See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7046261

Proactive personality and successful job search:

A field investigation with college graduates
Article in Journal of Applied Psychology June 2006
Impact Factor: 4.31 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.717 Source: PubMed

CITATIONS

READS

112

664

5 authors, including:
Douglas J Brown

Paul E. Levy

University of Waterloo

University of Akron

37 PUBLICATIONS 1,139 CITATIONS

65 PUBLICATIONS 2,700 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Paul E. Levy

Retrieved on: 17 May 2016

Journal of Applied Psychology

2006, Vol. 91, No. 3, 717726

Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association

0021-9010/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.717

Proactive Personality and the Successful Job Search: A Field Investigation

With College Graduates
Douglas J. Brown

Richard T. Cober

University of Waterloo

Booz Allen Hamilton

Kevin Kane

Paul E. Levy

University of Waterloo

University of Akron

Jarrett Shalhoop
Jeanneret & Associates
The current article tests a model of proactive personality and job search success with a sample of 180
graduating college students. Using structural equation modeling, the authors tested a theoretical model
that 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, once
3 4 months prior to graduation and once 23 months following graduation. The results suggest that
proactive personality (a) significantly influenced the success of college graduates job search, (b) was
partially mediated through job search self-efficacy and job search behavior, and (c) was independent of
self-esteem and conscientiousness. The findings are discussed in terms of their general implications for
understanding the nature of the process through which distal personality factors, such as proactive
personality, affect the nature and success of an individuals job search.
Keywords: proactive personality, job search, social cognitive theory, self-efficacy

seems practically important that researchers identify who is at

risk and the processes that mediate these effects. In the current
article, we examine one possible dispositional antecedent, proactive personality.
A growing literature has shown that proactive personality is an
important antecedent of workplace adjustment and performance
(e.g., Seibert, Kraimer & Crant, 2001). At a general level, proactive personality has been defined as a dispositional tendency to
take personal initiative across a range of activities and situations
(Crant, 2000). Because a job search is largely self-directed and
provides substantial individual latitude as to whether action should
be initiated, individual proactivity may be particularly relevant for
understanding how a job search unfolds. Moreover, given the
degree of autonomy that exists during a job search, the investigation of personality may be quite informative, as individual differences predict outcomes best under these conditions (Barrick &
Mount, 1993). Despite logical linkages, proactive personality has
received limited attention within the job search context (Claes &
De Witte, 2002). In the current article, we extend prior work by
testing a model of proactive personality, job search behavior, and
job search success (see Figure 1). As such, the present study is a
response to calls for investigators to model the antecedents and
consequences of job search behavior (Saks & Ashforth, 1999;
Wanberg, Watt, & Rumsey, 1996) as well as the underlying
mechanisms that connect proactive personality with organizationally relevant outcomes (Crant & Bateman, 2004). To provide a
framework for understanding our predictions, we first review
literature on proactive personality, self-efficacy, and job search

The inability to find employment results in stress, depression,

anxiety (Wanberg & Kanfer, 1999), and feelings of stigmatization (Kulik, 2000). One population for which unemployment is
particularly problematic is recent college graduates. Young job
seekers perceive that there are numerous employment barriers
that impede their ability to meet career goals (Swanson &
Tokar, 1991), and national (for more information, see the Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site: www.bls.gov) and international surveys (Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and
Universities, 2002) suggest that younger workers have difficulty obtaining employment. Given the critical nature of ones
first job, the negative ramifications associated with unemployment, and the difficulties confronted by younger workers, it

Douglas J. Brown and Kevin Kane, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada; Richard T. Cober, Booz
Allen Hamilton, McLean, Virginia; Paul E. Levy, Department of Psychology, University of Akron; Jarrett Shalhoop, Jeanneret & Associates, Houston, Texas.
A previous version of this article was presented at the 19th Annual
Convention of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
Chicago, April 2004. This research was funded by a grant from the Society
for Human Resource Management Research Foundation. We thank Lisa
Keeping, Chet Robie, Lance Ferris, and Shawn Komar for their helpful
comments on an earlier version of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Douglas
J. Brown, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,
Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada. E-mail: djbrown@watarts.uwaterloo.ca
717

RESEARCH REPORTS

718

Conscientiousness

Job Search
Behavior

Proactive
Personality

Job Search
Outcome

Self-Efficacy

Job Search
Effort
Self-Esteem

Figure 1. Hypothesized model.

behaviors. Following this, we report the results from a two-wave

study that tests a model of job search using a sample of 180 college
job seekers.

Proactive Personality and Self-Efficacy

Proactive personality is premised on the observation that the
environment is jointly determined by both the person influencing
the situation and the situation influencing the person (Bowers,
1973). In effect, the person and environment continuously impact
one another (Bandura, 1986), which suggests that individuals are
not simply passive recipients of environmental presses (Buss,
1987, p. 1220) but instead exert influence over the environments
that they inhabit (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Nowhere is this idea
better captured than in Banduras work, which suggests that human
activity is agentic and intentionally driven by people in an attempt
to make things happen (Bandura, 2001, p. 1). In effect, agency
embodies the endowments, belief systems, self-regulatory capabilities and distributed structures and functions through which
individuals 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 examined
how individual variability in agency, a construct that they labeled
proactive personality, impacts workplace outcomes. Conceptually,
Crant has defined proactive personality as a relatively stable
tendency to effect environmental change (Bateman & Crant,
1993, p. 104) and has indicated that it is relatively unconstrained
by situational forces (Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999, p. 417).
Coinciding with previous theoretical work, empirical investigations have demonstrated not only that proactive individuals are
more successful but also that they respond more adaptively to their
environments. In this regard, prior research has shown that proactive personality is related to commissions (Crant, 1995), entrepreneurship (Becherer & Maurer, 1999), salary and promotions (Seibert 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 proactive
personality is a significant and robust predictor of career success.
To date, researchers have made very few efforts to assess
whether proactive personality influences preemployment outcomes. In fact, only one study has directly examined whether any
relation exists between proactive personality and job search outcomes (Claes & De Witte, 2002). In a cross-sectional study, Claes
and De Witte found that proactive personality was positively
related to the number of job search behaviors reported by college
students. In related work, Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng, and Tag
(1997) found that personal initiative, a construct that is conceptually similar to proactive personality, was significantly related to
the speed with which unemployed individuals obtained employment. Thus, although it seems reasonable to posit that proactive
personality is related to job search behaviors and outcomes, direct
evidence is limited, and no research has modeled the underlying
process.
Banduras (2001; Bandura & Locke, 2003) social cognitive
theory suggests that humans are evaluative, proactive regulators of
actions and that human agency is dependent on self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy refers to an individuals beliefs regarding his or her
ability to accomplish an action or behavior. Ultimately, the stronger an individuals efficacy beliefs are, the more likely he or she
is to persist and perform successfully within a domain. In effect,
social cognitive theory suggests that self-efficacy is the most
proximal regulator of human cognitive, motivational, affective,
behavioral, and decisional processes (Bandura, 1986). Coinciding
with this thinking, researchers generally agree that distal personality constructs impact relevant work behaviors through proximal
motivational constructs, such as self-efficacy (Kanfer, 1992). In
line with this thinking, Frese and Fay (2001) have argued that the
impact of proactive personality on behavior and outcomes is
mediated through domain-specific orientations, such as selfefficacy. In effect, Frese and Fay suggested that general dispositional tendencies to feel a sense of agency across situations spill

RESEARCH REPORTS

over into specific domains, coloring an individuals self-efficacy

judgments. On the basis of this logic, we hypothesize that proactive personality will be positively related to an individuals job
search self-efficacy (Hypothesis 1).
Prior meta-analyses have shown that, regardless of the setting or
the methodology used, self-efficacy is a proximal, robust, and
consequential antecedent of behavior across multiple spheres of
human activity (Holden, 1991; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Research has consistently revealed that an individuals self-efficacy
expectations are associated with increased effort, persistence, and
goal-directed activity (Bandura, 1986). Coinciding with this research, self-efficacy is a significant antecedent of job search behavior, job search effort, and job search outcomes (Eden & Aviram, 1993; Kanfer & Hulin, 1985; Saks & Ashforth, 1999, 2000).
On the basis of these findings, we hypothesize the following: Job
search self-efficacy will be positively related to job search behavior (Hypothesis 2), job search effort (Hypothesis 3), and job search
outcomes (Hypothesis 4).

Job Search Behavior and Effort

The employment outcomes that result from a job search are
directly related both to the job search behaviors that a job seeker
performs and the amount of effort that a job seeker exerts in his or
her job search (Blau, 1993). Conceptually, job search behavior
refers to the specific activities that an individual engages in to
acquire knowledge about labor market alternatives (Bretz, Boudreau, & Judge, 1994). These activities include preparatory behaviors that are related to gathering job search information and identifying potential leads during the planning phase of a job search
(e.g., reading wanted ads) and active behaviors that are related to
the actual job search (e.g., submitting resumes; Blau, 1993). Investigators who have examined job search behavior have suggested that preparatory and active job search behaviors are proximal antecedents to employment outcomes (Kanfer, Wanberg, &
Kantrowitz, 2001; Saks & Ashforth, 1999) and that the frequency
of job search behaviors should translate into an increase in the
number of job interviews and job offers received by an individual
(Saks & Ashforth, 2000).
Empirical work has shown job search effort to be related to yet
distinguishable from job search behavior (Blau, 1993). Unlike job
search behavior, which gauges the frequency with which individuals engage in specific activities, job search effort assesses the
general level of effort or intensity that individuals invest in their
job search. In essence, job search effort provides a more general
indication of the time, effort, and focus that job seekers direct
toward their job search. In terms of theory, Schwab, Rynes, and
Aldag (1987) have hypothesized that the more job search effort an
individual exerts, the more opportunities and job offers he or she
should receive. In line with this prediction, research by Saks and
Ashforth (2000) has indicated that job search effort is a proximal
antecedent of the number of interviews obtained and ones employment status (Saks & Ashforth, 2000). On the basis of this
literature, we hypothesize that job search behavior will be positively related to job search outcomes (Hypothesis 5), as will job
search effort (Hypothesis 6).

719
Mediational Hypotheses

Given the general distinction between distal and proximal antecedents (Kanfer, 1992), Banduras (2001) work, and theoretical
work on proactivity (Frese & Fay, 2001), we conceptualize the
impact of proactive personality to be indirect, operating through
proximal antecedents (e.g., self-efficacy). In addition, on the basis
of social cognitive theory, we also conceptualize job search selfefficacy to have an indirect influence through job search effort and
job search behavior. On the basis of this thinking, we predict
indirect effects of proactive personality on job search behavior
(Hypothesis 7), proactive personality on job search effort (Hypothesis 8), proactive personality on job search outcomes (Hypothesis
9), and self-efficacy on job search outcomes (Hypothesis 10).

Additional Distal Antecedents: Conscientiousness and

Self-Esteem
In addition to proactive personality, we also model conscientiousness and self-esteem because of their well-established relations with job search processes (Kanfer et al., 2001). Conceptually,
conscientiousness has been defined as the extent to which an
individual is hardworking, achievement oriented, and persevering
(Barrick & Mount, 1991). Prior research into conscientiousness
has shown that it is moderately associated with proactive personality (r .43; Bateman & Crant, 1993) and that it is a significant
precursor to several key job search outcomes and processes (Kanfer et al., 2001). Given the empirical overlap between proactive
personality and conscientiousness (Bateman & Crant, 1993) and its
relation to job search outcomes (e.g., Kanfer et al., 2001), we
incorporated conscientiousness into our model. On the basis of
previous findings, we hypothesize that there will be a significant
direct 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 job
search effort (Hypothesis 13), and an indirect effect of conscientiousness on job search outcomes (Hypothesis 14).
Self-esteem refers to the positivity of an individuals global
self-evaluation. Relative to individuals with low self-esteem, individuals with high self-esteem regard themselves highly and feel
satisfied with their attributes. Generally speaking, self-esteem is an
essential precursor to effective functioning (Kunda, 1999). Within
the job search context, researchers have found self-esteem to be
positively related to the number of offers received, satisfaction
with the job search, job search self-efficacy, and job offers prior to
graduation (e.g., Ellis & Taylor, 1983; Saks & Ashforth, 1997).
Moreover, meta-analytic findings (Kanfer et al., 2001) suggest that
a significant relation exists between self-esteem and job search
behavior such that self-esteem is positively related to job search
behaviors among job seekers. On this basis, we hypothesize that
there will be a significant direct effect of self-esteem on selfefficacy (Hypothesis 15), an indirect effect of self-esteem on job
search behavior (Hypothesis 16), an indirect effect of self-esteem
on job search effort (Hypothesis 17), and an indirect effect of
self-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 of
the distal dispositional variables (e.g., proactive personality) on job

RESEARCH REPORTS

720

search behavior, job search effort, and job search outcomes is fully
mediated. Although full mediation is plausible, previous theoretical work in the proactive personality literature is equivocal on this
issue. For example, whereas Frese and Fays (2001) model implicitly suggests that proactive personalitys influence on outcomes is fully mediated through psychological orientations, such
as self-efficacy, Crant (2000) has proposed that direct relations
exist between proactive personality and its consequences. Similarly, one might reasonably suggest that conscientiousness and
self-esteem have direct relations with many of the endogenous
variables included in our model. On the basis of this thinking, we
also assess the plausibility of partial mediation. In particular, we
expect that evidence for partial mediation will be evident between
proactive personality and job search behavior, job search effort,
and job search outcomes (Hypothesis 19); conscientiousness and
job search behavior, job search effort, and job search outcomes
(Hypothesis 20); and self-esteem and job search behavior, job
search effort, and job search outcomes (Hypothesis 21).

Method

Self-esteem. We assessed self-esteem with a 10-item measure (Rosenberg, 1965). Participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale (strongly
disagree 1 to strongly agree 5). An example item is, At times I think
I am no good at all.
Job search self-efficacy. We assessed job search self-efficacy with a
two-item measure that we adapted from Ellis and Taylor (1983). Participants indicated their agreement with each item on a 5-point scale (strongly
disagree 1 to strongly agree 5). These items were as follows: My
qualifications for employment are better than most people, and Organizations generally view people like me as good candidates for employment.
Job search behavior. We used a modified version of Blaus (1993,
1994) 12-item Job Search Behavior Scale.2 For each item, participants
indicated the frequency with which they had performed each behavior
along a 5-point scale ranging from 1 never (0 times) to 5 very
frequently (at least 10 times). An example item is, prepared or revised
your resume.
Job search effort. We assessed job search effort with Blaus (1993)
four-item scale. Participants indicated their agreement with each item on a
6-point scale (strongly disagree 1 to strongly agree 6). An example
item is, devoted much effort to looking for jobs.
Job search outcomes. We asked participants to report two job search
outcomes at Time 2: (a) the number of follow-up interviews received, and
(b) the total number of job offers received.

Participants
We recruited 497 graduating students from a midwestern university to
participate in this study. One hundred eighty-three students completed both
surveys (37% response rate). An initial examination for univariate and
multivariate outliers revealed three univariate outliers on the job offers
variable (i.e., more than 4.75 standard deviations above the mean; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Given that outliers can have undue influence, creating
both 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 on
the remaining 180 participants.

Procedure
We administered surveys in two waves, 3 4 months prior to graduation
(Time 1) and 23 months following graduation (Time 2). Participants
received $5 in compensation at Time 1 and were entered into a $50
drawing at Time 2. The first survey included the following: (a) the
Proactive Personality Scale (Bateman & Crant, 1993), (b) a conscientiousness scale, (c) a self-esteem measure, (d) a job search self-efficacy scale,
and (e) demographic items. Participants also provided their date of graduation and follow-up contact information. The Time 2 survey included
measures of job search effort, job search behavior, and job search outcomes. To maximize our Time 2 response rate, we followed the procedures
outlined by Dillman (2000). Initially, we sent all participants a reminder
postcard set to coincide with their graduation date. Next, we mailed
participants a survey with a self-addressed return envelope. Those who had
not responded within 2 weeks received a second survey package. A week
later, we sent a reminder E-mail with a link to an online version of the
survey.1

Measures
Proactive personality. We used Bateman and Crants (1993) 10-item
Proactive Personality Scale. Participants indicated their agreement on a
7-point scale (strongly disagree 1 to strongly agree 7). An example
item is, If I see something I dont like, I fix it.
Conscientiousness. We assessed conscientiousness with Goldbergs
(1999) 10-item scale. For each item, participants indicated their agreement
on a 5-point scale (strongly disagree 1 to strongly agree 5). An
example item is, I am always prepared.

Analytic Strategy
We tested the hypothesized model and paths using AMOS 5.0 (Arbuckle, 2003). On the basis of previous recommendations (Hall, Snell, &
Foust, 1999), we formed item parcels to create three indicators each for
proactive personality, conscientiousness, self-esteem, and job search behavior. We created item parcels for these four constructs to reduce the
sample size to parameter ratio, as this ratio impacts the standard errors and
stability of the estimates. Because self-efficacy and job search outcome
were composed only of two items each and job search effort was composed
only of four items, we used each item as a separate indicator for these three
constructs. Following the recommendations of Anderson and Gerbing
(1988), we tested our proposed model using a two-stage analytic procedure. In the first step we fitted a measurement model to the data, and in the
second step we tested the underlying structural model. In evaluating the fit
of each of the tested models, we used the following: (a) chi-square
goodness of fit to degrees of freedom ratio, (b) TuckerLewis 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). Previous
work suggests that satisfactory model fit is indicated by TLI and CFI
values no smaller than .90, RMSEA values no higher than .08, SRMR
values no higher than .10, and a chi-square goodness of fit to degrees of

One hundred thirty-nine of our participants completed the paper version, and 41 completed the online version of the survey. Comparisons
between the paper and online survey groups revealed that there were no
significant 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 scales applicability
for our sample. First, because Blau (1993) originally developed his items
to assess job search behavior among currently employed individuals, we
deemed several of his items to be inappropriate and, as such, deleted them
(e.g., Listed yourself as a job applicant in a newspaper, journal, or
professional association). Second, recent technological advances have
increased job seekers reliance on the Internet (Cober, Brown, Levy,
Keeping, & Cober, 2003). Because Blaus scale does not assess Internet job
search behavior, we added three items to tap these activities (e.g., Visited
a companys employment website).

RESEARCH REPORTS

721

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics, Zero-Order Correlations, and Alphas
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Gender
Self-esteem
Conscientiousness
Proactive
personality
Job search selfefficacy
Job search
behavior
Job search effort
No. second-round
interviews
No. job offers

SD

0.57
5.07
3.92

0.50
0.68
0.58

.12
.05

.83
.48**

.83

3.86

0.52

.02

.39**

.42**

.87

4.62

0.89

.02

.41**

.38**

.44**

.70

3.07
4.27

0.73
1.11

.00
.06

.07
.01

.18*
.16*

.19*
.16*

.13
.09

.83
.62**

.84

1.29
0.88

1.44
0.99

.05
.06

.11
.11

.11
.13

.21**
.22**

.18*
.19*

.37**
.19*

.20**
.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.

freedom ratio no greater than 2 (Bentler, 1990; Browne & Cudeck, 1993).
Additionally, we followed Hu and Bentlers (1998, 1999) advice and
assessed 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 traditional methods, which assume mathematical distributions, bootstrapping
is a nonparametric approach to hypothesis testing whereby one estimates
the standard errors empirically using the available data (Mooney & Duval,
1993). Operationally, in bootstrapping multiple samples are drawn, with
replacement, from the original data set, and the model is reestimated on
each sample, which results in a number of path estimates that is equal to the
number of samples drawn from the original data set. Following current
recommendations, we resampled 1,000 times and used the percentile
method to create 95% confidence intervals (Mooney & Duval, 1993). In
the percentile method, the sample estimates are ordered from lowest to
highest, and the estimates corresponding with the upper and lower 2.5% of
the bootstrap distribution are used to create the 95% confidence interval.

underlying factor, and a three-factor model. We created the threefactor model by having the individual-differences constructs load
on a single factor, having job search behavior and job search effort
load on a single factor, and including the job search outcome
factor. In addition, we also compared the fit of the hypothesized
measurement model with the less constrained independence
model. In each case, the hypothesized measurement model fit the
data better than any of the alternatives, both in terms of the fit
statistics and when directly contrasted with a change in chi-square
test.
Given the acceptable fit of the measurement model, we tested
our structural model (see Figure 1). Overall, the fit indexes suggest
that adequate fit was achieved both when we evaluated the model
against the recommended cutoffs and when we used the combination cutoff approach (Hu & Bentler, 1998, 1999). Moreover, it is
noteworthy that, despite being more constrained than the measurement model, the structural model did not differ significantly in

Results
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, alphas, and intercorrelations.4 It is notable that proactive personality was significantly related to job search self-efficacy, job search behavior, job
search effort, the job search outcome variables, and conscientiousness. This pattern of relations both provides preliminary evidence
that proactive personality is an important precursor to an effective
job search and replicates its relation with other dispositional variables (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Finally, Table 1 also reveals that
job search self-efficacy was significantly related to both of the job
search outcome variables.
Table 2 displays the standardized factor loadings for the indicators used in the measurement model. Table 3 displays the fit
statistics for the measurement model. Overall, the hypothesized
measurement model fit the data quite well when evaluated in terms
of the recommended cutoffs or the combination cutoff approach
(Hu & Bentler, 1998, 1999). For purposes of comparison, we
contrasted the hypothesized measurement model with two constrained nested models in which certain factors were set to load on
a single factor. In particular, we created a one-factor model, in
which all of the hypothesized factors were set to load on a single

3
In the current article, we tested our hypotheses with bootstrapping
procedures because the sampling distribution associated with indirect effects is known to be nonnormal (Bollen & Stine, 1990), which compromises the statistical power of traditional parametric tests (Shrout & Bolger,
2002). To avoid this difficulty, several authors have recommended that
researchers use nonparametric bootstrapping procedures when examining
indirect effects because no assumptions regarding the underlying sampling
distribution 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 selective
return of the Time 2 survey. Because biased returns can undermine external
validity, we initially conducted t tests to ascertain whether our final group
of job seekers (N 180), on whom we tested the hypotheses, differed
significantly from the participants who did not complete the Time 2 survey
(n 314). That is, we examined whether the two groups differed on any
of the individual differences that we collected at Time 1. No differences
emerged 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 representative
of the initial sample that we recruited for this study.

RESEARCH REPORTS

722
Table 2
Measurement Model Indicator Loadings

Note.

Discussion

Indicator

Loading

Proactive Personality 1
Proactive Personality 2
Proactive Personality 3
Conscientiousness 1
Conscientiousness 2
Conscientiousness 3
Self-Esteem 1
Self-Esteem 2
Self-Esteem 3
Self-Efficacy 1
Self-Efficacy 2
Job Search Behavior 1
Job Search Behavior 2
Job Search Behavior 3
Job Search Effort 1
Job Search Effort 2
Job Search Effort 3
Job Search Effort 4
Outcome 1
Outcome 2

.711
.875
.795
.785
.860
.798
.824
.816
.821
.742
.736
.644
.777
.834
.431
.862
.950
.808
.591
.805

All loadings were significant at p .01.

terms of its fit (2 12.07, p .10). The findings for the

hypothesized direct and indirect relations are presented in Table 4.
As shown in Table 4, all of the hypotheses dealing with proactive
personality, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and job search behavior
received some support, whereas the hypothesized relations for job
search effort and conscientiousness received no support. To further
assess whether the hypothesized indirect effects were fully or
partially mediated, we tested several additional models, each including a distinct direct path (see Table 5). In the top row of Table
5, the results of the hypothesized structural model are presented.
Each subsequent row presents the results of a less constrained
model that included an additional direct path. In no case did the
inclusion of a direct path improve the fit of the hypothesized
model, which suggests that the effect of the distal constructs was
fully mediated. Overall, these results suggest that there was no
evidence for any of the partial mediation hypotheses (Hypotheses
19, 20, and 21).

To design interventions that benefit job seekers, it is important

for researchers to identify and model the key antecedents, mechanisms, and outcomes associated with the job search process. In
the current article, we have tested a model that incorporates thinking from social cognitive theory, work on human agency, and the
distinction between distal and proximal predictors. In particular,
our model links distal job seeker personality characteristics, job
seeking self-efficacy, and job search behavior with job search
outcomes. Our findings reveal that proactive personality may be an
important but previously neglected antecedent to a successful job
search. In this regard, proactive personality was significantly related to job search self-efficacy, which in turn predicted job search
behavior and job search effort. Moreover, job search behavior and
job search self-efficacy were significantly related to the outcomes
obtained by a job seeker following his or her job search. In line
with prior research, our results suggest that the impact of proactive
personality was fully mediated by the behavioral and cognitive
constructs included in our model (e.g., Seibert et al., 2001). Finally, it is noteworthy that our findings reaffirm self-esteem as an
important dispositional antecedent of self-efficacy and the overall
success of a job seekers job search.
Additionally, our findings reaffirm the central role that job
seeker self-efficacy plays in an effective job search. Numerous
prior studies have demonstrated that higher levels of job search
activity are related to an individuals job search self-efficacy (e.g.,
Eden & Aviram, 1993; Kanfer & Hulin, 1985; Saks & Ashforth,
1999). Similarly, our study indicates that job search self-efficacy
was related to an individuals job search behavior and job search
outcomes and marginally related to the amount of effort exerted
during a job search. Beyond replicating prior work, our study
extends the extant literature by positioning self-efficacy within a
broader nomological network of antecedents and consequences. In
this regard, Frese and Fay (2001) have theorized that the relations
between proactive personality and proactive behaviors (e.g., job
search behaviors) are mediated through context-specific orientations, such as self-efficacy. Our findings seem to support Frese and
Fays framework within a job search setting. As such, not only is
self-efficacy an important antecedent of job search processes, it
may also assist researchers in understanding why distal personality
constructs relate to job search variables.

Table 3
Model Fit Statistics
Model

df

2/df

TLI

RMSEA

CFI

SRMR

Hypothesized seven-factor
measurement model
Independence model
One-factor measurement model
Three-factor measurement model
Hypothesized structural model

232.35**
1,884.35**
1,221.24**
649.48**
244.42**

149
190
170
167
158

1.56
9.92
7.18
3.89
1.55

.937

.056
.223
.186
.127
.055

.951

1,652.00**
988.89**
417.13**
12.07

.049
.273
.216
.072
.056

.307
.676
.939

.380
.715
.949

Note. N 180. In the three-factor and seven-factor models, the relation among the latent constructs were freely estimated. The three-factor model
consisted of an individual-differences factor, a job search behavior/effort factor, and a job search outcome factor. We calculated change in chi-square by
independently contrasting the independence model, the one-factor measurement model, the three-factor measurement model, and the hypothesized structural
model against the hypothesized seven-factor measurement model. TLI TuckerLewis 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.

RESEARCH REPORTS

723

Table 4
Standardized Direct and Indirect Effects and the Associated 95% Confidence Intervals
Outcome
Self-efficacy
Predictor

Direct

Proactive personality

H1: .37**
(.11, .57)
H15: .28*
(.02, .52)
H11: .17
(.09, .45)

Self-esteem
Conscientiousness

Indirect

Self-efficacy

Job search behavior

Direct

Job search effort

Indirect

Direct

H7: .08*
(.00, .19)
H16: .06
(.01, .15)
H12: .04
(.02, .13)
H2: .21*
(.00, .40)

Job search outcome

Indirect

Direct

Indirect

H8: .06
(.01, .15)
H17: .04
(.01, .12)
H13: .03
(.01, .11)
H3: .16
(.02, .34)

H4: .24*
(.01, .46)
H5: .54**
(.26, .85)
H6: .20
(.50, .06)

Job search behavior

Job search effort

H9: .12*
(.01, .25)
H18: .09*
(.01, .21)
H14: .06
(.03, .17)
H10: .08
(.02, .19)

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

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

action to effect environmental change (i.e., move from unemployment to employment), and the overlap between proactive personality and conscientiousness, it is possible that conscientiousness
was supplanted by proactive personality. Given that previous work
has operationalized conscientiousness broadly, one avenue of future job search research may be to consider narrower facets of
conscientiousness (e.g., achievement) that may be more relevant to
the job search domain.

Implications
Our findings advance the job search literature insofar as they
have extended what is known about the antecedents and consequences of the job search process. As some authors have suggested, relatively little progress (Saks & Ashforth, 1999, p. 336)
has been made along this front. Our study not only tests the role of
a personality variable, proactive personality, that has received
marginal attention in past job search research, it has also demon-

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

df

Hypothesized structural model

Freed path
Proactive personality 3 job search behavior
Proactive personality 3 job search effort
Proactive personality 3 job search outcome
Self-esteem 3 job search behavior
Self-esteem 3 job search effort
Self-esteem 3 job search outcome
Conscientiousness 3 job search behavior
Conscientiousness 3 job search effort
Conscientiousness 3 job search outcome

244.42**

158

242.17**
244.41**
242.63**
243.94**
242.69**
244.33**
243.24**
243.97**
244.28**

157
157
157
157
157
157
157
157
157

2.25
0.01
1.79
0.48
1.73
0.09
1.18
0.45
0.14

2/df

TLI

RMSEA

CFI

SRMR

1.55

.939

.055

.949

.056

1.54
1.56
1.55
1.55
1.55
1.56
1.55
1.55
1.56

.939
.938
.939
.938
.939
.938
.938
.938
.938

.055
.056
.055
.056
.055
.056
.055
.056
.056

.950
.948
.949
.949
.949
.948
.949
.949
.948

.055
.055
.055
.055
.055
.056
.056
.055
.056

Note. N 180. TLI TuckerLewis 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.

724

RESEARCH REPORTS

strated the variables distinct role from other well-established job

search antecedents and positioned it within a coherent, theoretically derived framework. Practically, our results indicate that
many job seekers could benefit from training interventions that are
designed to enhance their level of proactivity. Although the vast
majority of previous research has conceptualized proactive personality as a stable individual difference, recent data indicate that
training interventions can alter proactive personality (Kirby,
Kirby, & Lewis, 2002). Although previous research has demonstrated the benefits of using training interventions with unemployed populations (e.g., Eden & Aviram, 1993), the use of proactive training interventions is limited. Thus, a practical extension
of our findings might be to examine whether training interventions
can mitigate the negative consequences that arise from scoring low
along the proactive personality continuum.
Beyond contributing to the job search literature, our findings
may also inform why proactive individuals succeed. A growing
body of work attests to the fact that proactive personality is a
robust predictor of career success following organizational entry
(Crant, 2000). To date, researchers largely have focused on demonstrating simple main effects, and only recently has interest
shifted toward investigating the underlying process (Crant & Bateman, 2004). Our study contributes to the growing body of processoriented work (e.g., Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003) and
extends it by suggesting that the benefits that derive from proactivity may originate prior to organizational entry. As our findings
suggest, proactive individuals may have more employment options
available, which may allow them not only to select more satisfying
jobs but also to select organizations that better fit their personal
preferences and values. Researchers who have examined the
posthire consequences associated with person organization fit
have demonstrated that it can positively impact employee attitudes,
commitment, and turnover intentions (Cable & Judge, 1996). Although the link between proactive personality and posthire consequences through fit is speculative, it is consistent with recent work
that has shown that job search behavior and posthire outcomes are
mediated through fit (Saks & Ashforth, 2002).

Limitations and Future Research

One limitation of the current investigation is that we collected
all data from a single source, which raises the possibility that
common method variance (CMV) influenced our findings. Following previous procedures, we took several steps to reduce the
plausibility of CMV (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,
2003). In terms of procedure, we collected our data across multiple
waves, used varied scale anchors, and used negatively worded
items. With respect to statistics, we assessed CMV with the Harman one-factor test, which suggested that it was not an issue.5
Although it is not possible to definitively rule out CMV (Podsakoff
et al., 2003), the procedural and statistical steps taken suggest that
it is unlikely that CMV impacted our findings substantially.
In recent years, there have been several calls for researchers to
recognize the contextual constraints that limit the generalizability
of their findings (Johns, 2001). One contextual factor that should
be considered in future research is the general economic context
that exists at the time that a job seeker initiates his or her job
search. Our data collection occurred between 2001 and 2002, a
time during which unemployment among younger workers was on

the rise (Chen, 2003). Whether the relations reported in this article
and the job search literature in general are bounded by the broader
economic conditions confronted by job seekers is a question that
deserves further empirical scrutiny (Feldman, 2002).
Future research should also examine whether our findings generalize beyond college students to better established job seekers.
Today, the traditional conceptualization of careers, which was
characterized by sequential movement within a single organization, has been challenged by scholars who contend that todays
careers are best viewed as boundaryless (Arthur & Rousseau,
1996). To the extent that boundaryless careers require movement
within and across firms, we anticipate that proactive personality
should remain a particularly potent contributor to an individuals
overall career success, an idea borne out by recent research (Seibert et al., 1999). In addition, it may also be interesting to examine
whether societal biases exacerbate the impact of proactive personality for particular segments of society. In fact, being proactive
may be particularly important for individuals from traditionally
disadvantaged and stigmatized job seeker groups (e.g., job seekers
with disabilities).
Future research should also examine the relation between proactive personality and job search processes across cultures. It is
widely recognized that situations can constrain the expression of
personality (Mischel, 1977; Weiss & Adler, 1984). Strong situations, versus weak, create relatively uniform, normative expectancies for individuals regarding what is and is not appropriate behavior. Triandis (1989) has noted that cultural differences exist
along a tight to loose continuum, which refers to the extent to
which cultures pressure individuals to conform to in-group norms
and expectancies. Applying this thinking, one might expect that
the relations between proactive personality and job search processes are culturally bound. Although this idea has not received
direct scrutiny, related work has shown that cultural expectations
and norms may moderate the expression of proactive behavior
(Frese, Kring, Soose, & Zempel, 1996). More generally, we urge
researchers to consider possible situational moderators of proactive personality.
Despite its relatively recent introduction to the organizational
literature, the available data indicate that proactive personality may
have considerable utility for understanding organizationally relevant outcomes and processes (e.g., job search). That being said,
future work examining the relations between proactive personality
and related dispositional constructs is still needed, both to sharpen
our understanding and to ensure that the variables introduction
5

We note that, despite its widespread application, researchers have

questioned the usefulness of the Harman one-factor test as a statistical
indicator of CMV (Podsakoff et al., 2003). On the basis of the recommendations of an anonymous reviewer, we conducted a supplementary analysis
to further assess the impact of CMV. In this regard, we adapted the
methodology used by Simons and Roberson (2003) to control for CMV in
our substantive model. In essence, the approach involves the inclusion in
the substantive model of a conceptually uninvolved latent variable that is
allowed to cross-load onto all of the relevant substantive indicators, in
effect controlling for CMV. In the current case, a measure of racial comfort
was available from the Time 1 survey. Rerunning our structural equation
model with a control for the uninvolved latent variable did not change the
substantive conclusions regarding our direct and indirect effects. Interested
readers may contact Douglas J. Brown for the findings from these analyses.

RESEARCH REPORTS

has not created unnecessary conceptual confusion. On this latter

point, the distinction between proactive personality and personal
initiative appears particularly deserving of greater attention. Despite previous theoretical arguments distinguishing the two constructs, personal initiative, which refers to long-term, goaloriented, persistent, self-starting behavior, seems to share some
conceptual overlap with proactive personality (Crant, 2000; Frese
& Fay, 2001). Similarly, the extent to which proactive personality
differs from achievement striving also warrants additional consideration. Although prior work suggests that proactive personality,
achievement striving, and personal initiative are related yet distinct
constructs (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Frese & Fay, 2001), only a
limited number of studies have simultaneously considered these
variables. As such, future research using multitraitmultimethod
designs as well as incremental validity studies may be particularly
beneficial for clarifying the boundaries between proactive personality and other related constructs.

Conclusion
Academic interest in the investigation of job search behavior has
increased dramatically in recent years. Despite growing interest,
few studies have considered the antecedents or consequences of
the job search process (Saks & Ashforth, 1999). This study has
examined the distal and proximal predictors of a successful job
search with a sample of college job seekers. The model supported
by our data may prove helpful for career counselors trying to
identify and intervene with those job seekers who are least likely
to engage in constructive job search practices or find a job in a
timely manner. The model presented in the current article suggests
that, to some extent, the success or failure of an individuals job
search depends on his or her level of proactivity. As such, the data
reported in the current article may be particularly valuable for
career counselors and job seekers, as they provide important insight into the antecedents and mechanisms that may underlie a
successful job search experience.

References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in
practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological
Bulletin, 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, 126.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects
revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 8799.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44,
126.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the
relationship between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 111118.
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of
organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103118.
Becherer, R. C., & Maurer, J. G. (1999). The proactive personality dispo-

725

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. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 238 246.
Blau, G. (1993). Further exploring the relationship between job search and
voluntary individual turnover. Personnel Psychology, 46, 313330.
Blau, G. (1994). Testing a two-dimensional measure of job search behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59, 288
312.
Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. (1990). Direct and indirect effects: Classical and
bootstrap estimates of variability. Sociological Methodology, 20, 115
140.
Bowers, K. S. (1973). Situationism in psychology: An analysis and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 307336.
Bretz, R. D., Boudreau, J. W., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Job search behavior
of employed managers. Personnel Psychology, 47, 275301.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model
fit. In K. A. Bollen & S. J. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation
models (pp. 136 162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Buss, D. M. (1987). Selection, evocation, and manipulation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1214 1221.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice
decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 294 311.
Chen, C. Y. (2003, June 23). Grads arent seeing green: The class of 03
is facing the worst job market in a decade. Fortune, 147(12). Available
from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/
06/23/344590/index.htm
Claes, R., & De Witte, H. (2002). Determinants of graduates preparatory
job search behaviour: A competitive test of proactive personality and
expectancy-value theory. Psychologica Belgica, 42, 251266.
Cober, R. T., Brown, D. J., Levy, P. E., Keeping, L. M., & Cober, A. J.
(2003). Organizational Web site content and style as determinants of
organizational attraction. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11, 158 169.
Crant, J. M. (1995). The Proactive Personality Scale and objective job
performance among real estate agents. Journal of Applied Psychology,
80, 532537.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435 462.
Crant, J. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2004, August). The central role of
proactive behavior in organizations. Paper presented at the meeting of
the Academy of Management, New Orleans, LA.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design
method (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Eden, D., & Aviram, A. (1993). Self-efficacy training to speed reemployment: Helping people to help themselves. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 352360.
Ellis, R. A., & Taylor, M. S. (1983). Role of self-esteem within the job
search process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 632 640.
Feldman, D. C. (2002). Stability in the midst of change: A developmental
perspective on the study of careers. In D. C. Feldman (Ed.), Work
careers (pp. 326). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). Personal initiative: An active performance
concept for work in the 21st century. Research in Organizational Behavior, 23, 133187.
Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept
of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two
German samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 139 161.
Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at
work: Differences between East and West Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 37 63.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). International personality item pool: A scientific

726

RESEARCH REPORTS

collaboratory for the development of advanced measures of personality

and 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 in
SEM: Investigating the subtle effects of unmodeled secondary constructs. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 233256.
Holden, G. (1991). The relationship of self-efficacy appraisals to subsequent health related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Social Work in Health
Care, 16, 5393.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure
modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification.
Psychological Methods, 3, 424 453.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155.
Johns, G. (2001). In praise of context. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
22, 31 42.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Wanberg, C. R. (2003). Unwrapping the
organizational entry process: Disentangling multiple antecedents and
their pathways to adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 779
794.
Kanfer, R. (1992). Work motivation: New directions in theory and research. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of
industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 153). Chichester,
England: Wiley.
Kanfer, R., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). Individual differences in successful job
searches following lay-off. Personnel Psychology, 38, 835 847.
Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C. R., & Kantrowitz, T. M. (2001). Job search and
employment: A personality-motivational analysis and meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 837 855.
Kirby, E. G., Kirby, S. L., & Lewis, M. A. (2002). A study of the
effectiveness of training proactive thinking. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 32, 1538 1549.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management
Journal, 42, 58 74.
Kulik, L. (2000). Jobless men and women: A comparative analysis of job
search intensity, attitudes toward unemployment and related responses.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 487500.
Kunda, Z. (1999). Social cognition: Making sense of people. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current
issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333352). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Mooney, C. Z., & Duval, R. D. (1993). Bootstrapping: A nonparametric
approach to statistical inference. In M. S. Lewis Beck (Ed.), Quantitative
applications in the social sciences (Vol. 95, pp. 172). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. (2002). Employment profile: A summary of the employment experience of 2000 2001
college graduates six months after graduation. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Author.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the
literature 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 the

relationships between job information sources, applicant perceptions of
fit, and work outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 50, 395 426.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1999). Effects of individual differences
and job search behaviors on the employment status of recent university
graduates. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 335349.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2000). Change in job search behaviors and
employment outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 277287.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2002). Is job search related to employment
quality? 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 on
job search choice. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 5, 129 166.
Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality
and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 416 427.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive
people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and
career success. Personnel Psychology, 54, 845 874.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422 445.
Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about
fairness: The effects of aggregate justice perceptions on organizational
outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 432 443.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related
performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240 261.
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An
interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25,
173180.
Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Four lessons learned from the
person-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 of
barriers to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 38,
92106.
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 interactionist
model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500 517.
Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural
contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506 520.
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum
likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 110.
Wanberg, C. R., & Kanfer, R. (1999). Unemployed individuals: Motives,
job-search competencies, and job-search constraints as predictors of job
seeking and reemployment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 897
910.
Wanberg, C. R., Watt, J. D., & Rumsey, D. J. (1996). Individuals without
jobs: 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, 150.

Received April 14, 2004

Revision received February 8, 2005
Accepted February 21, 2005