Linking protean career orientation and career decidedness: The mediating role of career decision self-efficacy

Journal of Vocational Behavior 115 (2019) 103322

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

Linking protean career orientation and career decidedness: The mediating role of career decision self-efficacy

T

⁎

Hui Lia, , Hang-yue Ngob, Francis Cheungc a b c

College of Management, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China Department of Sociology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong Department of Applied Psychology, Lingnan University, Hong Kong

A R T IC LE I N F O

ABS TRA CT

Keywords: Protean career orientation Career decidedness Career decision self-efficacy Career adaptability University students

This study examines the linkage between protean career orientation and career decidedness. It also explores the possible mediating roles of career decision self-efficacy and career adaptability in the above relationship. Several hypotheses are developed and tested with data collected from university students in Hong Kong and the United States. Results of structural equation modeling and bootstrapping indicate that protean career orientation is positively related to career decision self-efficacy and career adaptability. Career decision self efficacy, but not career adaptability, is found to mediate the relationship between protean career orientation and career decidedness. The two samples show the same structural model results, based on cross cultural equivalence test.

1. Introduction Deciding on a career is a salient developmental task for adolescents (Super, 1990). During the globalization era, increasing uncertainty and heightening job insecurity in the labor market have made young people's career choice rather difficult. When starting to think about their future careers, many of them may feel undecided about how to proceed, and have low confidence in determining a specific career direction (Amir & Gati, 2006; Ginevra, Pallini, Vecchio, Nota, & Soresi, 2016). Career decidedness refers to the level of confidence or certainty about intended career paths individuals would like to pursue and develop after leaving school (Gordon, 1998; Restubog, Florentino, & Garcia, 2010). Past research indicated that career decidedness is positively associated with subjective well-being and successful school-to-work transition for college students (Arnold, 1989; Lounsbury, Hutchens, & Loveland, 2005). Those who are more career-decided tend to realize career opportunities within their chosen vocational domain, and enjoy higher levels of job and life satisfaction (Hirschi, 2011; Lounsbury, Tatum, Chambers, Owens, & Gibson, 1999; Uthayakumar, Schimmack, Hartung, & Rogers, 2010). In current literature, various individual characteristics such as personality traits (Gordon, 1998; Lounsbury et al., 1999; Lounsbury et al., 2005) and personal values (Fearon, Nachmias, McLaughlin, & Jackson, 2018; Ginevra et al., 2016) have been identified as main antecedents of university students' career decidedness. Surprisingly, little attention has been paid to career orientation, which plays a vital role in affecting individuals' motivation, career planning, and vocational behaviors (Coetzee & De Villiers, 2010; Ngo & Li, 2018). We suggest that protean career orientation is particularly relevant in understanding university students' career decidedness under the current economic conditions. As pointed out by Bravo, Seibert, Kraimer, Wayne, and Liden ⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Human Resource Management, College of Management, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (H. Li), [email protected] (H.-y. Ngo), [email protected] (F. Cheung).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103322 Received 24 November 2018; Received in revised form 13 June 2019; Accepted 20 June 2019 Available online 21 June 2019 0001-8791/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Journal of Vocational Behavior 115 (2019) 103322

H. Li, et al.

(2017), an individual with a protean career attitude would be ready, willing, and able to adapt to changing career circumstance. This study attempts to delineate the relationship between protean career orientation and career decidedness among university students, which has not been investigated before. Informed by social cognitive career theory (SCCT) and career construction theory (CCT), we further explore the mechanisms underlying the above relationship by evaluating the possible mediating effects of career decision self-efficacy and career adaptability. These two constructs are conceptually related to protean career orientation, and all of them encompass self-regulation and a sense of control over career (Duffy, 2010; Ginevra et al., 2016; Rudolph, Lavigne, & Zacher, 2017; Zikic & Saks, 2009). As such, there is a need to disentangle their relationships empirically. Our data were collected from university students in Hong Kong and the United States (US), which enables us to compare and contrast the relative effects of various factors on career decidedness in these two societies. In particular, cultural differences are expected to influence students' vocational behaviors and career decision-making (Fan, Cheung, Leong, & Cheung, 2012; Leung, Hou, Gati, & Li, 2011; Xu, Hou, Tracey, & Zhang, 2016), yet limited studies included direct cross-cultural comparisons. As argued by Gubler, Arnold, and Coombs (2014), people in collectivist cultures (e.g., Asian countries) might have less connection between protean career orientation and career outcomes, as compared to people in individualist cultures (e.g., Western countries). Our research design involves direct comparisons of respondents from two different cultural settings, and thus the findings can test their argument and make contribution to cross-cultural career research.

2. Theories and hypotheses 2.1. Protean career orientation and career decidedness Career orientation, viewed as an individual's career self-concept, is an important factor affecting employees' career development and work lives (Coetzee & De Villiers, 2010). Guided by different career orientations, individuals tend to hold different values, preferences, and needs in deciding their careers (Ginevra et al., 2016). Among various types of career orientation, protean career orientation has attracted substantial research attention over the past two decades (Bravo et al., 2017; Fearon et al., 2018; Ngo & Li, 2018). Briscoe and Hall (2006) define protean career orientation as a relatively stable career preference that values self-directedness and defines career success according to one's personal values. People with such an orientation strive for personal growth and they have a strong desire for autonomy and self-fulfillment (Gasteiger, 2007). Taking a proactive role in managing their career development (Briscoe, Hall, & DeMuth, 2006; Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999), they tend to set clear career goals (Rahim & Siti-Rohaida, 2015), make specific career planning (Direnzo, Greenhaus, & Weer, 2015), and engage in more career exploration behaviors and positioning behaviors (Herrmann, Hirschi, & Baruch, 2015). For that reason, protean career orientation has been considered as an antecedent of various career-related outcomes in previous studies (e.g., Fearon et al., 2018; Hirschi, Jaensch, & Herrmann, 2017; Ngo & Li, 2018). We suggest that college students with high protean career orientation would have a strong intention to acquire more careerrelated information and resources, be more adaptive to changing economic environment, and have greater confidence in making their vocational choices (Creed, Macpherson, & Hood, 2011; Fearon et al., 2018; Hall, 2002; Herrmann et al., 2015). Compared to those who are low in protean career orientation, they may feel less difficult in the process of career decision making and be more certain about their future career paths. We thus hypothesize that: Hypothesis 1. Protean career orientation is positively related to career decidedness.

2.2. Protean career orientation and career decision self-efficacy SCCT (Bandura, 1977, 1986) offers a useful framework for exploring the role of protean career orientation in individual's career decision making. According to this theory, personal inputs (e.g., predispositions and orientations) and contextual influences (e.g., career opportunities and supports) interact to affect individuals' self-efficacy and outcome expectations, which in turn influence their career interests, choices and behaviors (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 1994). Rooted in SCCT, career decision self-efficacy refers to “an individual's degree of belief that he or she can successfully complete tasks necessary to making career decisions” (Betz, Klein, & Taylor, 1996: 48). As a domain-specific self-efficacy, this construct has been found to be related to some career-related outcomes, such as career decidedness (Lent, Ezeofor, Morrison, Penn, & Ireland, 2016; Taylor & Popma, 1990), career optimism (Garcia, Restubog, Bordia, Bordia, & Roxas, 2015), and career commitment (Chung, 2002). Given that individuals with a strong protean career orientation are eager to take charge of their own career development, they are likely to possess higher levels of career decision self-efficacy. Hirschi and Valero (2017) argued that, for individuals who do not feel in control of their own careers, it is hard for them to develop a sense of competence, and hence they would have a low level of selfefficacy. In contrast, those who are high in protean career orientation are expected to hold a strong sense of control and competence in making career decisions. Additionally, they tend to engage more in career exploration, which enhances their self-efficacy in career decision making (Cheung & Jin, 2015). While previous research has revealed a positive association between protean career orientation and general self-efficacy (Baruch, 2014; Baruch, Bell, & Gray, 2005; Ngo & Li, 2018), we predict a similar relationship between protean career orientation and career decision self-efficacy. We put forward the following hypothesis. Hypothesis 2. Protean career orientation is positively related to career decision self-efficacy. 2

Journal of Vocational Behavior 115 (2019) 103322

H. Li, et al.

2.3. Mediating role of career decision self-efficacy It is plausible that the relationship between protean career orientation and career decidedness would be mediated by some cognitive processes. We contend that career decision self-efficacy may serve as an important mechanism behind the relationship. As revealed in earlier studies, individuals with high career decision self-efficacy tend to perceive less career-related barriers and difficulties (Creed & Patton, 2003; Santos, Wang, & Lewis, 2018), engage in more career exploratory activities (Blustein, 1989), and seek more professional help and supports (Taylor & Betz, 1983). These perceptions and behaviors would facilitate their career decision making, as well as make them to be decisive about their intended career paths (Mao, Hsu, & Fang, 2016). Empirical evidence has been found for the positive association between career decision self-efficacy and career decidedness (Penn & Lent, in press; Restubog et al., 2010; Taylor & Popma, 1990). Previous research also lent support to the mediating role of career decision self-efficacy that links some personal and contextual variables with career decidedness (Lent, Ireland, Penn, Morris, & Sappington, 2017; Restubog et al., 2010). For university students who hold a strong protean career orientation, they would actively seek more career-related information and have stronger confidence in their ability to make vocational decisions, which then enhances their career decidedness. The following mediating hypothesis is thus proposed. Hypothesis 3. Career decision self-efficacy mediates the relationship between protean career orientation and career decidedness.

2.4. Protean career orientation and career adaptability CCT offers another perspective that sheds light on the relationship between protean career orientation and career outcomes. The theory posits that human development is driven by adaptation to a changing environment through self-construction and personenvironment integration (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). Career adaptability, a central construct of the theory, is supposed to play a crucial role in understanding the process of individual career decision-making. Career adaptability has been defined as individual's psychosocial capacity for coping with vocational development tasks, occupational transitions, and personal traumas (Savickas, 1997, 2005). Viewed as a malleable competency that helps people adapting to changing circumstances, the construct is conceptualized to include four sub-dimensions, namely, concern, control, curiosity, and confidence (Savickas, 1997; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). Some researchers suggested that career adaptability can be predicted by a high sense of control (Duffy, 2010; Johnston, 2018). As discussed above, individuals with protean career orientation tend to hold a strong sense of control, which may foster the development of career adaptability. Besides, they assume full responsibility for their careers (Baruch, 2004), have a strong motivation to adapt to a changing environment (Hall, 2002), and are used to exploring new opportunities for self-improvement (Herrmann et al., 2015; Ngo & Li, 2018). Direnzo et al. (2015) argued that protean career orientation enables individuals to develop more career-related competencies and resources. Previous studies have consistently found a positive correlation between protean career orientation and career adaptability (Chan et al., 2015; Creed et al., 2011; Stauffer, Abessolo, Zecca, & Rossier, in press). Based on the above arguments and empirical evidence, we expect protean career orientation will contribute to the development of career adaptability for university students. Hypothesis 4. Protean career orientation is positively related to career adaptability.

2.5. Mediating role of career adaptability We further expect that career adaptability could mediate the relationship between protean career orientation and career decidedness. In current literature, career adaptability has been found to be associated with several positive outcomes for individuals, including career planning, vocational exploration, and career satisfaction (Johnston, 2018; Rossier, 2015; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). According to Neureiter and Traut-Mattausch (2017), career adaptability is crucial for those during the college-to-work transition, as it exerts positive impacts on job search self-efficacy, employment status, and perceived person-environment fit. It also induces selfinitiated efforts to achieve career goals (Woo, 2018), and facilitates vocational planning and choice for individuals (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). In some studies, a positive association has been reported between career adaptability and career decidedness (Ginevra et al., 2016; Rossier, 2015; Urbanaviciute, Kairys, Pociute, & Liniauskaite, 2014). It has been pointed out that career adaptability may act as a mediator that links certain individual differences variables to some career outcomes (Johnston, 2018; Woo, 2018). For example, Li et al. (2015) found that it mediated the relationship between personality and career exploration. Neureiter and Traut-Mattausch (2017) showed that, among a group of university students, the effect of core self-evaluations on career planning, career exploration, and career decision-making difficulties was mediated by career adaptability. Taking the above into consideration, we hypothesize that university students with strong protean career orientation will possess a higher level of career adaptability, and in turn made them more career-decided. Hypothesis 5. Career adaptability mediates the relationship between protean career orientation and career decidedness.

3

Journal of Vocational Behavior 115 (2019) 103322

H. Li, et al.

3. Method 3.1. Procedures and participants We collected the data via questionnaire survey from two different places, Hong Kong and the US. In Hong Kong, the participants were recruited from three local universities. With the help of research assistants, we invited undergraduate students in residence halls and university libraries to involve in the study. The survey was administered in English, which is the official teaching language in local universities. Before completing the questionnaire, the students were asked to read the study purpose on the cover page, and then sign a consent form for their voluntary participation. Confidentiality and anonymity were ensured. To improve the response rate, a lucky draw was conducted, and thirty awardees could receive a HK$100 (approximately US$13) supermarket coupon as a token of appreciation. Altogether, 400 questionnaires were distributed and 376 were finally completed and returned, which represents a response rate of 94%. Among the respondents, 235 (62.5%) were females and 141 (37.5%) were males. In terms of year of attendance, 90 (23.9%) were freshmen, 115 (30.6%) were sophomores, 74 (19.7%) were juniors, 95 (25.3%) were seniors, one participant did not indicate his/her study year and one reported other student statuses (i.e., non-degree and graduate student). The participants in the US were recruited online using Mturk. A total of 416 students participated and filled in the questionnaire. We included two attention check questions to ensure the response quality, and two participants did not pass the test. In addition, six participants did not finish the whole questionnaire. After excluding them, the valid sample size was 408. Among these respondents, 193 (48.3%) were females, 210 (51.5%) were males, and one participant did not indicate his or her gender. Regarding their year of attendance, 23 (5.6%) were in year 1, 76 (18.6%) were in year 2, 110 (27%) were in year 3, and 99 (24.3%) were in year 4. The remaining was in other statuses, including non-degree and graduate students. 3.2. Measures 3.2.1. Protean career orientation Protean career orientation was assessed by a 6-item scale designed by Baruch (2014). A sample item is “I am in charge of my own career”. The original version included 7 items, which has been found to have sufficient reliability and good face, construct, and discriminate validity across samples and countries (Baruch, 2014). Following Baruch's suggestion (2014), we dropped one item related to job search, as it does not fit the student samples. A five-point Likert scale was adopted (“strongly disagree” = 1, “strongly agree” = 5) and high scores reflect strong protean career orientation. In this study, the scale's alpha coefficients were .71 and .77 for the Hong Kong and the US samples, respectively. 3.2.2. Career decision self-efficacy Career decision self-efficacy was assessed by an 8-item scale developed by Ho and Sum (2018) with demonstrated validity and reliability. A sample item is “I am able to choose a career that will fit my ability”. Participants used a five-point scale (“strongly disagree” = 1, “strongly agree” = 5) to provide their answers. A higher score reflects higher career decision self-efficacy. The alpha coefficients of the scale were .84 and .88 for the Hong Kong and the US samples, respectively. 3.2.3. Career adaptability Career adaptability was measured with a scale consisting of twelve items proposed by Maggiori, Rossier, and Savickas (2017). This scale was shown to be a pertinent and economical alternative to the original 24-item version scale developed by Savickas and Porfeli (2012). The scale captured four sub-dimensions, including concern (sample item: “Thinking about what my future will be like”), control (sample item: “Making decisions by myself”), curiosity (sample item: “Looking for opportunities to grow as a person”), and confidence (sample item: “Taking care to do things well”). Participants rated the items on a five-point Likert-type scale (“strongly disagree” = 1, “strongly agree” = 5). In this study, the alpha coefficient of this scale was recorded at .88 for the Hong Kong sample and .90 for the US samples. 3.2.4. Career decidedness Career decidedness was measured with a 6-item scale designed by Lounsbury et al. (2005). A sample item is “I have made a definite decision about a career for myself”. Participants rated the items on a 5-point scale (“strongly disagree” = 1, “strongly agree” = 5). A higher score represents higher levels of career decidedness. The alpha coefficients of the scale were .83 and .93 for the Hong Kong and the US samples, respectively. 3.2.5. Control variables In our original research design, we included gender and year of attendance as control variables, in order to partial out their possible effects on the dependent variable. However, the correlation analysis indicated that they did not have any relationships with the study variables (except a positive correlation of year of attendance with career adaptability for the Hong Kong sample), and thus we decided not to include them in subsequent analyses. 3.3. Analytical strategy In the statistical analysis, we have two tasks to complete. First is to test the hypothesized model in each sample, and second is to 4

Journal of Vocational Behavior 115 (2019) 103322

H. Li, et al.

evaluate the cross-cultural equivalence of our model. For the first task, we followed Anderson and Gerbing's (1988) two-step approach. We started with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate the discriminant validity of our study variables, using Mplus 7.0 (Muthén & Muthén, 2014). Parceling by the random algorithm was employed such that each latent variable has three to four indicators (Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002; Rocha & Chelladurai, 2012). After discriminant validity has been established for both samples, structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted to test the proposed model. The fit statistics and standardized path coefficients were estimated and reported. Bootstrapping (with 5000 iterations) was then used to test for mediation, given that it has been considered as the most powerful indirect effect testing method (Williams & MacKinnon, 2008). For the second task, we conducted multi-group analysis so as to test measurement invariance, which determines the comparability of the latent constructs and of the structural model across samples. For the sakes of psychometric advantages and model estimation benefits (Little, Rhemtulla, Gibson, & Schoemann, 2013), the test was conducted at the parcel level. This can be justified on the ground that the structural relationships rather than measurement aspects of the model are of our ultimate interest, and the parcels are formed from strictly unidimensional constructs (Bandalos & Finney, 2001; Meade & Kroustalis, 2006). In fact, such approach has been adopted in some previous studies (e.g., Napolitano & Job, 2018; van Scheppingen et al., 2016). Following Cheung and Rensvold's (2002) testing strategy, measurement invariance test was conducted in three, increasingly restrictive steps. In the first step, the configural invariance model was tested to ensure that each construct was measured with the same indicators across samples. In the second step, metric invariance was tested to ensure that the relationships between each indictor and latent variable (i.e., factor loadings) are consistent across samples. In the last step, the establishment of both configural invariance and metric invariance allows for comparison of structural model results (i.e., path coefficients) across samples. Specifically, the bias-corrected (BC) bootstrap confidence interval approach was adopted to test for measurement invariance, which is more advanced than other methods, such as the likelihood ratio test and the change in comparative fit index approach (Lau & Cheung, 2012). This approach creates 1000 bootstrap samples, calculates the parameters (i.e., the differences in factor loadings and path coefficients) for each bootstrap sample, and forms the confidence intervals. If the 99% confidence interval includes zero, the differences in factor loadings or path coefficients across samples were considered not significant. The results in different structural models can then be directly compared and evaluated. 4. Results 4.1. Descriptive statistics The means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations of all the study variables for the Hong Kong and the US samples were presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. In both samples, protean career orientation was positively correlated with career decidedness (r = .28 and .39, respectively, p < .01). This provides initial support for Hypothesis 1. As expected, protean career orientation was also positively correlated with career decision self-efficacy (r = .55 and .62, respectively, p < .01), and career adaptability (r = .47 and .60, respectively, p < .01). Besides, a positive correlation between career decision self-efficacy and career decidedness (r = .49 and .55, respectively, p < .01) and between career adaptability and career decidedness (r = .32 and .43, respectively, p < .01) was also found. 4.2. Testing of the hypothesized model 4.2.1. Measurement model CFA was conducted in each sample. For the Hong Kong sample, the results indicated that the four-factor model containing protean career orientation, career decision self-efficacy, career adaptability, and career decidedness provided a good fit to the data, with χ2 (71, N = 364) = 229.87, p < .001, CFI = 0.924, RMSEA = 0.078, SRMR = 0.057. For the US sample, the four-factor model also yielded a good fit, with χ2 (71, N = 408) = 195.04, p < .001, CFI = 0.964, RMSEA = 0.065, SRMR = 0.045. The four-factor measurement model was then compared with alternative models in which indicators of variables were combined in different ways. As shown in Tables 3 and 4, in both samples, the four-factor model had a significantly better fit than all the Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables for the Hong Kong sample.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Variables

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

Gender Year of attendance Protean career orientation Career decision self-efficacy Career adaptability Career decidedness

1.63 2.47 3.53 3.51 3.70 3.00

0.48 1.12 0.55 0.58 0.54 0.76

−.07 −.02 −.08 −.05 −.06

.07 .08 .11⁎ .01

.55⁎⁎ .47⁎⁎ .28⁎⁎

.48⁎⁎ .49⁎⁎

.32⁎⁎

Notes: N = 375. ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01. 5

Journal of Vocational Behavior 115 (2019) 103322

H. Li, et al.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables for the US sample.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Variables

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

Gender Year of attendance Protean career orientation Career decision self-efficacy Career adaptability Career decidedness

1.48 3.43 3.95 4.05 3.63 3.54

0.50 1.20 0.57 0.59 0.69 1.03

.03 −.01 −.10 −.07 −.05

.07 .07 .08 .07

.62⁎⁎ .60⁎⁎ .39⁎⁎

.61⁎⁎ .55⁎⁎

.43⁎⁎

Notes: N = 407. ⁎⁎ p < .01. Table 3 CFA results of the measurement models: protean career orientation, career decision self-efficacy, career adaptability, and career decidedness (the Hong Kong sample). Measurement models

χ2 (df)

Δχ2 (df)

RMSEA

SRMR

CFI

1) 4-Factor model 2) 3-Factor model (career decision self-efficacy and career adaptability combined) 3) 2-Factor model (career decision self-efficacy, protean career orientation, and career adaptability combined) 4) 1-Factor model (all factors combined)

229.87⁎⁎⁎(71) 466.68⁎⁎⁎(74) 499.08⁎⁎⁎(76)

236.81⁎⁎⁎(3) 269.21⁎⁎⁎(5)

0.078 0.121 0.124

0.057 0.079 0.081

0.924 0.812 0.798

705.97⁎⁎⁎(77)

476.10⁎⁎⁎(6)

0.150

0.096

0.699

Note: In determining Δχ2, all of the alternative models were compared with the 4-factor model. ⁎⁎⁎ p < .001. Table 4 CFA results of the measurement models: protean career orientation, career decision self-efficacy, career adaptability, and career decidedness (the US sample). χ2 (df)

Measurement models 1) 4-Factor model 2) 3-Factor model (career decision self-efficacy and career adaptability combined) 3) 2-Factor model (career decision self-efficacy, protean career orientation, and career adaptability combined) 4) 1-Factor model (all factors combined)

Δχ2 (df)

RMSEA

SRMR

CFI

195.04 (71) 427.55⁎⁎⁎(74) 480.57⁎⁎⁎(76)

232.51⁎⁎⁎(3) 285.53⁎⁎⁎(5)

0.065 0.108 0.114

0.045 0.060 0.063

0.964 0.899 0.884

1135.67⁎⁎⁎(77)

940.63⁎⁎⁎(6)

0.184

0.095

0.697

⁎⁎⁎

Note: In determining Δχ2, all of the alternative models were compared with the 4-factor model. ⁎⁎⁎ p < .001.

alternative models (i.e., three-factor model, two-factor model, and one-factor model). The above results reflected that the measures are distinct with sufficient discriminant validity. 4.2.2. Structural equation modeling We used SEM to test our hypothetical model in each sample, which suggests protean career orientation predicts career decision self-efficacy and career adaptability, which in turn predict career decidedness. Besides, protean career orientation may also have a direct effect on career decidedness. Parceling strategy was adopted, and parcels were formed in the same way as in the measurement model. For the Hong Kong samples, our model fitted the data well, with χ2 (71, N = 364) = 229.87, CFI = 0.924, RMSEA = 0.078, SRMR = 0.057. For the US sample, we obtained similar results, with χ2 (71, N = 408) = 195.04, CFI = 0.964, RMSEA = 0.065, SRMR = 0.045, which indicated a good model fit. The standardized coefficients of the paths for the Hong Kong and the US samples were presented in Figs. 1 and 2. Comparable results were obtained in both samples. The path from protean career orientation to career decidedness was not significant (β = −.19 and ‐.03, respectively, p > .05). The non-significant direct effect in the model is likely be case that full mediation occurs after including a significant mediator in the model (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Our subsequent analysis provides evidence for this. Hypothesis 2 was supported in both the Hong Kong and the US samples, as the path coefficient for the relationship between protean career orientation and career decision self-efficacy (β = .77 and .80, respectively, p < .01) was positive and significant. Similarly, the path from protean career orientation to career adaptability (β = .63 and .74, respectively, p < .01) was also found to be positive and significant. In other words, Hypothesis 4 was also supported. In both samples, the path coefficient for the relationship between career decision self-efficacy and career decidedness (β = .72 and .58, respectively, p < .01) was significant, while that for the relationship between career adaptability and career decidedness (β = .08 and .10, respectively, p < .05) was not. These results provide conditions for further mediation analysis of career decision self-efficacy, but not career adaptability. Hypothesis 5, which suggests the mediating role of career adaptability, was not supported by our data. 6

Journal of Vocational Behavior 115 (2019) 103322

H. Li, et al.

Fig. 1. SEM results for the Hong Kong sample. **p < .01.

Fig. 2. SEM results for the US sample. **p < .01.

4.2.3. Bootstrapping We then evaluated the mediating effect of career decision self-efficacy in the relationship between protean career orientation and career decidedness using bootstrapping. In both samples, the indirect effect of protean career orientation on career decidedness via career decision self-efficacy (indirect effect = .56 and .47, respectively, p < .01, with bias-corrected 95% CI [0.32, 0.80] and [0.28, 0.66], respectively) was significant. Hypothesis 3 was thus supported.

4.3. Testing of cross-cultural equivalence 4.3.1. Configural invariance We first examined the configural invariance between the Hong Kong and the US samples. The model showed a good model fit, with χ2 (142) = 424.90, CFI = 0.949, RMSEA = 0.072, SRMR = 0.051, suggesting that configural invariance has been established.

4.3.2. Metric invariance Parameters were then created to test the differences in factor loadings across samples. For protean career orientation, career decision self-efficacy, and career adaptability, the 99% BC bootstrap confidence intervals for all created parameters contained zero, reflecting the factor loadings of the three variables were not significantly different between the two samples. In other words, all the three constructs can be considered to be metric invariant. For career decidedness, the confidence interval of one parameter did not contain zero [−0.52, −0.10], indicating that this factor loading was somewhat different across samples. We then set this factor loading to be freely estimated, while all the other factor loadings were constrained to be equal across samples in the partial metric invariance model. As a result, partial metric invariance was established, allowing for further comparison of path coefficients.

4.3.3. Comparison of path coefficients Parameters were then created to test the equivalence of each path coefficient between the Hong Kong and the US samples. As displayed in Table 5, the 99% BC bootstrap confidence intervals for all created parameters contained zero, suggesting that all the five path coefficients were not significantly different across samples. In other words, the two samples showed the same structural model results. 7

Journal of Vocational Behavior 115 (2019) 103322

H. Li, et al.

Table 5 Difference test of path coefficients across samples. Paths

Bootstrapping BC 99% CI

Protean career orientation → Career decidedness Protean career orientation → Career decision self-efficacy Protean career orientation → Career adaptability Career decision self-efficacy → Career decidedness Career adaptability → Career decidedness

(−1.01, (−0.14, (−0.48, (−0.98, (−0.52,

0.67) 0.33) 0.07) 0.66) 0.37)

5. Discussion and conclusion In the present study, we proposed a conceptual model to examine how protean career orientation is related to career decidedness among university students in Hong Kong and the US. Informed by SCCT and CCT, we also evaluated the possible mediating roles of career decision self-efficacy and career adaptability in the above relationship. The results of SEM supported a full mediation model, and similar results were obtained for the two samples. The measurement invariance test provided support for direct comparisons of path coefficients in the two places. Specifically, we found that protean career orientation was positively associated with both career decision self-efficacy and career adaptability, while only the former mediated the association between protean career orientation and career decidedness. Career decision self- efficacy has been viewed as a proximal antecedent of career decidedness (Creed, Patton, & Prideaux, 2006; Taylor & Betz, 1983), which directly enhances students' confidence in making career decisions and reduces their sense of uncertainty under changing circumstances (Restubog et al., 2010). Career adaptability has been conceptualized as an individual's psychosocial capacity for coping with vocational development tasks, occupational transitions, and personal traumas (Savickas, 1997). Being a malleable competency that helps people adapting to unfamiliar situations, it is likely to influence career decidedness indirectly via some cognitive processes (Ginevra et al., 2016). McLennan, McIlveen, and Perera (2017) reported that career adaptability explained selfefficacy among pre-service teachers. Duffy, Douglass, and Autin (2015) found that career decision self-efficacy mediated the relationship between career adaptability and academic satisfaction of undergraduate students. It seems plausible that when career decision self-efficacy has been included in the model, the effect of career adaptability on career decidedness turned to be nonsignificant. 5.1. Theoretical contributions Our study makes several contributions to the career literature. First of all, it advances our understanding about the antecedents of career decidedness among university students. Despite the seemingly logical linkage between protean career orientation and career decidedness, no study has theoretically or empirically linked them together. Our study thus filled a research void. Second, we found that protean career orientation was predictive of career decision self-efficacy and career adaptability, two important constructs that affect career outcomes in a positive way. In the present study, we also demonstrated that they are distinct constructs and clarified their relationships with career decidedness. Third, drawn on SCCT and CCT, we explored the possible mechanisms through which protean career orientation is related to career decidedness. The results of SEM showed that career decision self-efficacy, but not career adaptability, acted as a significant mediator in the relationship. By including variables from different theoretical perspectives and simultaneously testing their explanatory power for career decidedness, our study elucidated their respective roles. Fourth, we collected our data in Hong Kong and the US and employed measurement invariance test, which enabled us to compare the impacts of protean career orientation on some important outcomes in these two places. As compared to western societies, Chinese societies are highly contextual, collectivist, and family-oriented, and these cultural characteristics are supposed to affect students' vocational behaviors and career decision making (Cheung & Arnold, 2010; Fan et al., 2012; Leung et al., 2011). Gubler et al. (2014) predicted that the relationships between protean career orientation and career outcomes would be different between collectivist and individualist cultures. Our study provided a valid test for their argument by making direct comparisons of respondents from Hong Kong and the US. Contrary to their prediction, we demonstrated that protean career orientation exerted similar effects in these two societies. Our study thus added to cross-cultural research on career decision making. 5.2. Practical implications Our findings highlighted the importance of protean career orientation in enhancing career decidedness among university students. To facilitate students' career decision making, it is important for universities to assist the students to navigate their careers in a self-directed and value-driven manner. One way to do so is to provide them with more learning opportunities related to vocational and career exposure, so that they can have realistic expectations about future work, as well as develop protean career orientation by self-reflections (Sargent & Domberger, 2007). In addition, universities may offer individual career counseling, career-related training and workshops, so as to help their students understand their vocational values and develop their own definitions of career success (Greenhaus & Singh, 2007). As such, they are likely to develop a proactive approach in planning and managing their future careers. Through those training and activities, students can also acquire more career-related information and competency, which raise their 8

Journal of Vocational Behavior 115 (2019) 103322

H. Li, et al.

levels of career decision self-efficacy and career adaptability. For career practitioners, they may introduce some interventions to increase students' career decision self-efficacy, such as providing skill-enhancing learning experiences and appropriate role models, as well as identifying resources and previous success experiences. As revealed in our study, higher career decision self-efficacy can make the students more career-decided. 5.3. Limitations and future directions Some limitations of our study should be acknowledged. First, since this study used self-reported measures and a cross-sectional design, common method variance might inflate the observed relationships between variables. Future studies should consider collecting data from multiple sources and/or at different time points, which allow researchers to test the causality among the study variables. Second, we limited the scope of the present study by focusing on protean career orientation as the only antecedent of career decidedness. As such, we have not investigated the influences of other types of career orientations, such as boundaryless, traditional, and disengaged career orientation. Besides, some personal variables (e.g., personality traits) and contextual variables (e.g., career supports and barriers) were not included in the present study. More research may explore their main effects as well as their interaction effects with career orientation on career decidedness. Apart from career decidedness, some other outcome variables, such as vocational identity, career optimism, and career engagement could also be examined in the future. Finally, we utilized different data collection techniques in Hong Kong (i.e., paper and pencil) and the United States (i.e., Mturk). To reduce the potential confounding effects, it is desirable to adopt the same method of data collection. References Amir, T., & Gati, I. (2006). Facets of career decision-making difficulties. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 34, 483–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03069880600942608. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411. Arnold, J. (1989). Career decidedness and psychological well-being: A two-cohort longitudinal study of undergraduate students and recent graduates. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1989.tb00487.x. Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.). New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp. 269–296). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychology Review, 84, 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-6402(78)90002-4. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173. Baruch, Y. (2004). Transforming careers: From linear to multidirectional career paths: Organizational and individual perspectives. Career Development International, 9, 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430410518147. Baruch, Y. (2014). The development and validation of a measure for protean career orientation. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25, 2702–2723. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.896389. Baruch, Y., Bell, M. P., & Gray, D. (2005). Generalist and specialist graduate business degrees: Tangible and intangible value. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.06.002. Betz, N. E., Klein, K. L., & Taylor, K. M. (1996). Evaluation of a short form of the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/106907279600400103. Blustein, D. L. (1989). The role of goal instability and career self-efficacy in the career exploration process. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35, 194–203. https://doi. org/10.1016/0001-8791(89)90040-7. Bravo, J., Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. (2017). Measuring career orientations in the era of the boundaryless career. Journal of Career Assessment, 25, 502–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072715616107. Briscoe, J. P., & Hall, D. T. (2006). The interplay of boundaryless and protean careers: Combinations and implications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 4–18. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.09.002. Briscoe, J. P., Hall, D. T., & DeMuth, R. L. F. (2006). Protean and boundaryless careers: An empirical exploration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 30–47. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.09.003. Chan, K. Y., Uy, M. A., Ho, M. R., Sam, Y. L., Chernyshenko, O. S., & Yu, K. Y. T. (2015). Comparing two career adaptability measures for career construction theory: Relations with boundaryless mindset and protean career attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 87, 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.11.006. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. https://doi. org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5. Cheung, R., & Arnold, J. (2010). Antecedents of career exploration among Hong Kong Chinese university students: Testing contextual and developmental variables. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.05.006. Cheung, R., & Jin, Q. (2015). Impact of a career exploration course on career decision making, adaptability, and relational support in Hong Kong. Journal of Career Assessment, 24, 481–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072715599390. Chung, Y. B. (2002). Career decision-making self-efficacy and career commitment: Gender and ethnic differences among college students. Journal of Career Development, 28, 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015146122546. Coetzee, M., & De Villiers, M. (2010). Sources of job stress, work engagement and career orientations of employees in a South African financial institution. Southern African Business Review, 14, 27–58. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC92903. Creed, P., Macpherson, J., & Hood, M. (2011). Predictors of “new economy” career orientation in an Australian sample of late adolescents. Journal of Career Development, 38, 369–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845310378504. Creed, P., & Patton, W. (2003). Predicting two components of career maturity in school based adolescents. Journal of Career Development, 29, 277–290. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/089484530302900405. Creed, P., Patton, W., & Prideaux, L. A. (2006). Causal relationship between career indecision and career decision-making self-efficacy: A longitudinal cross-lagged analysis. Journal of Career Development, 33, 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845306289535. Direnzo, M. S., Greenhaus, J. H., & Weer, C. H. (2015). Relationship between protean career orientation and work–life balance: A resource perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 538–560. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1996. Duffy, R. D. (2010). Sense of control and career adaptability among undergraduate students. Journal of Career Assessment, 18, 420–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1069072710374587. Duffy, R. D., Douglass, R. P., & Autin, K. L. (2015). Career adaptability and academic satisfaction: Examining work volition and self efficacy as mediators. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 90, 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.07.007.

9

Journal of Vocational Behavior 115 (2019) 103322

H. Li, et al.

Fan, W., Cheung, F. M., Leong, F. T., & Cheung, S. F. (2012). Personality traits, vocational interests, and career exploration: A cross-cultural comparison between American and Hong Kong students. Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072715599390. Fearon, C., Nachmias, S., McLaughlin, H., & Jackson, S. (2018). Personal values, social capital, and higher education student career decidedness: A new ‘protean’informed model. Studies in Higher Education, 43, 269–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1162781. Garcia, P. R. J. M., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., Bordia, S., & Roxas, R. E. O. (2015). Career optimism: The roles of contextual support and career decision-making selfefficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 88, 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.02.004. Gasteiger, R. M. (2007). Selbstverantwortliches Laufbahnmanagement - Das proteische Erfolgskonzept (1st ed.). Göttingen: Hogrefe Verlag GmbH & Co. Ginevra, M. C., Pallini, S., Vecchio, G. M., Nota, L., & Soresi, S. (2016). Future orientation and attitudes mediate career adaptability and decidedness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 95-96, 102–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.08.003. Gordon, V. N. (1998). Career decidedness types: A literature review. The Career Development Quarterly, 46, 386–403. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.1998. tb00715.x. Greenhaus, J. H., & Singh, R. (2007). Mentoring and the work-family interface. In B. R. Ragins, & K. E. Kram (Eds.). Handbook of mentoring at work (pp. 519–544). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gubler, M., Arnold, J., & Coombs, C. (2014). Reassessing the protean career concept: Empirical findings, conceptual components, and measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, S23–S40. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1908. Hall, D. T. (2002). Protean careers in and out of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Herrmann, A., Hirschi, A., & Baruch, Y. (2015). The protean career orientation as predictor of career outcomes: Evaluation of incremental validity and mediation effects. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 88, 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.03.008. Hirschi, A. (2011). Vocational identity as a mediator of the relationship between core self-evaluations. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60, 622–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00450.x. Hirschi, A., Jaensch, V. K., & Herrmann, A. (2017). Protean career orientation, vocational identity, and self-efficacy: An empirical clarification of their relationship. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26, 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2016.1242481. Hirschi, A., & Valero, D. (2017). Chance events and career decidedness: Latent profiles in relation to work motivation. The Career Development Quarterly, 65, 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12076. Ho, E. S. C., & Sum, K. W. (2018). Construction and validation of the Career and Educational Decision Self-Efficacy Inventory for secondary students (CEDSIS). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36, 162–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916674135. Johnston, C. S. (2018). A systematic review of the career adaptability literature and future outlook. Journal of Career Assessment, 26, 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1069072716679921. Lau, R. S., & Cheung, G. W. (2012). Estimating and comparing specific mediation effects in complex latent variable models. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110391673. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027. Lent, R. W., Ezeofor, I., Morrison, M. A., Penn, L. T., & Ireland, G. W. (2016). Applying the social cognitive model of career self-management to career exploration and decision-making. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 93, 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.12.007. Lent, R. W., Ireland, G. W., Penn, L. T., Morris, T. R., & Sappington, R. (2017). Sources of self-efficacy and outcome expectations for career exploration and decisionmaking: A test of the social cognitive model of career self-management. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 99, 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.01.002. Leung, S. A., Hou, Z., Gati, I., & Li, X. (2011). Effects of parental expectations and cultural-values orientation on career decision-making difficulties of Chinese University students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.08.004. Li, Y., Guan, Y., Wang, F., Zhou, X., Guo, K., Jiang, P., ... Fang, Z. (2015). Big five personality and BIS/BAS traits as predictors of career explorations: The mediation role of career adaptability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 89, 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.04.006. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1. Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn't be one. Psychological Methods, 18, 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033266. Lounsbury, J. W., Hutchens, T., & Loveland, J. M. (2005). An investigation of big five personality traits and career decidedness among early and middle adolescents. Journal of Career Assessment, 13, 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072704270272. Lounsbury, J. W., Tatum, H. E., Chambers, W., Owens, K., & Gibson, L. W. (1999). An investigation of career decidedness in relation to “big five” personality constructs and life satisfaction. College Student Journal, 33, 646–652. Maggiori, C., Rossier, J., & Savickas, M. L. (2017). Career Adapt-Abilities Scale–Short Form (CAAS-SF) construction and validation. Journal of Career Assessment, 25, 312–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072714565856. Mao, C. H., Hsu, Y. C., & Fang, T. W. (2016). Parental support as perceived by Taiwanese university students during career development. International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 6, 63–70. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ijpbs.20160602.05. McLennan, B., McIlveen, P., & Perera, H. N. (2017). Pre-service teachers' self-efficacy mediates the relationship between career adaptability and career optimism. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 176–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.022. Meade, A. W., & Kroustalis, C. M. (2006). Problems with item parceling for confirmatory factor analytic tests of measurement invariance. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 369–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105283384. Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (2014). Mplus user's guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & MuthénVersion 7. Napolitano, C. M., & Job, V. (2018). Assessing the Implicit Theory of Willpower for Strenuous Mental Activities Scale: Multigroup, across-gender, and cross-cultural measurement invariance and convergent and divergent validity. Psychological Assessment, 30(8), 1049–1064. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000557. Neureiter, M., & Traut-Mattausch, E. (2017). Two sides of the career resources coin: Career adaptability resources and the impostor phenomenon. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 98, 56–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.10.002. Ngo, H. Y., & Li, H. (2018). Individual orientations and career satisfaction: The mediating roles of work engagement and self-efficacy. Journal of Career Development, 45, 425–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845317706759. Penn, L. T., & Lent, R. W. (2019). The joint roles of career decision self-efficacy and personality traits in the prediction of career decidedness and decisional difficulty. Journal of Career Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072718758296 (in press). Rahim, N. B., & Siti-Rohaida, M. Z. (2015). Protean career orientation and career goal development: Do they predict engineer's psychological well-being? ProcediaSocial and Behavioral Sciences, 172, 270–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.364. Restubog, S. L. D., Florentino, A. R., & Garcia, P. R. J. M. (2010). The mediating roles of career self-efficacy and career decidedness in the relationship between contextual support and persistence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.06.005. Rocha, C. M., & Chelladurai, P. (2012). Item parcels in structural equation modeling: An applied study in sport management. International Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 46–53. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ijpbs.20120201.07. Rossier, J. (2015). Adaptability and life designing. In L. Nota, & J. Rossier (Eds.). Life design handbook (pp. 153–167). Göttingen: Hogrefe. Rudolph, C. W., Lavigne, K. N., & Zacher, H. (2017). Career adaptability: A meta-analysis of relationships with measures of adaptivity, adapting responses, and adaptation results. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 98, 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.09.002. Santos, A., Wang, W., & Lewis, J. (2018). Emotional intelligence and career decision-making difficulties: The mediating role of career decision self-efficacy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 107, 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.05.008. Sargent, L. D., & Domberger, S. R. (2007). Exploring the development of a protean career orientation: Values and image violations. Career Development International, 12, 545–564. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430710822010. Savickas, M. L. (1997). Career adaptability: An integrative construct for life-span, life-space theory. The Career Development Quarterly, 45, 247–259. https://doi.org/10.

10

Journal of Vocational Behavior 115 (2019) 103322

H. Li, et al.

1002/j.2161-0045.1997.tb00469.x. Savickas, M. L. (2005). The theory and practice of career construction. In S. D. Brown, & R. W. Lent (Eds.). Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 42–70). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Savickas, M. L., & Porfeli, E. J. (2012). Career adapt-abilities scale: Construction, reliability, and measurement equivalence across 13 countries. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 661–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.01.011. Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 416–427. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0021-9010.84.3.416. Stauffer, S. D., Abessolo, M., Zecca, G., & Rossier, J. (2019). French-language translation and validation of the protean and boundaryless career attitudes scales: Relationships to proactive personality, career adaptability, and career satisfaction. Journal of Career Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072717748962 (in press). Super, D. E. (1990). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. In D. Brown, & L. Brooks (Eds.). Career choice and development (pp. 197–262). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Taylor, K. M., & Betz, N. E. (1983). Applications of self-efficacy theory to the understanding and treatment of career indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 63–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(83)90006-4. Taylor, K. M., & Popma, J. (1990). Construct validity of the career decision-making self-efficacy scale and the relationship of CDMSE to vocational indecision. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(90)90004-L. Urbanaviciute, I., Kairys, A., Pociute, B., & Liniauskaite, A. (2014). Career adaptability in Lithuania: A test of psychometric properties and a theoretical model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85, 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.09.005. Uthayakumar, R., Schimmack, U., Hartung, P. J., & Rogers, J. R. (2010). Career decidedness as a predictor of subjective well-being. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77, 196–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.07.002. van Scheppingen, M. A., Jackson, J. J., Specht, J., Hutteman, R., Denissen, J. J., & Bleidorn, W. (2016). Personality trait development during the transition to parenthood: A test of social investment theory. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(5), 452–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616630032. Williams, J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Resampling and distribution of the product methods for testing indirect effects in complex models. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 23–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701758166. Woo, H. R. (2018). Personality traits and intrapreneurship: The mediating effect of career adaptability. Career Development International, 23, 145–162. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/CDI-02-2017-0046. Xu, H., Hou, Z., Tracey, T. J. G., & Zhang, X. (2016). Variations of career decision ambiguity tolerance between China and the United States and between high school and college. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 93, 120–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.01.007. Zikic, J., & Saks, A. M. (2009). Job search and social cognitive theory: The role of career-relevant activities. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 117–127. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.11.001.

11