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
University of Waterloo

Richard T. Cober
Booz Allen Hamilton

Kevin Kane
University of Waterloo

Paul E. Levy
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

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

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

718

RESEARCH REPORTS

Conscientiousness

Job Search Behavior

Proactive Personality

Self-Efficacy

Job Search Outcome

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

719 Mediational Hypotheses

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).

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).

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).

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

720

RESEARCH REPORTS 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.

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 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.

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

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.

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 M 0.57 5.07 3.92 3.86 4.62 3.07 4.27 1.29 0.88 SD 0.50 0.68 0.58 0.52 0.89 0.73 1.11 1.44 0.99 1 .12 .05 .02 .02 .00 .06 .05 .06 2 .83 .48** .39** .41** .07 .01 .11 .11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

.83 .42** .38** .18* .16* .11 .13 .87 .44** .19* .16* .21** .22** .70 .13 .09 .18* .19* .83 .62** .37** .19* .84 .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
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.

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

722
Table 2 Measurement Model Indicator Loadings
Indicator 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 Note. All loadings were significant at p .01. Loading .711 .875 .795 .785 .860 .798 .824 .816 .821 .742 .736 .644 .777 .834 .431 .862 .950 .808 .591 .805

RESEARCH REPORTS

Discussion
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.

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).

Table 3 Model Fit Statistics

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

2
232.35** 1,884.35** 1,221.24** 649.48** 244.42**

df 149 190 170 167 158

2/df
1.56 9.92 7.18 3.89 1.55

TLI .937 .307 .676 .939

RMSEA .056 .223 .186 .127 .055

CFI .951 .380 .715 .949

SRMR .049 .273 .216 .072 .056

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

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 Proactive personality Self-esteem Conscientiousness Self-efficacy Job search behavior Job search effort Direct H1: .37** (.11, .57) H15: .28* (.02, .52) H11: .17 (.09, .45) H2: .21* (.00, .40) Indirect Job search behavior Direct Indirect H7: .08* (.00, .19) H16: .06 (.01, .15) H12: .04 (.02, .13) H3: .16 (.02, .34) Job search effort Direct Indirect H8: .06 (.01, .15) H17: .04 (.01, .12) H13: .03 (.01, .11) H4: .24* (.01, .46) H5: .54** (.26, .85) H6: .20 (.50, .06) Job search outcome Direct Indirect 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 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

2
244.42** 242.17** 244.41** 242.63** 243.94** 242.69** 244.33** 243.24** 243.97** 244.28**

df 158 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 157 157

2/df
1.55

TLI .939 .939 .938 .939 .938 .939 .938 .938 .938 .938

RMSEA .055 .055 .056 .055 .056 .055 .056 .055 .056 .056

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

SRMR .056 .055 .055 .055 .055 .055 .056 .056 .055 .056

2.25 0.01 1.79 0.48 1.73 0.09 1.18 0.45 0.14

1.54 1.56 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.56 1.55 1.55 1.56

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
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.
5

RESEARCH REPORTS

725

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-

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 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.

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.

Received April 14, 2004 Revision received February 8, 2005 Accepted February 21, 2005