests ministered weeks Schmit, Amel & Ryan 1: 290 Sample (1993) unemployed; low-skilled Sample 2: Task-specific JSSE. measure of data. Cross-sectional measure 197
in job
surve aft
after
st
college
Blau
(1994)
Sample
1:114 hospital 2: employees Sample 103 managers Sample 3:418 graduating
Task-specific (from Ellis 1983).
self-esteem & Taylor, seniors.
Samples
1 and
initial pleted and follow-up
approximately ior later months tional sample assess survey 3 only
the meas
employed).
Table 1 (Continued)
Sample Wandberg, Watt, & Rum640 laid off workers
Study at-
Measure measure of Surveys
Procedure mailed after
sey (1996) tending
a reemploy-
Task-specific JSSE.
months
thr and again ment workshop. months later after lay off).
Saks
& Ashforth
(1999)
384
stuundergraduate at dent job seekers Time 1 data collection,
measure Task-specific JSSE (from Ellis & Taylor,
of
A survey
was
participants nai term, just 1983). and 121 at Time 2 ( graduation (only ployed those not emsecond at Time 1). mailed
survey 4 month
Table 1 (Continued) ?
Self-Efficacy
Sample Study Measure
Procedure
Saks & Ashforth (2000)
121 of the 384 undergraduate students job seekers participating in Saks & Ashforth (only not
Task-specific measure of
JSSE Taylor, those (from Ellis 1983). (1991) who were &
A survey was m
participants nai term, just
already
employed at Time 1 data collec(T2).
( graduation second survey 4 mont mailed
Nesdale
& Pinter
(2000)
103 unemployed youth" solicited through
"ethnic an
General
self-efficacy (GSE). Australian
Single mailed
survey d to yout
gov't
in an ipating assistance agency. ment gram.
L. M. MOYNIHAN,
M.
V. ROEHLING,
M. A.
LEPINE,
AND
W.
BOSWELL
215
have a that job search self-efficacy does not necessarily seekers suggests no theoretical main effect on number of interviews. However, explana the widely held tion has been offered for the unexpected finding. Given view that job search self-efficacy effect on search behaviors has a main in Table 1 not withstanding), in general summarized (the mix findings the existence evidence of credible empirical that job search self-efficacy does have a consistent main effect on some search behaviors (i.e., prepa 1994; Saks & Ashforth, 2000), and the ratory search behaviors; Blau, we begin laying a foundation lack of previous of the question, discussion that follow by first addressing the following for the specific hypotheses What to that al lead the conclusion theoretical considerations question: a main to have effect search consistent appears though job self-efficacy on preparatory it will not have a similar effect on the search behaviors, in by job seekers? We then provide number of interviews participated more our that job search self-efficacy will for prediction specific support interact with number to influence outcomes. of interviews employment that the findings of job search, discussed Theories below, suggest a relationship and prepara between indicating job search self-efficacy to the relationship should not be generalized be tory search behaviors tween and interview because the job search self-efficacy participation on three key former and the latter search behaviors vary significantly relative costs associated with engaging in the behavior, characteristics: over and seeker control the of search that process job behavior, stage job occurs. the behavior Costs of Engaging in Search. beliefs are just one of several Self-efficacy factors that may influence and other factors seekers' motivations, job is the de involve countervailing motivational notable may forces. Most sire to avoid the costs associated with search activities. is a Job search than costless" et al., endeavor for job seekers (Schwab "costly rather with include the job 1987, p. 134). The costs associated job search may seeker's financial and related time, opportunity costs, costs, rejection, stress is also cognitively and 1967). Job search (Barber, 1998; Soelberg, seek to maximize fit with a job and an emotionally taxing as job seekers of job search behavior 1992). Theories organization (Breaugh, posit that on the level of job search activity, these costs have a restricting influence either causing job seekers to satisfice & Beach, 1967; Stevens (Soelberg, an that determine does not 1996), rationally "optimal point" stopping or et emo (Schwab al., simply maximize 1987), opportunities experience tional avoidance reactions 1987). Costs vary across job (Plumly & Oliver, search activities. As the costs associated with a search behavior increase, so does job seekers' motivation to avoid the behavior (i.e., the motiva or offset the motivational tional force that may countervail force of self a search such as talking with beliefs). activities, efficacy Preparatory
216
friend
few costs. In stark con about possible job leads, involve relatively the and with job in emotional costs other associated trast, time, stress, are relatively terviews & 1987). Brief, Hartman, high (Strumpf,
on the opportu Seeker Control Over Search Behavior. Constraints extent to which in limit the the search behaviors may nity to engage effect of self-efficacy itself. In addi motivational beliefs may manifests in their associated tion to varying also vary in costs, search behaviors to which in the extent the behavior is within the job seeker's engaging ads such as reading help wanted control. Preparatory search behaviors, are essentially in a newspaper, within Inter seekers' control. job totally limited involve more views, however, requiring opportunities, typically in the behavior. that third parties allow the job seeker to engage Because have to seekers search behaviors, relatively preparatory job compared in job interviews, there less control over the extent of their participation to is less opportunity force of job search self-efficacy for the motivational be manifested. Job that Several theories of job search suggest of the Search Process. Stage occurs or to in extensive from search search stages, job phases shifting more focused et Barber intensive al., 1994; Osborn, 1990; searching (e.g., the search may not be In the initial extensive 1967). Soelberg, phase and job seekers are more clearly defined, likely to cast a broad net. Later are both more in search, the opportunities under consideration clearly defined and more narrow (Barber et al., 1994). In addition, learning mod learn more in job search behavior that job seekers els of change propose as their search progresses efficient and effective search techniques (Bar the relationship between ber et al., 1994). The foregoing job suggest at early and search behaviors is likely to be stronger search self-efficacy are casting a broad net, and are stages of job search, when job seekers a with greater in wider range of search behaviors likely to be engaging to be mani the motivational beliefs of self-efficacy (allowing frequency a as more more in result of Stated other fested words, clearly directly). are behaviors search defined efficiency, job seeker goals and greater more the at likeli later to be of restricted search, reducing stages likely direct beliefs will have a significant, hood that job search self-efficacy on to search search behaviors. behaviors, preparatory Compared impact occur at later stages of the job search process, typically job interviews de that more when theories of job search suggest clearly and narrowly will the constrain and greater fined opportunities efficiency job seeker force of self-efficacy beliefs. motivational potential and countervailing motivations associated In light of the constraints seem equally it would with job interviews (discussed above), immediately in their ability that those job seekers who are most confident plausible
217
will feel less to conduct an effective search (high job search self-efficacy) need to maximize and therefore, will be more their opportunities, likely to be influenced with interviewing. by the desire to avoid costs associated That that job search self-efficacy will is, it could be reasonably argued in by job to the number be negatively related of interviews participated we do not expect job search self-efficacy In summary, seekers. to have a on or main either the number of effect, positive negative, job interviews; the many other factors that are likely to influence the number of inter in by job seeker participates will preclude views participated job search a main from consistent effect. self-efficacy having Predicted Relationships and Outcomes Job Search
Among
Self-efficacy,
Interviews,
It follows from our belief that job search self-efficacy will not have a main effect on number interviews that we do not expect that the effect on employment of job search self-efficacy outcomes will be mediated by as pre in by a job seeker. Rather, the number of interviews participated we expect that job search self-efficacy interacts with indicated, viously number to influence of job interviews in effectiveness both job seekers' and interview to the the of converting opportunities job offers, quality offers that they receive is as follows. The num (Figure 2). Our reasoning ber of interviews in by job seekers is a "key" determinant of participated number of offers (Saks & Ashforth, 2000, p. 284), and in most settings it is likely to help explain the number of offers received by job seekers. All things equal, job seekers with more will tend to receive interviews more offers. However, one with high job given two groups of job seekers, we expect a search self-efficacy and one with low job search self-efficacy, number between and number of interviews of of stronger relationship fers among the high job search self-efficacy group for two reasons. First, are likely to be more beliefs effective job seekers with high self-efficacy in converting interviews to offers as a result of their greater confidence in job interviews. Job seeker confidence (leading to better performance) across organizations is valued widely et (Bretz al., 1993; Cable & Gilov & and research that positive 1990) ich, 1998; Rynes Gerhart, suggests a on search have effect interviewers' assessment job cognitions positive of an interviewee's For and Har Austin, performance. example, Strumpf, tman assess lead to higher (1984) found that job search self-efficacy ments of interview and positively associated with the num performance ber of offers received (1983) found by job seekers. Also, Ellis and Taylor that job search self esteem was associated assess with more favorable ment of the interviewee interviewers. by campus are more Second, high self-efficacy job seekers likely to effectively or so that the with whom preassess prescreen companies they interview
218
fit going into the inter there is a higher of mutually likelihood perceived are not to view. Although of beliefs impact the number expected efficacy and interviews theoretical earlier) in, arguments (provided participated evidence 2000) support the prop (Blau, 1994; Saks & Ashforth, empirical leads to greater osition that greater job search self-efficacy participation in preparatory search behaviors Blau, behaviors, (information-gathering in turn, in preparatory search behaviors, 1994). Greater participation their fit with an organization to better assess should enable job seekers it might that because of be expected Further, prior to the job interview. their greater cast a nar confidence high job seekers will self-efficacy rower net in their job search in order to reduce the costs associated with that the relationship be These considerations suggest interviewing. a in the tween the number and seeker of interviews by job participated of offers received will be much number among job seekers with stronger high job search self-efficacy. 1: Job search self-efficacy moderates the relationship be Hypothesis tween number of offers. There will be a posi of interviews and number and number of job of tive relationship number between of interviews fers that is stronger among persons with high job search self-efficacy. out the need for research Werbel (2000) recently investigat pointed and the outcome to take into account both the quality ing job search want Job seekers often do not of offers received. just any job, quantity but have preferred based on their self-assessments of fit with employers an indicator of As the job and organization 1992). job search (Breaugh, a job seeker received that reflects whether effectiveness offers, quality we also examine received from employers offers participants how many em as preferred or "favorite" that were identified by the participants an the of to the offer from employer. participant's receipt ployer prior 1 lead us The same considerations that formed the basis for Hypothesis to predict the following.
the relationship be 2: Job search self-efficacy moderates Hypothesis from pre and number tween number of offers received of interviews num between There will be a positive ferred employers. relationship and number of job offers received from preferred ber of interviews that is stronger among persons with high job search self employers efficacy.
OBJECTIVE QUALIFICATIONS, JOB SEARCH SELF-EFFICACY, AND EMPLOYMENT OUTCOMES

include such job seeker qualifications Objective relevant work school performance (GPA), experiences characteristics (e.g., internships, as
219
roles (e.g., number of elected offices held, work), and leadership of sports team). Our use of the label "objective" for these types captain of characteristics is based on Cable and Gilovich (1998), who distinguish are to that tied between characteristics (and available from) objective con as applicant resumes and such characteristics, subjective applicant's or enthusiasm, call" on the "involve more which fidence of a judgment the applicant (p. 504). evaluating to the relationships attention been has Uttle Surprisingly paid and employment search among job seeker qualifications, job self-efficacy, outcomes. Ellis and Taylor (1983) note that neither GPA nor work expe a mea to a task specific self esteem variable, riences related ostensibly sure of job search the role of objective because However, self-efficacy. was not a focus of the study (i.e., not a subject of specific qualifications hypotheses), they neither report specific results nor indicate how the ob et al. (1996) found variables were assessed. Wanberg jective qualification that among level was laid-off workers education seeking reemployment, = < related to job search self-efficacy and Ashforth Saks (r .001). .28, p or other objective quali (1999) looked at GPA only (not work experiences was and to both job search it that related found fications) significantly = < an outcome sta and (r .01) .15, p variable, self-efficacy employment tus at time 1 (r = .14, p < .01). part of interviewers Bandura that the initial development of self (1986, 1997) asserts a sources. beliefs from Job of seek variety efficacy springs experiential or ers' objective the reflect past performance, qualifications experience, of the job seeker. We expect that job seekers who have experi behaviors as reflected enced more success in job related domains, in stronger objec reason to be confident tive qualifications, have greater will, on average, in the their ability to carry out an effective In addition to job search. GPA and work experiences and full-time work), the present (internships the relationship of leadership roles (coded from study also investigates resume bio-data) to job search self-efficacy. Hypothesis ences, and self-efficacy. The testing of Hypothesis 3 contributes to the literature in two ways. new data regarding con it provides the job search First, self-efficacy structs to the recently observed need network, nomological responding for research the antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs (Ander regarding son & Betz, 2001). This data contributes to the basic understanding of career or employ the construct, and it may provide that assist insights ment in developing counselors effective to bolster job seek interventions ers' self-efficacy. Second, the testing of Hypothesis 3 also provides data that will as 3: Objective leadership job seeker qualifications roles) will be positively (GPA, work experi to job search related
full-time
220
sist in evaluating the extent to which the lack of controls for job seeker a threat in previous constitutes to the validity studies of qualifications em their inference that job search leads to more self-efficacy positive The lack of such controls outcomes. is a potential threat be ployment in to addition outcomes their hy cause, influencing employment through to job search pothesized relationship self-efficacy, objective job seeker also have a more direct may qualifications impact on outcomes?inde on their seeker This concern pendent of confidence. influence job simply are that objective job qualifications acknowledges likely to send signals affect employment outcomes in ways a su For with candidate performance. example, interview* "blow the but receive still may perior objective qualifications an offer because the employer views his or her superior objective qualifi that the candidate will be a high cations as providing sufficient evidence of Ellis and Taylor quality employee. Given that with the exception (1983), research has made to control for (or little attempt job search self-efficacy and rule out) the potential effect of objective investigate job qualifica need for empirical evidence that addresses tions, there is a continuing the following To what extent is the observed be question: relationship tween job seeker self-efficacy and employment outcomes in attributable, or in part, to the effect that qualifications whole have on employers' deci sions independent of job seekers beliefs? The present self-efficacy study that need. address helps about applicant quality not linked to interview that may
METHOD
Sample and Procedure
were graduating students from four colleges of a major Participants all actively northeastern who were university. searching Participants, were with for full-time recruited the employment following graduation, assistance from their respective of the placement directors colleges. A longitudinal the proposed study design was used to investigate search number and of among job interviews, self-efficacy, relationships outcomes. Within few weeks of the the first first semester, employment had begun interviews before campus (Time 1), the student job seekers a survey The survey was self-efficacy. completed assessing job search as part of a larger study on recruit to student administered respondents resumes were ment and job choice. Current also collected from respon were 1. Thereafter, dents at Time contacted periodically respondents to check on whether via the university email system (every other week) a job offer was received and/or an acceptance had been made. decision a job offer or accepting a position, Once a student he/ indicated receiving
221
to set a time for a phone interview. she was contacted Phone interviews were conducted an offer and again when (after a first offer was received was accepted) on two and eight months after Time 1 depending between an offer was first received or a position was accepted. The inter when views were used to collect information number of interviews regarding were and job offers received. The phone interviews conducted by one of two researchers, data and took on average Other minutes. twenty-one as not part of the present research was collected during these interviews a of part larger project. of 187 graduating the initial survey and students completed were their time. for These later contacted students for paid in the study and 109 gave their permission continuation to participate in follow-up to Of those 109 students interviews. who initially agreed continue two decided to attend rather school participation, graduate than seek employment, and so were excluded return rate of (a follow-up rate of 57%). There were no significant differ 98%, and total response ences between those 187 students who initially the survey and completed the 107 who were in the final study on age, sex, race, school, included student and job search self-efficacy. There were work status, experience, in GPA with data differences between significant participants complete and participants the 1 Time who survey completed only. Participants with data had a higher mean GPA (Participants all M = 3.36, complete = = < 1 t Time M to partici .01) 3.19, 2.70, p only Participants compared 1 of the Time indicate these differences survey may pants only. Though a response bias affecting the mean it not clear that is this would levels, the bias results. upwardly were highly The participants in terms diversified of background and number of offers. The four characteristics, patterns, interviewing the university in this sample schools within included: represented engi (49%), business (6%), labor relations neering (29%), and hotel manage were undergraduates ment of respondents (16%). The majority (63%). was The average 22.6 of full-time years old, had 8.55 months respondent and had a 3.28 grade point average. work experience, percent Fifty-three were male, 61% white, and 91% single. were $20 A total
Measures
Search Measure. Bandura self (1986) conceptualized Self-Efficacy and generality. efficacy varying along three dimensions: level, strength, concerns a of self-efficacy the range of situations in which Generality considers him or herself Both general measures efficacious. of person of self self-efficacy (e.g., Sherer et al., 1982) and task specific measures re in job search (Kanfer& Hulin, 1985) have been employed efficacy search and found to have explanatory Eden & This 1993). power Aviram,
Job
222
study measured job search self-efficacy using three items: aI feel certain to get the job I want"; "I have what about my ability it takes to get a that my job search will be successful" (a = .83). good job"; "I am certain = a Likert scale format dis (1 Participants responded using strongly 7 = strongly of self-efficacy beliefs reflects agree, agree). This measure an "intermediate level of specificity" (Lent & Hackett, 1987). It is more measures on confi than in it of that focuses specific self-efficacy general dence relating to the job search process. However, it is less specific than measures that assess to very specific job search tasks, beliefs pertaining such as locating job openings, etc. filing job applications, on Job Seeker Qualifications. GPA was provided Objective by students the initial survey and leadership roles were (Time 1); work experiences resumes. content coded from the students' The content coding of resumes included the number of relevant full-time work of months calculating in the for which field experience (non-internship experience; experience was receiving the participant months his/her number of of rele degree), vant summer and whether held any leader internship experience, they or in elected offices student ship positions (e.g., government clubs, cap tain of sports team; 1 = yes, 0 = no). Every resume was content coded by at least two of the authors. was calculated the Agreement by dividing the coders agreed by the total number number of items for which of items as partici varied coded on that resume of items per resume (number and leadership of work experience pants varied on the type and amount on 421 of the 473 items for an agreement of 89%. roles). Coders agreed In the case of coding disagreements, the coders for that resume discussed and resolved the differences. re Job Search Outcomes. the telephone interviews, During participants the in total number which and the interviews of ported they participated total number of job offers they received. We used total number of offers as one of our outcome measures. Total number of offers ranged from 0 to 16 (M = 3.07). The initial survey to identify their (Time 1) requested job seekers At the end of the data collection, for each partici preferred employers. from whom received offers were com pant the employer(s) they actually with the number identified to determine of pared preferred employers fers each participant received from preferred employers.
Analyses We first examined whether existed for school differences significant the variables in this study. Significant of interest differences among the in predictor and one or more of the criterion variables schools variables our to to the need include additional variables model would suggest
223
for three of the four schools), thereby reducing our power (dummy variables to find significant differences effects. To examine whether exist, analysis were examined utilized. We first of variance (ANOVA) techniques a significant in the study amount of variance whether school explained ANOVAS. variables the use of One-Way Second, we conducted through the nature difference (HSD) tests to determine Tukey honest significant of any differences by school. we conducted test the study hypotheses To formally both hierarchi and cal ordinary correlational least squares (OLS) regression analyses were used to test Hy Hierarchical OLS regression analyses. analyses were used to test Hypothe 1 and 2, and correlational potheses analyses ses 3. Before the it was determined that analyses regression conducting was was that the variable roles only objective qualification leadership to both job search self-efficacy and at least one of employment related in the interest statistical outcome of preserving variables. Therefore, it was the only objective included the re variable power, qualification we en OLS regression For the hierarchical analyses, gression analyses. tered leadership and num roles on the first step, job search self-efficacy ber of interviews search self-efficacy on the second step, and the interaction on the third and number of interviews between step. job
RESULTS
Mean 2. Significant in Table differences by school are reported were found for number school differences of months worked during sum worked there of months and GPA. number mers, full-time, However, were no significant in job search self-efficacy, number school differences or either of the criterion variables in the primary of job interviews, anal
yses.
statistics of all variables and standard Descriptive including means are provided and correlation deviations for the full sample, coefficients in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, Hypothesis 3 received support. partial Whether the participant held an elected office (r = .28, p < .05) was sig related to job search to the nificantly positively Contrary self-efficacy. number of of work during the summer, months number of hypothesis, of full-time work, and GPA were not related months to job search self which of the objective efficacy. To determine job seeker qualifications we re the most amount of in variance search explain job self-efficacy, on the four objective vari gressed job search self-efficacy qualification that number indicate ables. The results the of months worked during summer are significantly related to job search positively self-efficacy = after controlling for the other variables .21, p < .01), and leadership (P
224
Table 2
Mean Differences by School Labor Engineering = 1. Leadership roles 1) (yes summer 2. # Months work during work 3. # Months 5. Gender 6. Job full-time 1) (women = work 4. search 0.35 7.37 4.55a 3.20a GPA 0.33a 5.90 14.98 0.33 Business 0.36 2.00a 46.18abc 3.52 0.27 5.39 11.50 0.30 Relations 0.38 7.15 5.00b 3.40a 0.60a 5.72 12.10 0.31 Hotel Management 0.21 9.29a 14.71c 3.26 0.63 0.97 5.70 1.88 8.91 0.34 0.39 to Tu HSD F 0.79 4.90** 24.88** 3.77** 5.73**
self-efficacy 7. # of interviews ratio
8. Offer/interview
key
are significantly from each other according different lettered means a_cSimilar N honest difference (HSD) for unequal significant means were at XC2,6.05 to Tukey dNone of the individual according significant N. for unequal *p < .05; **p < .01.
to job search self related moderately significantly positively = < the after other variables for .10). .13, p controlling efficacy (p 1 states that job search self-efficacy and number of inter Hypothesis to predict number interact of offers received views will by job seekers. 4 in Table for Hy of the regression show The results support analysis 1. The number search and between interaction self-efficacy job pothesis = was to number related of offers of interviews 1.7, p < significantly (p interaction the that indicates of the interaction .05). Examination plot was between in the hypothesized direction (Figure 3). The relationship of interviews number and number of offers received was much stronger com among self-efficacy relationship job seekers with high job search low job search self-efficacy. pared to those with and number of 2 predicts that job search self-efficacy Hypothesis to predict number will interact of offers received interviews by job seek main ef there was a significant ers from preferred Although employers. on offers from preferred fect of job search self-efficacy prior employers term on Step 3 (p = .10, p < .05; see Table to the entry of the interaction = was not significant interaction .01, p > .05; see Ta (P 5), the predicted ble 5).
role was
DISCUSSION
of this longitudinal The primary purpose study of college job seekers self to test hypotheses among job search relationships regarding
was
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Between
Variables
MSD
1. Leadership 2. # Months 3. # Months 5. Gender 6. Job 1) summer during full-time work (yes 4. (women = 1) search self-efficacy 7. # of interviews from roles = .41 7.6 11.68 GPA 3.28 .50 .51 5.98 13.05 3.07 preferred > employer .74 .95 8.23 2.29 .72 .49 5.78 23.08 .41
123456
1.00 -.02 .03 -.15 .11 .28* .03 .30* .01 -.02 1.00 -.37** .09 .19 .19 -.03 -.13 -.09 .03 -.37** 1.00 -.19 .05 -.06 .10 .19 .04 -.15 .09 -.19 1.00 -.09 -.13 .07 -.11 -.09 .11 .19 .05 -.09 1.00 -.03 -.20 -.07 .05
work
8. # of offers 9. # Offers
*p < .05; **p < .01.
iV=107.
226
Table 4
Results of Regression Analysis for Number of Job Offers
Variable Step 1
Leadership Job search Number Job search roles .26* .18 .25* .36** .19* -.21 -1.4 of interviews 1.7*
Step 2
Step 3
self-efficacy of interviews
self-efficacy*number
Change in R2 Adjusted R2
Note.
.07* R2 .07 .06

F 6.12*
.16** .23 .20

8.28**
.05* .28 .24

8.04**
Standardized *p < .05; **p < .01. AT =107.
coefficients
are
shown.
outcomes and two employment of (total number efficacy, job interviews, from preferred Also job offers received job offers received, employers). was the relationship of job seeker qualifications (GPA, work investigated and employment roles) to job search self-efficacy experiences, leadership In this section we discuss the study's major findings, outcomes. contribu and suggested future research research tions, limitations, implications, directions.
Figure Interaction of Job Search Self-Efficacy Number of Job
3 and Number Offers of Interviews Predicting
-j
5- yS J O 2 jS ^r ? -low * efficacy high efficacy
-I-.-. low Interviews high
L. M. MOYNIHAN,
M. V. ROEHLING,
M. A.
LEPINE,
AND
W.
BOSWELL
227
Table 5
Results of Regression Analysis for Number of Offers from a Preferred Employer
Variable Step 1
Leadership Job search Number Job search roles self-efficacy of interviews .18 .10* .01 .08 of interviews .00 R2 .01 .10* R2 .00 Adjusted .06 .05 -.02 .01 F Note. Standardized *p < .05; **p < .01. iV= 107. coefficients are shown. .00 .22
Step 2
.18 .18
Step 3
self-efficacy*number
Change
in R2
.11 .10 2.43 1.88
Major
Findings
and Contributions
In addition to responding to the call for longitudinal research invest the et search Turban process 1998; Stevens, (Barber, 1997; igating job the need for research role of al., 1995) and to the general investigating individual in job search and outcomes differences (Barber, strategies & Chen, 1999; Caldwell & Burger, 1998; Brasher 1998; Saks & Ashforth, to the job search literature in several more 1999), this study contributes em it provides and additional theoretical specific ways. First, reasoning that job search self-efficacy is differen pirical support for the proposition on key char tially related to the various job search behaviors depending with engaging acteristics costs associated of the search behavior: relative in the behavior, and stage of job control over the behavior, job seeker occurs. Most that the behavior search process has research previous taken a broad approach to investigating the relationships among job search and employment outcomes. self-efficacy, job search behaviors, With few exceptions 1983), job search self-efficacy (e.g., Ellis & Taylor, on job search behaviors to have a main, is expected effect in positive and search behaviors, in turn, are expected to have a positive, general, main effect on employment It appears outcomes. that in regard to prepa the expected main effect is supported. ratory search behaviors However, at pp. 6-7) and the pattern theories of job search (discussed of existing in previous research (Table 1) suggest findings job search self-efficacy occur later in the job search process, that as search behaviors involve and involve less seeker there is an greater costs, relatively control, job in countervailing increase and constraints that attenuates motivations the direct motivational is that force. The result impact of self-efficacy's the relationship to search behaviors of job search self-efficacy and em outcomes becomes more ployment complex.
228
Consistent with theoretical and Saks and Ashforth's (2000) arguments was not positively recent finding, to the related job search self-efficacy number of interviews in by job seekers. Our finding of a nega participated tive relation are consistent with the notion that those high on self-efficacy in may feel less need to cast a wide net, and as a result, are more efficient their search. As predicted, interacted with number job search self-efficacy to influence of interviews the number of job offers received by job seekers. x number The addition of the job search self-efficacy of interviews interac an tion term in the regression 5% vari additional of the analysis explained ance in total number of offers received. An examination of the specific na ture of the interactions reveals that the relationship between number of and number interviews of offers received was much stronger relationship to those with among job seekers with high job search self-efficacy compared low job search self-efficacy 3). (Figure the present to calls for research Second, study responds investigat to a wider ing job search self-efficacy's range of employment relationship outcomes & Fenzel, et al., 1994) by (Regenold, Sherman, 1999; Wanberg of both the quality and quantity of job offers re including measures ceived. Controlling of interviews and objective qualifications, for number had a significant main effect on number of offers job search self-efficacy from preferred the that job search self employers. However, prediction interacts with the number in to influ of interviews efficacy participated ence the number was not of offers received from preferred employers a research Our that when with supported. suggests preferred interacting has a direct effect for job seekers. The job search self-efficacy employer, x search lack of a significant number interviews inter of job self-efficacy in predicting action offers from preferred indicates that the employers on the num influence of job search self-efficacy does not vary depending in by job seekers when ber of interviews participated they are interview more broadly ing with a favorite potential employer. When interviewing with potential is then useful in converting inter employers, self-efficacy views into job offers. Both the interaction and of job search self-efficacy number to predict total number of interviews of offers, and the and main on preferred effect of job search self-efficacy offers (controlling for num an inference that ber of interviews), with seekers support job greater job are more effective search self-efficacy at converting interview opportuni ties into job offers. to the hterature Third, the present by measur study also contributes and examining their relationship to ing job seekers' objective qualifications to a greater and employment outcome variables both job search self-efficacy extent than previous job search. This aspect of the study adds to the htera ture both by addressing the need for additional research the investigating antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs (Anderson & Betz, 2001), and by provid ing evidence of the extent to which the lack of controls for job seeker qualifi an actual (versus theoretical) cations in previous threat studies constitutes
229
to the validity of their inference that job search self-efficacy leads to more was outcomes. There mixed for positive support employment Hypothesis 3's prediction that objective job seeker qualifications be positively would to job search self-efficacy. related Job seekers with greater self-efficacy were more to to our hold elected roles. Contrary likely offices/leadership summer and number of months of number of prediction, GPA, work, months full-time job experience were not significantly related to job seeker self-efficacy. However, we suggest that further research be done before con to include these objective in cluding that it is unnecessary qualifications future research. Qualitative research with recruiters and hiring managers may help inform future research about the criteria they use to decide who or reputation to interview. It could be that quality of the university and to recruiters is more than GPA type of previous work experience important or amount of work experience. roles was the only objective variable that Leadership qualification was related to both job search self-efficacy and at least one of employ ment outcome variables, and therefore, in the interest sta of preserving tistical power, it was the only objective qualification in variable included the regression was not to related roles the number analyses. Leadership of offers from preferred In contrast, with number of inter employers. re search and term in the final their interaction views, job self-efficacy, a was there still between leader gression model, significant relationship of offers received. This finding indicates ship roles and the total number that leadership roles influences the number of job offers received by job in ways not mediated seekers There by job search self-efficacy. is, how roles from the regression model ever, no evidence that omitting leadership create a "missing variables" would The beta coefficient for the problem. x number of interviews term with interaction job search self-efficacy roles in the equation is 1.74 (p = .02), and without leadership leadership roles in the equation it is 1.68 (p = .02). the results that the theoretical threat associated Overall, suggest with the lack of controls for GPA and amount as job of work experience seeker qualifications in previous search is not research job self-efficacy a to involve to threat the of results. likely significant However, validity we suggest that further research be done before that it is concluding to include other objective of uni unnecessary qualifications (reputation in future research. relatedness of prior experience) versity, Research This and Future Directions
Implications
the general need for future research to give study highlights to attention differences greater among potential job search behaviors, both in researchers' and measurement. Blau predictions (1993, 1994) an important made in distinguishing contribution between preparatory and active search behaviors. it appears that general measures However,
230
from "reading help wanted ads" to "inter search behaviors aggregating for a job" are still widely used. Also, for certain research pur viewing the preparatory and active search behavior still poses, may categories be overly broad. For example, theoretical earlier arguments presented that there will be a significant in how job search self difference suggest out resumes to potential to the "sending be employers" efficacy relates to the "interviewing for a job" behavior, both havior versus how it relates considered differences
ranted.
active behaviors. search and similarities among
Additional research investigating is clearly war search behaviors
the factors research is still a need for additional There regarding Self esteem to the level of job seekers' beliefs. self-efficacy contributing to job search self-efficacy, and has been consistently found to be related at least one study found a relationship and between conscientiousness et al., 1993). Are there other personality (Schmitt job search self-efficacy to influence traits that can be expected Research job search self-efficacy? out to employment indicates that certain personality traits are related a comes (e.g., Caldwell to limited & Burger, 1998). However, date, only have been examined and only a few stud variables range of personality extent does job search self-effi ies conducted 1992). To what (Breaugh, the between traits and employ mediate cacy personality relationship ment outcomes? in the and success The relationship between job search self-efficacy coun the and further search process training job appropriate highlights a to vocational needs of seekers. Indeed, self-efficacy approach seling job on inter to the traditional could be used in addition emphasis counseling to identify the most est and ability inventories (Gist, 1987) thus helping abil fruitful avenues and training for a job seeker. Where of counseling is low, training focus on should ity is high but job search self-efficacy on impart the debilitating beliefs rather than concentrating improving with Individuals low job and abilities. skills, knowledge, ing further and modeling to enactive mastery search may need more self-efficacy in the job search domain. increase their self-efficacy video Self-modeling 1992). (Gist & Mitchell, tapes may be one effective method should continue future job search research employing multi Finally, more one dimension assess than outcome that variables ple employment in addition to the quantity In particular, of of job search effectiveness. attention should outcomes of job offers received), greater (e.g., number and objec to the quality of outcomes be given (assessed subjectively in the job search process. tively), and job seeker efficiency
Limitations Several sample size
and Summary limitations compares our of the study should be mentioned. Although other longitudinal job search favorably with many
231
studies & Burger, 1998; Rynes et al., 1991; Taylor & Berg (e.g., Caldwell a limitation et al., 1995), nonetheless, of the study mann, 1987; Turban is less than ideal statistical power to detect the predicted relationships. Another data. We cannot rule out the possi limitation was self-report common the relations that method variance could have inflated bility we a not that beUeve is serious variables. do this among However, problem were made reasons. to reduce the effects of for several First, attempts common method the use of data gathered bias through using multiple resume at multiple methods interviews) data, and telephone (e.g., surveys, as in time. the the number of such of points Second, many key variables, a as in the offers received are relatively and risk nature, result, objective & Rumsey, is less (Saks & Ashforth, of inflation 2000; Wandberg, Watt, it seems unlikely the that inflated relations 1996). Additionally, among variables could account for the study's key findings (i.e., that job search and number interact to influence number of interviews of job self-efficacy there is not a direct relationship offers received, between job search self and that objective qualifications of interviews, do not efficacy and number a to in be influence studies of the between appear relationship confounding and employment outcomes). job search self-efficacy There are also limits on the generalizability of the present findings were due to the specific sample that was employed. All participants in in a campus that volved involves recruiting relatively setting highly in many ways, structured and job search recruiting cycles, and where easier. Also, the range of job search self-efficacy may job search is made and skewed in the direction be restricted of job seekers with relatively While affect the generaliz these considerations may high self-efficacy. ability of findings, they also arguably provide a strong test of the influ ence of job search self-efficacy. Even though there may have been rela to overcome in there job search for the participants tively fewer obstacles and the range of self-efficacy in the sample may have beliefs process, was been somewhat still found to be restricted, job search self-efficacy related to both number of total offers and number of offers from pre ferred employers. our findings In summary, evidence that the job search self provide can construct the vast that have been ob differences efficacy help explain served in individual search and outcomes. It appears that job strategies in one's ability to conduct an effective greater confidence job search leads convert interview into offers, job seekers to more effectively opportunities and is related to both the quantity and quality of employment outcomes.
REFERENCES
Anderson, ment (2001). Sources S.L., & Betz, N.E., to career development. and relation of self-efficacy Their measure expectations: Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 98-117.
232
Social and action: A social of thought cognitive theory. foundations Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. The exercise (1997). Self efficacy: of control. New York: Freeman. and Individual (1998). Recruiting employees: perspectives. organizational Oaks: Sage Publications. & Phillips, J.M. activities: (1994). Job search Barber, A.E., Daly, C.L., Giannantonio, CM., over time. Personnel An examination of changes 47, 739-766. Psychology, and voluntary between the relationship indi Blau, G. (1994). Further job search exploring Personnel vidual turnover, 46, 313-330. Psychology, a two-dimensional G. (1994). Testing model of job search behavior. Blau, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59, 288-312. in job search: A process criteria P.Y. of success (1999). Evaluation Brasher, E.E., & Chen, & Organizational Journal perspective. 72, 57-70. of Occupational Psychology, Boston: J.A. (1992). Recruitment: Science and practice. PWS-Kent Breaugh, Publishing. B. (1993). Recruiter of applicant fit: Impli Bretz, R.D., Rynes, S.L., & Gerhart, perceptions career for individual and job search cations Journal behavior. of Voca preparation tional Behavior, 43, 310-327. over or overlooked? T. (1998). Looked decisions and Cable, D.M., & Gilovich, Prescreening Journal evaluations. pos interview 83, 501-508. of Applied Psychology, J.M. characteristics of job applicants and suc (1998). Personality D.F, & Burger, Caldwell, cess in screening interviews. Personnel 51, 119-136. Psychology, Job seeking, & van Ryn, M. (1989). Caplan, R.D., Vinokur, A.D., Price, R.H., reemploy in coping with A randomized and mental field experiment health: ment, job loss. Jour nal of Applied 74, 759-769. Psychology, JA., Anderson, N. of formal out (1995). Outcome J.S., & DiMarco, comparisons Davey, services and informal Resource 6, support. Human placement Quarterly, Development 275-288. to speed reemployment: A. (1993). Self-efficacy peo Eden, D., & Aviram, Helping training Journal themselves. 78, 353-360. ple to help of Applied Psychology, within the job search process. Journal (1983). Role of self-esteem Ellis, RA., & Taylor, M.S. 78, 352-360. of Applied Psychology, re for organizational and human behavior (1987). Gist, M.E. Implications Self-Efficacy: source management. 12, 472-485. Review, Academy of Management A theoretical of its determinants T.R. (1992). Self- Efficacy: Gist, M.E. & Mitchell, analysis and malleability. 17, 183-211. Review, Academy of Management in successful .L. (1985). Individual differences Kanfer, R., & Hulin, job searches following 38, 835-847. lay-off. Personnel Psychology, status and future direc G. (1987). Career Empirical Lent, R.W., & Hackett, self-efficacy: tions. Journal Behavior, 30, 347-383. of Vocational in unemployed and the job-seeking activities K. (2000). Self-efficacy Nesdale, D., & Pinter, Bandura, A. (1986). Englewood A. Bandura, A.E. Barber, Thousand The Journal 608-614. ethnic 140(5), of Social youth. Psychology, of the organizational choice process. D.P. Journal (1990). A reexamination Osborn, of Voca tional Behavior, 36, 45?60. attribute and the job search J.E. (1987). The locus of control pro L.W., & Oliver, Plumly, cess. Psychological 61, 907-910. Reports, as a predictor of em & Fenzel Self efficacy (1999). Get back to work: Sherman, Regenold, outcome. 361-367. Rehabilitation Journal, 22(4), Psychiatric ployment in job of recruitment B. (1991). The Jr., & Gerhart, importance S.L., Bretz, R.D., Rynes, of looking. Personnel choice: A different 44, 487-521. way Psychology, assessments of applicant "fit": An explor B. (1990). Interviewer S.L., & Gerhart, Rynes, Personnel 43, 13-35. atory investigation. Psychology, and job search behav of individual differences B.E. (1999). Effects Saks, A.M., & Ashforth, Journal status iors on the employment of recent of Vocational university graduates. 54, 335-349. Behavior, in job search behaviors and employment B.E. (2000). Change A.M., & Ashforth, comes. Journal 56, 277-287. Behavior, of Vocational assertive (1993). Self-reported Amel, E.L., & Ryan, AM. Schmit, M.J., job seeking iors of minimally Personnel educated 46, 105-124. Psychology, job hunters. Saks, out behav
L. M. MOYNIHAN,
M. V. ROEHLING,
M. A. LEPINE,
AND
W.
BOSWELL
233
RA. (1987). Theories Schwab, D.P., Rynes, S.L., & Aldag, In K. Rowland and G. Ferris choice. (Eds.), Research source Management (Vol. 5, pp. 129-166). Greenwich, Sherer, M., (1982). 345-366. P.O. Soelberg, 19-29.
on job search and and research in Personnel and Human Re CT: JAI Press. R.W. Maddux, J.E., Mercadante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, The self efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Bulletin, 80, Psychological (1967). Unprogrammed decision making. Industrial Management Review, 8,
F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related A meta A.D, & Luthans, Stajkovic, performance: 240-261. Bulletin, 124(2), analysis. Psychological on applicants' C.K. to campus of preinterview beliefs reactions (1997). Effects Stevens, interviews. Journal, 40, 947-966. Academy of Management L.R. (1996). Job search and job selection. In L.R. Beach, Stevens, C.K., & Beach, ed., Deci sion making in the workplace: A unified New Lawrence Mahwah, perspective. Jersey: Erlbaum Publishers. Associates, S K. (1984). The of career and A, E.J., & Hartman, Strumpf, Austin, impact exploration on interview interview and outcomes. Journal readiness of Vocational performance Behavior, 24, 221-235. K. (1987). Self-efficacy S and coping with A, Brief, A.P., & Hartman, Strumpf, expectations events. career-related Journal Behavior, 31, 91-108. of Vocational T.J. & Bergmann, recruitment activities and appli (1987). Organizational M.S., Taylor, cants' at different in the recruitment reactions Personnel process. stages Psychology, 40, 261-285. to job acceptance related deci (1995). Factors Turban, D.B., Campion, J.E., & Eyring, AR. sions of college recruits. Journal 47, 193-213. Behavior, of Vocational D.J. without Individuals (1996). C.R., Watt, J.D., & Rumsey, Wanberg, jobs: An empirical behavior Journal and reemployment. study of job-seeking 81, of Applied Psychology, 76-87. career J.D. (2000). Relationships and job among Werbel, exploration, intensity, job search, search effectiveness in graduating student. Journal Behavior, 57, college of Vocational 379-394.

25092857

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

25092857

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

A Longitudinal Study of the Relationships among Job Search Self-Efficacy, Job Interviews, and Employment Outcomes Author(s): Lisa

ing that highly into job offers. KEY WORDS:

job seekers were more

job search self-efficacy;

job choice; job offers.

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Figure Prevailing View of Relationships of Interviews, ~ _ ? A |f

Job Among and Employment

? . ? Job Search aeii-iLHicacy

Employment ** * Outcomes: of Job Offers of Job Offers

L. M. MOYNIHAN, M. V. ROEHLING, M. A. LEPINE, AND W. BOSWELL

DEVELOPMENT OF PRIMARY HYPOTHESES: LITERATURE REVIEW, THEORY, AND SPECIFIC HYPOTHESES

With few exceptions, previous search self-efficacy to be positively

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

and Ashforth's related

survey co before weeks interviewing

survey 2 weeks befor tion. Terminated completed

26 terminated employees in pated outplacement

hospital that particithe program.

after shortly tion. .51,

(1989) state through

Sample Eden & Aviram (1993)

Self-Efficacy Measure Field

"voca66 unemployed tional workers."

1:114 hospital 2: employees Sample 103 managers Sample 3:418 graduating

Task-specific (from Ellis 1983).

self-esteem & Taylor, seniors.

initial pleted and follow-up

approximately ior later months tional sample assess survey 3 only

Sample Wandberg, Watt, & Rum640 laid off workers

Measure measure of Surveys

Procedure mailed after

sey (1996) tending

stuundergraduate at dent job seekers Time 1 data collection,

measure Task-specific JSSE (from Ellis & Taylor,

Saks & Ashforth (2000)

participants nai term, just

employed at Time 1 data collec(T2).

( graduation second survey 4 mont mailed

103 unemployed youth" solicited through

self-efficacy (GSE). Australian

in an ipating assistance agency. ment gram.

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

L. M. MOYNIHAN, M. V. ROEHLING, M. A. LEPINE, AND W. BOSWELL

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

OBJECTIVE QUALIFICATIONS, JOB SEARCH SELF-EFFICACY, AND EMPLOYMENT OUTCOMES

L. M. MOYNIHAN, M. V. ROEHLING, M. A. LEPINE, AND W. BOSWELL

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

L. M. MOYNIHAN, M. V. ROEHLING, M. A. LEPINE, AND W. BOSWELL

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

L. M. MOYNIHAN, M. V. ROEHLING, M. A. LEPINE, AND W. BOSWELL

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

self-efficacy 7. # of interviews ratio

*p < .05; **p < .01.

JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

.07* R2 .07 .06

.16** .23 .20

.05* .28 .24

Standardized *p < .05; **p < .01. AT =107.

Figure Interaction of Job Search Self-Efficacy Number of Job

3 and Number Offers of Interviews Predicting

5- yS J O 2 jS ^r ? -low * efficacy high efficacy

-I-.-. low Interviews high

.11 .10 2.43 1.88