GLOOMY TIMES ON THE GERMAN LABOUR MARKET
The moderating effects of crisis perception on the relationship between conscientiousness/ job search self-efficacy and job search behaviours of graduate students.
Master Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management, University of Groningen, Faculty of Economic and Business
26th August 2009
CHRISTINA BERLIN
First Supervisor Dr. Frank Walter
Second Supervisor Drs. Hanneke Grutterink
Word count:
9.502
GLOOMY TIMES ON THE GERMAN LABOUR MARKET
The moderating effects of crisis perception on the relationship between conscientiousness/ job search self-efficacy and job search behaviours of graduate students.
ABSTRACT
This study examines the relationships between job search self-efficacy/
conscientiousness, crisis perception and preparatory and active job search behaviour. The hypotheses were tested on the basis of a sample consisting of 114 German graduate students.
Results indicate that conscientiousness predicted preparatory job search behaviour. Crisis perception had a direct effect on both preparatory and active job search behaviours. The perception of the crisis also moderates the relationship between conscientiousness and job search behaviours, as well as between job search self-efficacy and preparatory job search behaviour. For graduates rating high on crisis perception, the relationships between conscientiousness and job search behaviours as well as between job search self-efficacy and job search behaviours were less pronounced than for students rating low in crisis perception.
INTRODUCTION
No day passes without hearing or reading news about the current economic crisis.
Recently, the crisis has also reached the German labour market. There are almost 11% less vacancies than one year ago (Morgenmagazin, 2009). Even though, in some industries, there is still reason for optimism, Germany is in the deepest recession since the founding of the republic, and might still have some tough months ahead (Focus Online, 2009b). Leading economic researchers anticipate the recession to continue until the middle of 2010.
Unemployment is expected to rise dramatically. Predictions for autumn 2009 already see more than 4 million people unemployed. In 2010, 4.7 million people are expected to be without employment (Focus Online, 2009a).
In this research project I am going to investigate the influence of the economic crisis on the job search behaviour of graduate university students in Germany. Job search behaviours entail all specified actions that a job seeker engages in to acquire insights about alternatives on the current labour market (Brown, Cober, Kane, Levy & Shalhoop, 2006). A lot of research has been done in job search behaviour in general (Blau, 1994; Claes & Witte, 2002; Kanfer & Hulin, 1985; Moynihan, Roehling, Lepine & Boswell, 2003; Saks &
Ashforth, 1998; Vansteenkiste, Lens, de Witte, de Witte, & Deci, 2004; Vinokur & Caplan, 1987; Wanberg, Kanfer, Rotundo, 1999). Thereby, job search self-efficacy has often been taken into account as an influencing and suitable factor to predict job search behaviour (Kanfer et al., 1985; Moynihan et al., 2003; Saks, 1998; Wanberg et al., 1999). Self-efficacy in general is a person’s confidence in performing tasks that are important in the job search process (Saks et al., 1998).
Job search self-efficacy is a specified measure of self-efficacy connected with job seeking expertise (Trougakos, Bull, Green, MacDermid & Weiss, 2007). Previous research on job search self-efficacy found that people rating lower on this trait tend not to look for a job as intensive as individuals scoring high on this characteristic. This signifies that job search self-
efficacy is positively related to job search behaviours (Kanfer et al., 1985; Eden & Aviram, 1993, Wanberg et al., 1999).
Conscientiousness is another personality trait that has gained importance in the job search literature (Wanberg, Watt & Rumsey, 1996). Conscientiousness can be called “the will to succeed” factor (Eilam, Zeidner & Aharon, 2009), implying that high-conscientious individuals always endeavour to achieve the best results possible (Heaven & Ciarrochi, 2009).
Previous research has shown that conscientiousness positively affects job search behaviour among adult job seekers (Schmit, Amel & Ryan, 1993).
Focusing on personality antecedents, research considering the role of contextual factors for job search behaviour has been relatively rare. Vinokur et al. (1987) are one of the few who also take into consideration the important role of the economic situation for finding employment. They acknowledge the successful job search process to be dependent on the environment and economic situation, and not only being a matter of behavioural attributes.
Hence, especially during unfavourable economic situations, job seekers will have to face demote success quotas, which might have an impact on the mental health, strength, and stamina of job seekers. Given the unfortunate actuality of the topic, it is surprising that there is little literature and research on the crisis perception on the individual level and its consequences for the job searching process. General crisis literature rather focuses on the perception of a crisis on the organizational level, analysing companies’ strategic approaches of dealing with a crisis (e.g. Penrose, 2000; Dutton, 1986; Kuklan, 1988; Tjosvold, 1984, D’Aveni & MacMillan, 1990). Thereby, two indeed contradicting approaches developed over the time: the rigidity effect (Staw, Sandelands & Dutton, 1981) and the motivation response (Barnett & Pratt, 2000).
Picking up that aspect in this piece of research, I will investigate how crisis perception influences the relationship between given personality traits (job search self-efficacy and
conscientiousness) and both preparatory and active job search behaviours. Figure 1 summarizes the relationships between constructs proposed and evaluated here.
FIGURE 1 about here
Regarding the lack of recognition for environmental factors, I aspire to enhance the current literature by giving insights about the impact of the economic obstacles on the relationship between job search self-efficacy and conscientiousness on both preparatory and active job search behaviour. Furthermore, this research will examine the boundary conditions of a previously researched relationship. Moreover, focusing on graduate students appears to be particularly interesting considering the fact that finding the first permanent position is a critical factor in determining one's future career status and earnings (Linneha & Blau, 1998).
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES Job search behaviour
Brown et al. (2006) defined Job search behaviour as all concrete actions that a job seeker undertakes in order to get information about current job market chances. It is the result of a dynamic self regulated process, meaning that individual differences in job search are mainly self-organized and self-managed. Some of the self regulatory elements, search strategies and goals, might get influenced by environmental factors such as the economic crisis. Consequently, job search behaviour can change in direction or intensity over a period of time (Kanfer, Kantrowitz & Wanberg, 2001). Generally speaking, it can be noted that the more committed a job seeker is to job search activities, the more likely they will succeed in finding employment (Linneha et al., 1998).
Research on job search in general has mainly focused on the type of sources job seekers use, how intensive they pursued their job search, or which specific general job search behaviours they showed (Saks et al, 1999). However, Blau (1994) proclaims that job search behaviour should be divided into two behavioural phases: into ‘preparatory’ and ‘active’ job search behaviour. This distinction is vital because of the different stages in the job search
process and their explicit activities related with every stage (Saks et al., 1999). Blau (1994) describes preparatory job search behaviour as the endeavour a job seeker makes in order to collect information about prospective jobs. Thereby, he/she participates in various activities such as reading the wanted ads in the newspaper or prepare/revise the curriculum vitae (CV).
Active job search behaviour on the other hand can be understood as the actual job search (Brown et al., 2006), which comprises activities such as sending out CVs to potential employers, phoning companies and also being invited to job interviews (Blau, 1994).
Job search self efficacy
Self-efficacy in general can be defined as “people’s judgements of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances”
(Bandura, 1986). Troutman, Burke & Beeler (2000) describe self-efficacy as a variable that may influence academic and career decisions as well as career adjustments, whereby individuals high in self-efficacy are more determined to accomplish goals, even when faced with obstacles or aversive experiences. Hence, job search self efficacy, as a particular measure of self efficacy, refers to individuals’ perceptions of their job seeking expertise (Trougakos et al., 2007). Research done by Wanberg et al. (1999) showed that people with lower job search self-efficacy tend not to look for a job as intensive as individuals with high job search self-efficacy, and give up more easily. Furthermore, persons with a low level of job search self-efficacy use search techniques that are less effective (Eden et al., 1993; Ellis &
Taylor, 1983; Kanfer et al., 1985). Hence, with few exceptions (e.g., Ellis et al., 1983), job search self-efficacy is positively related to job search behaviours (Kanfer et al., 1985; Eden et al., 1993).
However, Moynihan et al. (2003) argue that job search self-efficacy is related differently to preparatory and active job search behaviours. They found that the positive effect of job search self-efficacy on job search behaviour is true for preparatory job search activities.
However, conclusions relating the relationship between job search self-efficacy and active
search behaviours cannot automatically be drawn. According to Moynihan et al. (2003) combining preparatory and active job search behaviour into one scale would lead to a reduction of the effect of job search self-efficacy on job search activities. They also provide theoretical evidence for that by considering the costs of getting engaged in the job search process. Job search in general is cost-intensive (time, opportunity costs, financial costs, rejection, stress, emotional costs). Some activities are more costly than others. With increasing costs, job seekers’ motivation to avoid those costs rises as well, and might even get stronger than the motivational effect of self-efficacy. Preparatory job search activities, such as talking to friends, reading wanted ads, etc. hardly bear any costs for the job seeker and hence the motivation to avoid those costs is rather low. Consequently, job search self-efficacy has a direct effect on preparatory job search behaviour. In comparison to that, active job search activities such as going to job interviews have relatively high costs (time consuming, emotional costs, opportunities costs, etc.) and therefore, the motivation to avoid such activities is much higher. Given these arguments, I do not expect a direct effect of self- efficacy on active job search behaviour. I assume the following:
Hypothesis 1: Job search self-efficacy is positively related to preparatory job search behaviour.
Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness is one of the personality traits from the Big Five Model (FFM), which has the most prevalent effect on outcomes in general (Heaven et al., 2009), and serves as a good predictor for job performance (Colbert & Witt, 2009, Colquitt & Simmering, 1998).
High-conscientious individuals always try to achieve the best results possible (Heaven et al., 2009). That was also confirmed by a study done by Demerouti (2006), who found that the lower conscientiousness the less eager people are to reach their goals and the lower their job performance. In general, conscientious people are hard-working, cautious, deliberate, self- disciplined, self-controlled, and tend to be neat and well organized (Bono & Judge, 2004),
rather than impulsive, undependable or lazy (Wandberg et al., 1996). Apart from conscientiousness being a predictor for job performance, it has also been shown to be a good predictor for academic achievements for both high school and university students (Heaven et al., 2009; Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003, De Fruyt & Mervielde, 1996). Thereby, a high degree of conscientiousness was significantly connected to successful students, associated with personal attributes such as strive for success, responsibility and efficiency (Eilam et al., 2009). Less research has been done on conscientiousness as a variable to predict job search behaviour (Saks et al., 1999). One of the few studies pursued in that field reported that conscientiousness positively affects job search behaviour (Schmit et al., 1993). Since job search is very cost intensive, it requires a high level of motivation. Colquitt et al. (1998) describe conscientiousness as “the most important trait-motivation variable in the work domain”. They also report a positive link between conscientiousness and the need for achievement and goal commitment. The higher those traits, the more people will strive for high performance. They are also more likely to set challenging goals for themselves and will aspire to reach them despite facing difficulties (Colquitt et al., 1998). Due to the strong commitment of highly conscientious people, I assume that the increasing motivation for avoidance of highly cost intensive job search activities will be suppressed by their discipline and eagerness to perform in the best possible way. Based on these facts, I presume the following outcomes:
Hypothesis 2: Conscientiousness is positively related to both preparatory and active job search behaviour.
Crisis and Crisis Perception
Crisis implies, as defined by Dutton (1986), “a perception that an individual or set of individuals faces a potentially negative outcome unless some type of corrective action is taken”. The word crisis is often used interchangeably with threat or adversity (Barnett et al., 2000). Crisis perception is a cognitive process in which a person becomes aware of reality by
collecting information from the environment (Kiesler & Sproull, 1982). People perceive various variables subjectively, which leads to differences in sensing the seriousness of a specific crisis. Sensing a difference between the existing state and the “normal” standard is only the first step. It is the judgement concerning the severity of a crisis which is of great importance when examining the impact of it on job search behaviour because decisions concerning job search activities will be affected (Billings, Milburn & Schaalmann, 1980).
The question is what consequences does crisis have for an individual and their behaviour? Directions can be taken from organizational crisis literature. There, two main, indeed contradicting theories evolved stating that stress caused by the perception of a crisis can lead to either motivation (Barnett et al., 2000) or rigidity (Staw et al., 1981). Thereby, rigidity could be the development of a sense of insufficiency and anxiety towards the burdens and challenges of the situation (Kuklan, 1988).
Motivation theory on the other hand considers the crisis perception as “a catalyst to action by raising an issue's priority” (Dutton, 1986). This is confirmed by Blau (1994), who investigated job search behaviours stating that job insecurity should be positively related to job search behaviour. Job insecurity there refers to employed people. However, analogous, in times of an economic crisis, I assume that also the job seeking process for graduates can be compared to the described state of job insecurity raising concerns. Saks et al. (1999) found that the perceived control over job search outcomes negatively influences active job search behaviour. The lower the perceived control, the broader and more active job seekers will look for a job. I also consider low perceived control over the outcomes as a similar construct as a high crisis perception or job insecurity, supporting the assumption that the perception of the crisis will be positively related to job search behaviours. Also general stress literature implies that the stress caused by crisis encourages individuals to be more attentive towards task- relevant signs and the source of the crisis (D'Aveni et al., 1990). Based on the given argumentation, the third hypothesis reads as follows:
Hypothesis 3: Crisis perception is positively related to both preparatory and active job search behaviour.
As mentioned before, the perceived seriousness of a crisis plays a vital role on decision making processes. The question is how does the perception of a crisis influence the relationships between conscientiousness/ job search self-efficacy and job search behaviours?
With regard to the given definition, the less a crisis is perceived the closer the existing state is to the normal standard situation. Hence, assumptions concerning the results of the main effects in the case of low or no perceived crisis can be based on previous research under normal circumstances, indicating a positive relationship between both job search self-efficacy and preparatory job search behaviour and conscientiousness and job search behaviours.
Only in the case of a strong crisis perception, the relationship between conscientiousness/ job search self-efficacy might be influenced. As previously mentioned, I expect the crisis to have a motivating and thus positive effect on job search behaviours, meaning that with an increasing crisis perception, job search activities will raise as well, regardless the degree of job search self-efficacy or conscientiousness. Regarding these facts, I presume that also students with low self-efficacy or low conscientiousness are able to pursue a high degree of job search behaviours if they hold strong crisis perceptions. The perception of the crisis might work as a compensator for the lack of conscientiousness or job search self- efficacy, leading me to the assumption that a graduate student either needs a high degree of self-efficacy/conscientiousness or a high degree of crisis perception to engage in a high level of both preparatory and active job search behaviour.
Furthermore, I expect a ceiling effect for the impact of both personality traits on job search behaviours under conditions of high crisis perception. A ceiling effect is “a limitation that places a maximum level to the score that a performer can achieve in a task”
(Answers.com, 2009). Due to constraints in time and resources, a student cannot send endless applications or revise their CV endless times. Moreover, it needs to be considered that with an
increasing level of job search activities towards this ceiling, it becomes more difficult to improve (Answers.com, 2009). Students with strong crisis perception already pursue a high quantity of job search behaviours, making it much more difficult to further increase that amount as levels of job-search self-efficacy or conscientiousness increase. Consequently, the effects of these personality traits should remain limited under conditions of high crisis perceptions.
Given these arguments, I assume that the higher students rate on crisis perception, the less the relationship between conscientiousness/ job search self-efficacy and job search behaviours will be pronounced.
Hypothesis 4: Graduates’ degree of crisis perception moderates the relationship between graduates’ job search self-efficacy and their job search behaviour. For graduates high in crisis perception, the relationship between job search self- efficacy and job search behaviour will be less pronounced than for students low in crisis perception.
Hypothesis 5: Graduates’ degree of crisis perception moderates the relationship between graduates’ conscientiousness and their job search behaviour. For graduates high crisis perception, the relationship between conscientiousness and job search behaviour will be less pronounced than for students low in crisis perception.
METHOD Procedure
The sample consisted of 114 German (applied) university students, who either already finished their university degree or are going to graduate within the next months (graduation period: January – December 2009). I contacted the target group via email stating the purpose of the research. I explained that I was to analyse the job search behaviour in times of the economic crisis asking them to fill in the online questionnaire (see Appendix) which I had uploaded on an external website. Full anonymity was guaranteed. Questionnaires were collected within two weeks in May. I mainly used my personal network (friends and fellow students), who also spread the link for the questionnaire among their network. Furthermore, via the German web2.0 platform “studivz.de”, I contacted 148 students, who were members of various groups that indicated that they were in the process of finishing their studies. Since the research was done in Germany, I used the back-translation method as described by Sinaiko & Brisling (1973).
Participants
The average age of participants was 25.9 years. 78 female (68.4%) and 35 male (31.6%) students took part in the survey. From the 114 respondents, 59 students (51.8%) were students of business and economics, 22 (19.3%) of social sciences, 9 (7.9%) mathematics and natural sciences, 7 (6.1%) engineering and technical sciences, and 7 (6.1%) media and communications. 1 student did not answer and the other 9 students studied something else. 49 respondents (43%) graduated in the third quarter (July-September), 33 students (28.9%) in the fourth quarter (October – December), 19 respondents (16.7%) in the second quarter (April – June) and 8 participants (7%) in the first quarter (January – March) of the year 2009. All participants even those who graduated in the first two quarters where still in the process of finding a job.
Measures
Job search self-efficacy. Job search self-efficacy was measured by a 3 item scale
taken from Wanberg et al. (1999), asking how confident students feel to accomplish the following three things successfully: 1. Making a good list of all the skills that you have and can be used to find a job; 2. Completing a good job application and résumé; 3. Contacting and persuading potential employers to consider you for a job. All answers were given on a 5 point-Likert scale, ranging from 1 = not true at all to 5 = absolutely true. The internal consistency factor was .75.
Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness was measured by a 4-item scale taken from the
20 item Mini-IPIP Scale developed by Donnellan, Oswald, Baird & Lucas (2006). The 20 item Mini-IPIP scale is a short version 50-item International Personality Item Pool—Five- Factor Model. The internal consistency factor was .64. Respondents indicated their answers in a 5-point Likert scale with 1= not true at all and 5 = absolutely true. Sample items are “Often forget to put things back in their proper place” (R) and “Get chores done right away”.
Job search behaviour. Preparatory and active job search behaviour was measured by a
13 item scale by asking the respondents to indicate how often they have done the described activities in the last 2 months. It was measured on a 5-point-Likert scale with 1= never (0 times), 2= rarely (1-2 times), 3=occasionally (3-5 times, 4= frequently (6-9 times) and 5=
very frequently (at least 10 times). 6 items for the preparatory scale were taken from Blau (1994). The item “Read the help wanted/classified ads in the newspaper, journal, or professional association” was expanded by “…or on the web” since the web has become increasingly important in the job search process (Wanberg et al., 1999). The third item (“Read a book or article about getting a job or changing jobs”) was shortened to “Read a book or article about getting a job”, since it originally was targeted at employed people who wanted to change their job. For the same reason one item had to be left out completely. Another item was added: “Using university help for job search (career centres, career fairs, etc.)” which is
based on measures by Burger and Caldwell (2000). The Cronbach’s alpha for the combines scale was .72. All items for active search behaviour were taken from Blau (1994). Example items are: “Send CV to potential employers” or “Got job interview with potential employer”.
The internal consistency of that scale was .83.
Crisis Perception. The extent to which graduates perceive the recent economic crisis
as a crisis was measured by five items based on Billings et al. (1980). It was measured on a 5- point Likert scale, indicating 1 = not strong at all to 5 = very strong. One example item reads:
“The problem associated with the financial crisis also constitutes a crisis on the labour market.
How strong do you feel the current crisis personally?” The Cronbach’s Alpha for the scale was .83.
Control variables. I measured several control variables in order to reduce possible
biases concerning unmeasured influences on the results. Gender was assessed for use as a control variable and coded as follows: 1 = male, 2 = female. In previous research, gender has been related to job search behaviour and therefore has proven to be a suitable control variable (Blau, 1994). Neuroticism and extroversion were each measured on a 4 item scale taken from the 20 Item Mini-IPIP Scale developed by Donnellan et al. (2006). Answers were given on a 5-point-Likert scale indicating 1 = not true at all to 2 = absolutely true. Internal consistency was .66 for neuroticism and .72 for extroversion. I chose neuroticism as a control variable because previous research has shown that individuals higher in neuroticism are more prone to experiencing difficulties in managing problems such as stress during the job search process (Linneha et al., 1998; Bakker, 2006). Furthermore, Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen (2002) found a correlation between emotional stability and self-efficacy of .62, meaning the more neurotic a person, the less self-efficacy an individual has. Hence, in order to provide measures based on job search self-efficacy and not neuroticism, I included neuroticism as a control variable.
Previous research on extraversion has shown that it was positively related to perceived coping ability (Grant et al., 2007). Extraverts generally show a high degree of self-confidence, dominance and activeness. Generally, they show positive emotions more often and more intensively than introverts and often have a tendency to be optimistic and handle problems positively (Bakker, 2006). Grant et al. (2007) also showed that extraversion and conscientiousness are significantly correlated with each other. Therefore, in order to avoid extraversion biasing the results, I included extroversion as a control variable.
Data Analysis
In order to assess the study hypotheses, I made use of moderated hierarchical regression. To preserve statistical power, I decided to assess the hypotheses for conscientiousness on the one hand and job search self-efficacy on the other hand separately in specific equations. I entered gender, neuroticism and extroversion as Step 1 in order to control for main effects of these factors on the outcome variables. In the second step, conscientiousness/ job search self-efficacy were added; and in the third step crisis perception was inserted. In the last step I added the cross-product of conscientiousness/ self-efficacy and crisis perception. Variables were centred before the cross-products were calculated. The regression analysis described here was repeated for both preparatory and active job search behaviour as outcome variables.
RESULTS
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, reliabilities of scales (Cronbach’s alphas), and the correlations among the variables. Conscientiousness was positively related to preparatory job search behaviour (r = .20; p < .05). Crisis perception was positively correlated to both preparatory (r = .33; p < .01) and active job search behaviour (r = .24; p < .01). The highest predictor-predictor correlation was between crisis perception and job search self- efficacy (r = -.30; p < .01), indicating that greater job search self-efficacy is associated with less crisis perception.
TABLE 1 about here Test of hypotheses
In order to analyse the relations between individual differences, crisis perception and job search behaviours, I conducted multiple regression analysis for both job search behaviours. The two job search behaviours were regressed on the control variables gender, neuroticism and extroversion, followed by the individual differences variables (self-efficacy and conscientiousness) and crisis perception. In the last step the corresponding interaction terms were added. Results for each step of the regression analysis are presented in table 2 (for job search self-efficacy) and 3 (for conscientiousness).
Hypothesis 1 addresses the relationship between job search self-efficacy and preparatory job search behaviour. None of the control variables provided significant β values (see table 2). Job search self-efficacy was added in the second step and had no significant effect on preparatory job search behaviour (β = .10) taking into account the effects of the control variables. Hence, Hypothesis 1 was rejected. In line with expectations, job search self- efficacy was not significantly related to active job search behaviour in the regression analysis (β = .16). It is to note that job search self-efficacy becomes significant for both job search behaviours when a third variable (.21; p< .05 and .26; p< .05) and the interaction term (.24;
p< .05 and .29; p< .05) are added.
TABLE 2 about here
The second hypothesis suggests that conscientiousness positively reports preparatory and active job search behaviour. The same procedure as with job search self-efficacy was applied (see table 3). In the first step, the three control variables were added and showed no significant effect on the outcome. In the second step conscientiousness was added and showed a significant effect on preparatory job search behaviours (.20; p< .05) taking into account the effects of the control variables. Hypothesis 2 was only partly confirmed. Contrary to expectations, conscientiousness does not have a direct effect on active job search behaviours
(β = .11). Conscientiousness adds 3% (p<.05) to the prediction of preparatory job search behaviour. It is to note that conscientiousness looses significance when a crisis perception is added in step 3.
TABLE 3 about here
Hypothesis 3 proposes that crisis perception predicts preparatory and active job search behaviours. Crisis perception was added in step 3 in both regression analyses and showed a direct positive effect on both preparatory (.38; p< .001 and .32; p< .001) and active job search behaviour (.34; p< .001 and .26; p< .01), which verifies hypothesis 3. Crisis perception does have a direct effect on job search behaviour. Crisis perception adds 13% (p< .001) and 10%
(p< .001) to the prediction of preparatory job search behaviour, 10% (p< .001) and 7% (p<
.01) to the prediction of active job search behaviour above the effects of the control variables and the main effect of one other variable.
Finally, the fourth step of the regression tested hypotheses 4 and 5 by inserting the interaction terms of firstly job search self-efficacy and crisis perception, and secondly conscientiousness and crisis perception.
As shown in table 2, the interaction term of job search self-efficacy and crisis perception was significantly related to preparatory job search behaviour (β = -.19; p<.05). No significant effect could be found for active job search behaviour. The interaction term added another 4%
(p< .05) to the explanation for preparatory job search behaviour taking into account control variables and main effects. In order to see whether the interaction effect displays the form predicted on hypothesis 4, I graphically illustrated the interactive impacts of the crisis perception and self-efficacy on preparatory job search behaviour. Figure 2 plots the regression lines of graduates’ job search self-efficacy on preparatory job search behaviour under the conditions of high and low crisis perception by using one standard deviation below and above the mean. Figure 2 shows that the relationship between job search self-efficacy and preparatory job search behaviour was moderated by crisis perception. The slope of the line for
low crisis perception is significantly greater than the slope for high crisis perception. Hence, supporting hypothesis 4, the relationship between job search self-efficacy and preparatory job search behaviour is less evident for graduates rating high on crisis perception. Students with a high crisis perception always rate high on preparatory job search behaviour, no matter their degree of job search self-efficacy. For students rating low in crisis perception, it can be considered that the higher job search self-efficacy, the higher the amount of job search behaviours.
FIGURE 2 about here
A similar procedure was applied for conscientiousness. Table 3 shows that the interaction term (conscientiousness x crisis perception) was significant for both preparatory (-.23; p< .01) and active job search behaviour (-.19; p< .05). In order to test hypothesis 5, I plotted the interactive impacts of graduates’ conscientiousness and their job search behaviours under the conditions of high and low crisis perception by using one standard deviation above and below the mean. Figure 3 shows that the relationship between conscientiousness and preparatory job search behaviour was moderated by crisis perception. The slope for the condition of high crisis perception is significantly greater than the slope for low crisis perception, indicating a stronger relationship between the variables under the condition of low crisis perception. In line with hypothesis 5, the relationship between conscientiousness and preparatory job search behaviour is less evident for graduates rating high on crisis perception.
Students with a high crisis perception always rate high on preparatory job search behaviour, no matter their degree of conscientiousness.
FIGURE 3 & FIGURE 4 about here
Figure 4 displays the relationship between conscientiousness and active job search behaviour. In accordance with hypothesis 5, also this relationship is moderated by crisis perception. The flat slope for the relationship under the condition of high crisis perception indicates that the relationship between the two variables is less pronounced for students, who
perceive the crisis to a higher extent. Those students always rate high in active job search behaviour, no matter their degree of conscientiousness.
DISCUSSION
The goal of this research was to analyse the influence of the economic crisis on the job search behaviours of graduate students. Furthermore, it should show how the perception of a crisis influences the relationship between the job search self-efficacy/ conscientiousness and both preparatory and active job search behaviour. While some of the results confirm previous findings, others enhance the explanations of job search behaviours.
Among the personality variables, only conscientiousness predicted preparatory job search behaviour. Contrary to expectations, conscientiousness did not predict active job search behaviours. Job search self-efficacy did predict neither preparatory nor active job search behaviour. Crisis perception showed a direct effect on both preparatory and active job search behaviour. With this study I also showed that the perception of a crisis moderates the relationship between individual difference variables and job search behaviours. For graduates high on crisis perception, the graph illustrating the relationships between conscientiousness/
job search self-efficacy and job search behaviours showed a smaller slope than for students low in crisis perception, indicating that these relationships were less pronounced than for students low in crisis perception. As a result from that, it can be said that students high in crisis perception do not need high scores in the personality traits conscientiousness or job search self-efficacy. The motivating effect resulting from the crisis perception leads to a high involvement in job search activities and eagerness to find employment. Students rating low in crisis perception however need higher ratings in the personality traits conscientiousness or job search self-efficacy in order to actively get involved in the job search process.
Theoretical implications
Job search self-efficacy has been considered as a good predictor in various previous research projects. Although Moynihan et al. (2003) found that job search self-efficacy would
not predict active job search behaviour; unexpectedly it neither predicted preparatory job search behaviours in the present study. Explanations and interpretations why job search self- efficacy was no significant predictor for either job search behaviours is difficult to be given and might require some speculations. One possible reason might be the sample used in the study. For example, previous research has focused on unemployed people (Kanfer et al., 1985; Wanberg et al., 1999), minimally educated people (Schmit et al., 1993) or US or Canadian college students (Ellis et al., 1983; Saks et al., 1999), whereas for this research the focus was on German graduate students.
Conscientiousness has been found to be an appropriate indicator to measure self- reported assertive job-seeking behaviour among adult job applicants (Schmit et al., 1993).
Also Wanberg et al. (1996) found conscientiousness positively related to job search intensity.
Contrary to expectations it did only provide significant results in the regression analysis for preparatory job search behaviour, not for active job search behaviour. A reason for that could be that previous studies did not differentiate between preparatory and active job search behaviour. Another reason might be that active job search behaviours such as getting a job interview involve a second decision maker, who bases their decision on several aspects, not only on the conscientiousness of the applicant.
Above this, the present study enhances prior research by the aspect of crisis perception. One of the findings that shed a new light in job search literature is the fact that the crisis perception predicts both preparatory and active job search behaviours. Hence, besides individual traits and situational factors such as social support (Wanberg et al., 1996; Vinokur et al., 1987), also the economic situation of a country may have an impact on the job search behaviours of graduate students. Additionally, the influence of the economic crisis does not only have a direct effect on job search behaviours but also moderates previous researched relationship such as between job search self-efficacy and job search behaviours as well as between conscientiousness and job search behaviours. Both relationships were significantly
less pronounced for students high in crisis perception. When students perceives the crisis, the amount of job search behaviours they will get engaged in will increase irrespectively their degree of conscientiousness or job search self-efficacy. Hence, also students with low self- efficacy or conscientiousness are able to pursue a high degree of job search behaviours as long as the crisis is noticed. Therefore, it can be assumed that one of the items allows graduates to compensate for a lack of the other variable. In order to get involved in to the job search process intensively, a graduate needs either a high degree of self-efficacy, conscientiousness or a high degree of crisis perception.
Practical implications
The present research suggests that the perception of an extrinsic crisis does positively affect job search behaviours directly, and also functions as a moderating factor. Research on crisis perception and its motivating effect might not only be relevant in job search literature but also of interest from the employment point of view. Due to the increased number of job search behaviours of students with low conscientiousness or job search self-efficacy, I assume that companies with open vacancies will face more applications for one position as under normal economic circumstances, which might lead to a greater work load for recruiters during the selection process. Furthermore, it might also have an impact on the type of applicants – a greater variety of personalities and characters will possibly apply for one position. This might be an interesting aspect for external recruiting agencies as well. The increased amount of job search behaviours of graduate students might give them a greater and more diverse database to choose appropriate candidates from but also requires more time and costs to choose the appropriate candidate.
Research Limitations
When interpreting the results there are different limitations that need to be considered. First of all, I collected all data from graduate students of all fields in Germany from both universities and universities of applied sciences, which reduces generalizability. Another limitation of this
research is that all data are based on self-report measures, and hence, are subjective in nature.
A general known problem is that results of social studies might reflect some common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003). However, measurements to reduce the likelihood of common method variance were applied, such as inserting the interaction terms into the calculation. Interaction terms usually do not occur in the multiple regression analysis if common method variance is an issue (Evans, 1985).
Despite including several control variables in the regression analysis, there are several other influencing variables, which I did not control for. For example, previous research showed that both a proactive personality (Brown et al., 1999) and locus of control (Vinokur et al., 1987) were significantly related to job search behaviours. Controlling for more variables might have provided for a more robust test of the study hypotheses.
Future research directions
The study included predictors which were largely motivational in nature. Other important predictors may include skills and qualifications students collected during their studies, such as internships, voluntary work and stays abroad. It would also be interesting to differentiate between the fields of studies or unemployment rates in various fields (like engineering, social sciences, etc). With regard to the ongoing “war for talent” especially in the field of engineering and natural sciences (Handelsblatt, 2007), I assume, the outcome would be very different depending on the field of competencies. Another interesting aspect for future research would be to analyse whether a high crisis perception also has a motivating effect on other people outside my target group (graduate students looking for their first permanent position). Previous research has shown that people aged 50 and older have more difficulties to find employment after job loss (Brandon, 2009; Kam, 2003; Ligos. & Schwalm, 1998). I could imagine that the motivating effect of the crisis decreases with increasing age of employees, and might eventually even lead to demotivation, fear and anxiety.
Previously, I stated that the intensive job search process requires either a high degree of job search self-efficacy, conscientiousness or crisis perception. Future research might take up that aspect and examine whether crisis perception has as a strong influence to diminish the impact of personality traits in general.
Last but not least, future research should also focus on the final outcome, whether students actually found employment, and whether crisis perception plays also a vital role.
REFERENCES
Answers.com (2009). Ceiling effect. [online]. Available at:
http://www.answers.com/topic/ceiling-effect. [Accessed 27th July 2009].
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Bakker, A.B. (2006). The Relationship Between the Big Five Personality Factors and Burnout: A Study Among Volunteer Counselors. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146(1), 31-50.
Barnett, C.K. & Pratt, M.G. (2000). From threat-rigidity to flexibility. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13(1), 74-88.
Billings, R.S., Milburn, T.W. & Schaalman, M.L. (1980). A Model of Crisis Perception: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 300-316.
Blau, G. (1994). Testing a Two-Dimensional Measure of Job Search Behavior.
Organizational Behavior and Human decision processes, 59(2), 288-312.
Bono, J.E. & Judge, T.A. (2004). Personality and Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901-910.
Brandon, E. (2009). Landing a Job after 50. U.S. News & World Report, 146(4),
Brown, D.J., Cober, R.T., Kane, K., Levy, P.E. & Shalhoop, J. (2006). Proactive Personality and the successful job search: A Field investigation with college students. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 717-726.
Burger, J.M. & Caldwell, D.F. (2000). Personality, Social Activities, Job-Search Behavior and Interview Success: Distinguishing Between PANAS Trait Positive Affect and NEO Extraversion. Motivation and Emotion, 24(1), 51-62.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T. & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic performance:
Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 319-338.
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(4), 251-266.
Colbert, A.E. & Witt, L.A. (2009). The Role of Goal-Focused Leadership in Enabling the Expression of Conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 790-796.
Colquitt, J.A. & Simmering, M.J. (1998). Conscientiousness, Goal Orientation, and Motivation to Learn During the Learning Process: A Longitudinal Study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 654-665.
D'Aveni, R.A. & MacMillan, I.C. (1990). Crisis and the Content of Managerial
Communications: A Study of the Focus of Attention of Top Managers in Surviving and Failing Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 634-657
de Fruyt, F. & Mervielde, I. (1996). Personality and interests as predictors of educational streaming and achievement. European Journal of Personality, 10, 405-425.
Demerouti, E. (2006). Job Characteristics, Flow, and Performance: The Moderating Role of Conscientiousness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(3), 266-280.
Donnellan, B., Oswald, F.L., Baird, B.M. & Lucas, R.E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP Scales: Tiny- Yet-Effective Measures of the Big Five Factors of Personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192-203.
Dutton, J.E. (1986). The processing of crisis and non-crisis strategic issues. Journal of Management Studies, 23(5), 501-517.
Eden, D. & Aviram, A. (1993). Self-Efficacy Training to Speed Reemployment: Helping People to Help Themselves. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(3), 352-360.
Eilam, B.; Zeidner, M. & Aharon, I. (2009). Student Conscientiousness, Self-Regulated Learning, and Science Achievement: An Explorative Field Study. Psychology in the Schools, 46(5), 420-432.
Ellis, R. & Taylor, S. (1983). Role of Self-Esteem within the job search process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 632-640.
Evans, M.G. (1985). A Monte Carlo Study of the Effects of Correlated Method Variance in Moderated Multiple Regression Analysis. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 36, 305-323.
Focus Online (2009a) March 23. Zurück in die Massenarbeitslosigkeit. [online]. Available at:
http://www.focus.de/finanzen/news/arbeitsmarkt/rezession-zurueck-in-die- massenarbeitslosigkeit_aid_383188.html. [Accessed 8th May 2009]
Focus Online (2009b) April 23. Misere hält noch lange an. [online]. Available at:
http://www.focus.de/finanzen/news/konjunktur/fruehjahrsgutachten-misere-haelt-noch- lange-an_aid_392541.html. [Accessed 8th May 2009].
FU Berlin (2003, April 10). General Perceived Self-Efficacy. [online]. Available at:
http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/engscal.htm [Accessed 28th June 2009].
Gladwin, T.N. & Kumar, R. (1987). The Social Psychology of Crisis Bargaining: Toward a Contingency Model. Columbia Journal of World Business, 22(1), 23-31.
Grant, S. & Langan-Fox, J. (2007). Personality and the Occupational Stressor–Strain Relationship: The Role of the Big Five. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(1), 20-33.
Handelsblatt (2007, August 20). Fachkräftemangel kommt Deutschland teuer. [online].
Available at: http://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/fachkraeftemangel-kommt- deutschland-teuer;1310972. [Accessed 29th July 2009].
Heaven, P.C.L. & Ciarrochi, J. (2008). Parental Styles, Conscientiousness, and Academic Performance in High School: A Three-Wave Longitudinal Study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 451-461.
Judge, T.A., Erez, A., Bono, J.E. & Thoresen, C.J. (2002). The core self-evaluations scale:
Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56(303), 331
Kam, P. (2003). Powerlessness of Older People in Hong Kong: A Political Economy Analysis. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 15(4), 81-112.
Kanfer, R. & Hulin, C. (1985). Individual differences in successful job searches following lay-off. Personnel Psychology, 38, 835-847.
Kanfer, R., Kantrowitz, T.M. & Wanberg, C.R. (2001). Job Search and Employment: A Personality-Motivational Analysis and Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 837-855.
Kiesler, S. & Sproull, L. (1982). Managerial Response to Changing Environment:
Perspectives on Problem Sensing from Social Cognition. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 548-570.
Kuklan, H. (1988). Perception and organizational crisis management. Theory and Decision, 25, 259-274.
Ligos, M. & Schwalm, J.D. (1998). Too old to sell? Sales & Marketing Management, 150(6)
LePine, J.A., LePine, M.A. & Jackson, C.L. (2004). Challenge and Hindrance Stress:
Relationships With Exhaustion, Motivation to Learn, and Learning Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 883-891.
Linneha, F. & Blau, G. (1998). Exploring the Emotional Side of Job Search Behavior for Younger Workforce Entrants. Journal of Employment Counseling, 35(3), 98-113.
Morgenmagazin (2009, March 25). Wo gibt's noch Jobs? [online]. Available at:
http://morgenmagazin.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/25/0,1872,7540249,00.html. [Accessed 25th March 2009].
Moynihan, L.M., Roehling, M.V., Lepine, M.A. & Boswell, W. (2003). A Longitudinal study of the relationships among job search self-efficacy, job interviews, and employment outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(2), 207-233.
Penrose, J.M. (2000). The Role of Perception in Crisis Planning. Public Relations Review, 26(2), 155-171.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.
Saks, A.M. & Ashforth, B.E. (1999). Effects of individual differences and job search behaviours on the employment status of recent university graduates. Journal of vocational behaviour, 54, 335-349.
Schmit, M.J., Amel, E.L. & Ryan, A.M. (1993). Self-reported assertive job-seeking behaviors of minimally educated job hunters. Personnel Psychology, 46(1), 105-124.
Sinaiko, H.W. & Brisling, R.W. (1973). Evaluating language translations: experiments on three assessment methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 328-334.
Staw, B.M., Sandelands, L.E. & Dutton, J.E. (1981). Threat-Rigidity Effects in
Organizational Behavior: A multilevel Analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501
Tjosvold, D. (1984). Effects of Crisis Orientation on Managers' Approach to Controversy in Decision Making. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 130-138.
Trougakos, J.P., Bull, R.A., Green, S.G., MacDermid, S.M. & Weiss, H.M. (2007). Influences on Job Search Self-Efficacy of Spouses of Enlisted Military Personnel. Human
Performance, 20(4), 391-413.
Troutman, C., Burke, K. & Beeler, J. (2000). The Effects of Self-Efficacy, Assertiveness, Stress, and Gender On Intention To Turnover In Public Accounting. The Journal of Applied Business Research, 16(3), 63-74.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., de Witte, S., de Witte, H. & Deci, E.L. (2004). The 'why' and 'why not' of job search behaviour: Their relation to searching, unemployment experience, and well-being. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 345-363.
Vinokur, A. & Caplan, R. D. (1987). Attitudes and Social Support: Determinants of Job- Seeking Behavior and Well-Being among the Unemployed. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17(12), 1007-1024.
Wanberg, C.R. & Watt, J.D., Rumsey, D.J. (1996). Individuals without Jobs: An Empirical Study of Job-Seeking Behaviour and Reemployment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1), 76-87.
Wanberg, C.R.; Kanfer, R.; Rotundo, M. (1999). Unemployed Individuals: Motives, Job- Search Competencies, and Job-Search Constraints as Predictors of Job Seeking and Reemployment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 897-910.
Zellars, K.L., Perrewe, P.L., Hochwarter, W.A., Anderson & K.S. (2006). The Interactive Effects of Positive Affect and Conscientiousness on Strain. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11(3), 281-289.
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE Dear participant,
No day passes without reading negative news about the current economic situation. In connection with this, consequences for the German labour market are stressed more and more frequently.
In my master thesis I would like to pick up this topic and examine the influence of the financial crisis on the job search behaviour of graduate students. Therefore, I developed a questionnaire, which is separated into four parts.
I am kindly asking you to quickly fill in all questions. Don’t think about, which answers might give a good impression or might be true for the average of people in the society, but give the answers based on your personal feelings and thoughts.
There are NO right or wrong answers. When answering the questions you might gain the impression that some phrases are similar. Please, don’t get irritated by that.
Completing the questionnaire will take no more than 10 minutes.
Of course all answers will be treated confidentially and will only be used fort the purpose of this study. All answers will be analyzed statistically, so that no conclusions about individual persons can be drawn.
If you are interested in the results of the study, please contact me via email:
christinaberlin@gmx.de. I will send you the results as soon as I finish my project. Thank you very much in advance for your support!
Kind regards Christina Berlin
1. Part: Crisis Perception
Please indicate how strongly you personally feel the crisis by ticking the boxes from 1 (not strong at all) to 5 (very strong).
1. The problem associated with the financial crisis also constituted a crisis on the labour market. How strongly do you feel the current crisis personally?
1 2 3 4 5
2. How would you describe the impact of the financial crisis on your current chances on the German labour market?
1 2 3 4 5 3. How disruptive is it for you to seek
employment in a situation of job cuts and short-time work due to the financial crisis
1 2 3 4 5 4. In general, how uncertain are you about
which actions to take in order to deal with the current labour market situation?
1 2 3 4 5 5. How difficult do you think it will be for
you to obtain employment? 1 2 3 4 5
2. Part: Self-Efficacy, Personality
How confident do you fell about being able to do the following things successfully?
(1= not at all; 5= very confident)
6. Making a good list of all the skills that you
have and can be used to find a job? 1 2 3 4 5 7. Completing a good job application and
résumé? 1 2 3 4 5
8. Contacting and persuading potential
employers to consider you for a job? 1 2 3 4 5 How true are the following statements? (1) not at all true, (5) absolutely true
9. Am the life of the party. 1 2 3 4 5 10. Get chores done right away. 1 2 3 4 5 11. Have frequent mood swings. 1 2 3 4 5 12. Don’t talk a lot. 1 2 3 4 5 13. Often forget to put things back in their proper
place. 1 2 3 4 5
14. Am relaxed most of the time. 1 2 3 4 5 15. Talk to a lot of different people at parties. 1 2 3 4 5
16. Like order. 1 2 3 4 5 17. Get upset easily. 1 2 3 4 5 18. Keep in the background. 1 2 3 4 5 19. Make a mess of things. 1 2 3 4 5
20. Seldom feel blue. 1 2 3 4 5
3. Part: Application process
How frequently did you carry out each item in the last 2 months?
1= never (0 times) 2= rarely (1-2 times) 3=occasionally (3-5 times) 4= frequently (6-9 times)
5= very frequently (at least 10 times)
21. Read the help wanted/classified ads in the
newspaper, journal, or on the web 1 2 3 4 5 22. Prepared/Revised your résumé 1 2 3 4 5 23. Read a book or article about getting a
job. 1 2 3 4 5
24. Talked with friends or relatives about
possible job leads 1 2 3 4 5
25. Using university help for job search
(Career Centres, Career Fairs, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 26. Spoke with previous employers or
business acquaintances about their knowledge of potential job leads (from student jobs or internships)
1 2 3 4 5 27. Listed yourself as a job applicant in a
newspaper, journal, or professional association
1 2 3 4 5
28. Sent your resumes to potential employers 1 2 3 4 5 29. Filled out job application forms 1 2 3 4 5 30. Had a job interview with a prospective
employer 1 2 3 4 5
31. Contacted an employment agency, executive search firm or state employment service
1 2 3 4 5
32. Telephone prospective employers 1 2 3 4 5
4. Part: demographic questions
What is your field of studies? Business and Economics
Behavioural and Social Sciences Mathematics & Natural Sciences Engineering and technical sciences Media and communication
Others:
What degree are you going to Bachelor
obtain? Diplom
Master
When have you graduated/ January – Mars 2009 will you be graduating? April - June 2009
July – September 2009 September – December 2009 How old are you? years
Gender male female
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING PART!
APPENDIX B: TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLE 1
Means, Standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations of variables
Mean SD α 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Gendera 1.69 .46 1
2. Neu-
roticism 2.55 .74 .66 -.04 1
3. Extra-
version 3.19 .81 .72 -.03 -.15 1
4. Job search self efficacy
3.89 .77 .75 .03 -.30** .20* 1
5.Con- scientious- ness
3.70 .78 .64 .08 -.12 .05 .11 1
6. Crisis
Perception 3.27 .93 .84 .16 .16 -.09 - .30** .06 1 7. Prepara-
tory JSB 2.57 .76 .72 .10 .08 .16 .10 .20* .33** 1
8. Active
JSB 1.70 .76 .83 -.02 .00 .11 .16 .11 .24** .69** 1
Note: Due to missing data, Ns ranged from 113 to 114
a Coded 1 = male; 2 = female
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
TABLE 2
Standardized Coefficients from hierarchical regression analysis with job search self- efficacy and crisis perception as predictors of preparatory and active job search
behaviour
Preparatory JSB Active Job Search Behaviour
Variable β1 β 2 β 3 β 4 β1 β 2 β 3 β 4
Gender a .11 .11 .04 .03 -.01 -.02 -.08 -.08
Neuroticism .11 .13 .10 .09 .02 .06 .04 .03
1
Extroversion .18 .16 .17 .17 .12 .09 .10 .10
2 Job search Self- Efficacy
.10 .21* .24* .16 .26* .29**
3 Crisis
Perception .38*** .42*** .34*** .36***
4 T.S. Self- Efficacy x Crisis Perception
-.19* -.14
R² .04 .05 .18 .22 .01 .04 .14 .15
∆ R² .04 .01 .13*** .04* .01 .02 .10*** .01
a Coded 1 = male; 2 = female
***p<.001; **p < .01; * p < .05
TABLE 3
Standardized Coefficients from hierarchical regression analysis with conscientiousness and crisis perception as predictors of preparatory and active job search behaviour
Preparatory JSB Active Job Search Behaviour
Variable β1 β 2 β 3 β 4 β1 β 2 β 3 β 4
Gender a .11 .09 .04 .04 -.01 -.02 -.06 -.06
Neuroticism .11 .13 .07 .08 .02 .03 -.02 -.01
1
Extroversion .18 .17 .19* .22* .12 .11 .13 .15
2 Conscientiousness .20* .17 .13 .11 .09 .06
3 Crisis Perception .32*** .34*** .26** .28**
4 Conscientiousness x Crisis
Perception
-.23** -.19*
R² .05 .08 .18 .23 .01 .02 .09 .12
∆ R² .05 .03* .10*** .05** .01 .01 .07** .03*
a Coded 1 = male; 2 = female
***p<.001; **p < .01; * p < .05
FIGURE 1 Research Model
FIGURE 2
Interaction between job search self efficacy and perceived crisis on preparatory job search behaviour
Independent Variable
Job search self-efficacy
Conscientiousness
Dependent Variable
Preparatory JSB
Active JSB
Moderator
Crisis Perception
FIGURE 3
Interaction between conscientiousness and perceived crisis on preparatory job search behaviour
FIGURE 4
Interaction between conscientiousness and perceived crisis on active job search behaviour
