THE INFLUENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL AND SOCIAL
CAPITAL ON JOB-SEARCH RELATED SELF-EFFICACY
Master thesis, specialization Human Resource Management
AGNES HOLTROP STUDENTNUMBER: 1263862
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
Landleven 8, Postbus 800, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands +31 (0)6 52 32 3558
ABSTRACT
Researchers have extensively studied the effects of job loss on a person’s life. Even though the relevance of personal resources within issues concerning unemployment and
reemployment is increasingly being underlined, less progress has been made in understanding how individuals subsequently use their personal resources in order to recover from job loss and to become reemployed. Building on this notion, this paper will examine job search related self efficacy (i.e. one’s self-confidence in being able to find a job again) and the antecedents (i.e. psychological capital and social capital) of job search related self efficacy. Three hypotheses were developed and tested in a sample of 79 former participants of a
reemployment program. The results show that psychological capital and social capital both are significantly and positively related to job search related self efficacy. When used in practice, this knowledge can contribute to higher psychological well-being and a more constructive job search from an individual perspective and it can contribute to better (re)employment rates from a business perspective.
INTRODUCTION
To an individual, unemployment can be one of life’s major events. As early as the sixties, Holmes and Rahe (1967) found that people ranked being fired at work together with, for example, bereavement and divorce as the most stressful events one can come across. Because of the impact of job loss, researchers have extensively studied the effects of this major life event on a person’s life (Wanberg, McKee-Ryan & Kinicki, 2005). Subsequently, the focus of research is put on studying predictors of reemployment (Wanberg, Kanfer & Rotundo, 1999). However, less progress has been made in understanding how individuals employ their personal resources in order to recover from job loss and to engage in a
constructive job search. The purpose of this paper therefore is, to examine the antecedents of job search related self efficacy (i.e. one’s self-confidence in being able to find a job again).
successfully perform a variety of job-search activities’ (Wanberg, Kanfer & Rotundo, 1999, p. 899). This construct has been related to increased job search behavior and reemployment in prior research. Wanberg et al. (1999) found a positive relationship between job search related self efficacy and job search intensity after job loss. In turn, they found that higher job search intensity was associated with higher reemployment probability. Van Ryn and Vinokur (1991) found similar results on which they based the conclusion that the belief that one is able to engage in constructive job search, increases the intention to actually perform the job search behavior.
With the recent literature as a starting point, it is of added value to the disciplines concerning unemployment and reemployment to examine job search related self efficacy in light of the antecedents that influence this construct. To address this issue, this paper will try to examine the relationship between job search related self efficacy and psychological and social resources by trying to answer the following question: can it be stated that personal resources contribute to one’s self-confidence in being able to find a job again? With regard to personal resources, this paper will focus on psychological and social resources. Albeit the fact that there are various terms in circulation to indicate these kinds of resources, this paper will use the terms psychological capital (PsyCap) and social capital (SocCap). The former term refers to ‘an individual’s positive psychological state of development’ (Luthans et al. 2006, p. 26); the latter term refers to ‘resources of trust, relationships, and contact networks’ (Luthans, Luthans, and Luthans 2004, p. 46). Since psychological capital and social capital act as parts of the personal safety net on which every individual has to rely, they are of particular
search. Furthermore, Wanberg et al. (2005) found a small number of studies that focused on the relationship between well-being of a person seeking employment and his or her
reemployment probability. The findings of these studies implicate a relationship between psychological and physical well-being during unemployment on the one hand, and
reemployment probability on the other hand. Research has also shown that job loss can have adverse effects on symptoms of depression (Vinokur, Price & Caplan, 1996). Symptoms of depression subsequently can be detrimental to psychological resources. In addition, Vinokur and Schul (2002) investigated the effects of symptoms of depression on reemployment. They found that the extent and quality of reemployment is negatively affected by these symptoms.
In short, many research results support the idea that job loss and unemployment affect psychological and social resources. Furthermore, the importance of job search related self efficacy has been pointed out in relation to job search behavior and reemployment probability. Unambiguous research results that show whether or not there is a significant relationship between job search related self efficacy and these resources, however, are yet to be attained. To address this issue, this paper will try to examine the relationship between job search related self efficacy and psychological capital and social capital (see figure 1 for a conceptual model). Furthermore, it will explore the possibility of an interaction between psychological capital and social capital that may be of influence on job search related self efficacy.
***** Figure 1 *****
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
individual has available are pivotal. According to the COR theory, individuals are more likely to experience positive well-being (eustress) when they develop resource surpluses. In contrast, when individuals are ill equipped to gain resources, they are likely to be relatively vulnerable. Hobfoll differentiates four kinds of resources within his COR theory: object resources (e.g. a home), conditions (e.g. marriage), energies (e.g. time, money), and personal characteristics (e.g. personal traits and skills such as self-esteem, social self-confidence). In this respect, psychological capital and social capital can also be notified as resources.
In case of job loss, the unemployment status can have a negative influence on resources such as psychological capital and social capital. Job loss causes ‘psychological stress’ which Hobfoll defines as ‘a reaction to the environment in which there is (a) the threat of a net loss of resources, (b) the actual net loss of resources, or (c) a lack of resource gain following the investment of resources’ (Hobfoll, 1989, p516). This way, resources are playing one of the most important roles when it comes to understanding and describing stress
possess strong pools of resources, they are more likely to accept or seek opportunities to risk resources in order to obtain new resources. In other words, an individual with larger amounts of psychological capital and social capital will be better protected against the effects of job loss and will also be better in coping with the new circumstances. There is a big chance that this person will not suffer major damage to his or her self esteem. He or she therefore keeps believing in his or her ability to find a job again and this person will employ his or her resources more constructively in order to find a new job, which increases the chance to actually find a job extensively. In contrast, when individuals lack resources, they are likely to develop a defensive attitude that on the one hand limits the possibility of further resource loss, but on the other hand also rules out the possibilities for resource gain (Hobfoll & Shirom, 2000).
Hypotheses
contains, PsyCap fits within the definition of one of the four kinds of resources that Hobfoll differentiates in his COR theory (1989), namely personal characteristics.
Hobfoll’s COR theory can help understand the role that psychological capital is playing with regard to job loss, unemployment, and reemployment. Hobfoll states that even though loss of resources is stressful, it is possible to employ other resources to compensate for this loss. When applying the COR theory to the relationship between psychological capital and job search related self efficacy, it becomes clear that an individual, among other things, has to rely on his or her psychological capital as a safety net when coping with job loss. As a result of this, the buffer of psychological capital will be affected. In turn, consistent with one of the findings of the COR theory, it will depend on the strength of the pool of resources in what way and to what extent one’s job search related self efficacy will be affected. According to Hobfoll (1989), individuals with an adequate amount of psychological capital are better capable of handling resource loss. The fact that they loose their job has less effect on their psychological capital so that they remain more capable of resource gain. In other words, they continue to be more optimistic, resilient, and persistent, and their level of self efficacy continues to be higher so that their job search related self efficacy will be less affected than the job search related self efficacy of individuals who lack an adequate amount of
Hypothesis 1: Persons high on psychological capital will have a higher level of job search related self efficacy than persons low on psychological capital.
Besides the importance of psychological capital, social capital also plays a role in dealing with stressful situations. According to Luthans et al. (2004, p. 46), social capital (SocCap) refers to ‘resources of trust, relationships, and contact networks’. They state that social capital can be used in order to explain relationships both inside and outside the working environment. The emphasis in their article is put on formal networks. Wanberg, Song, and Hough (2002), in contrast, put emphasis on relationships with family, friends, and acquaintances that could be of mental support as well as of informative support to an unemployed job seeking person.
The COR theory of Hobfoll (1989) can also be applied in this case. With regard to formal networks, Kinicky et al. (2000) have shown that this kind of social capital depletes very quickly during unemployment. It is therefore likely that unemployed people generally can not lean on strong formal networks during their job search. The results of Kinicky at al. (2000) however also show a replenishment after suitable reemployment. This means that, in most cases, formal networks will be restored quite soon after reemployment. When applying this knowledge to Hobfoll’s COR theory, the belief emerges that job loss will decline social capital. A low amount of social capital in turn, will negatively affect job search related self efficacy, since the lack of formal networks will enlarge the distance to the labor market.
surroundings with whom they can share a burden and they cannot call upon others to help them and to provide them of support and advice. Findings of Vinokur, Price, and Kaplan (1996) furthermore, show that withdrawal of social capital can make an unemployed person even more vulnerable. In short, with little support or no support at all, the chance exists that the self confidence of an individual will decline.
The above findings suggest the important role of social support with regard to job search related self efficacy. Therefore, this study will examine the relationship between job search related self efficacy and social capital (fig. 1). In this paper, social capital will refer to formal as well as informal networks because of the believe that, in case of healthy networks, both contribute positively to one’s confidence in being able to find a job again. The second hypothesis is derived from these findings:
Hypothesis 2: Persons high on social capital will have a higher level of job search related self efficacy than persons low on social capital.
Hobfoll and Shirom (2000) furthermore, argue that psychological capital and social capital belong to the same group of resources (i.e. personal characteristics), and that they reinforce each other. When discussing the origin of the COR theory, Hobfoll and Shirom (2000) state that possessing psychological capital is often tied with possessing social capital, and that lacking one of both kinds of capital increases the likelihood of lacking the other (see also Hobfoll, Nadler & Lieberman, 1986). With this knowledge in mind, it is interesting to examine the interplay of both types of capital in influencing job search related self efficacy. For example, what happens to the relationship with job search related self efficacy if
stressful situations, is expected to have even more self confidence in being able to find a job again. The opposite is also expected to be true. If both kinds of capital are low, job search related self efficacy is expected to decrease more than when only one kind of capital is low. In addition, what happens if either one kind of capital is high while the other is low? It is
expected that the combination of high psychological capital and low social capital and the combination of low psychological capital and high social capital will produce roughly the same level of job search related self efficacy. As a result, the level of job search related self efficacy reached with either combination, is expected to be considerably lower then when both kinds of capital are high, but possibly higher then when both kinds of capital are low. This study will examine if there is an interaction between psychological capital and social capital in relation to job search related self efficacy (fig. 1) by means of testing the third and last hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3: Psychological capital and social capital are associated with job search related self efficacy in an interactive manner. Job search related self efficacy is higher when both psychological capital and social capital are high, but lower when either psychological capital and social capital (or both of these variables) are low.
METHODS Procedures
This study was conducted with the cooperation of the Kennis Campus Emmen (KCE). One of the projects of this organization is “Kansen voor Kenniswerkers” (KvKW), a
reemployment program in particular developed for highly educated, but unemployed
In the context of the evaluation of the program KvKW, the data for this study was collected with the use of a questionnaire. This questionnaire concerned the program and it was developed in order to obtain important demographic information. Standardized psychological scales were added to the questionnaire in order to measure the variables of this study’s conceptual model, to be precise: psychological capital, social capital, and job search related self efficacy (see figure 1). As personality will be used as a control variable, a personality scale was also added. Because all of the above scales were originally written in English, the scales had to be translated into Dutch since all participants speak the Dutch language. In order to be sure that the translations were correct, all scales were subsequently translated back from Dutch into English by an independent third party. Together with a covering letter and
instructions, the questionnaire and the scales were sent to all former participants of KvKW by post. Returned questionnaires and scales were processed anonymously.
Sample
The KCE provided the data of 142 persons who participated in KvKW between 2006 and 2008. Completed questionnaires were received from 79 individuals of this sample (55,6 %). Of this sample, 56 (70,9%) individuals are male and 23 (29,1%) are female. The average age of the group lies between 50 and 55 years. Of the respondents, 64 (81%) have a HBO (higher professional education) degree or higher. Finally, of the sample 43 (54,4%)
respondents are employed and 36 (45,6%) respondents are unemployed. An overview of these characteristics of the program can be found in table 1.
Measures
items. The respondent can indicate the extent to which the statements accurately describe him or herself on a six-point scale, ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. To give an example, one of the items is: “I feel confident analyzing a long-term problem to find a
solution”. An overview of all items can be found in appendix 2, scale 1. The Cronbach alpha for this measure is .88.
Social Capital . This construct was rated by means of a six-item measure developed by Abbey, Abramis, and Caplan (1985). The participants are asked to what extent people in their personal environment provide them with various kinds of social support. This way it is possible to get an idea of the social support a person receives in his or her personal life. The respondent can indicate the extent to which the statements accurately describe his or her situation on a five-point scale, ranging from ‘not at all’ to ‘a great deal’. Each question begins with: “In the last 7 days, how much have people in your personal life…”. Subsequently a statement is given, for example: “given you useful information and advice when you wanted it?”. All items of this measure can be found in appendix 2, scale 2. Cronbach alpha for this measure is .90.
Job Search related Self Efficacy. This construct was rated by means of a six-item measure developed by Van Ryn and Vinokur (1992). The measure is focused on the
participant’s believe in his or her abilities to successfully undertake actions in order to find a job. The respondent can indicate the confidence he or she has about being able to undertake the actions described in the six statements on a five-point scale, ranging from ‘not at all confident’ to ‘a great deal confident’. One of the statements is: “make the best impression and get points across in an interview”. All items of this measure can be found in appendix 2, scale 3. Cronbach alpha for this measure is .84.
as follows: 1 = LBO/MAVO (VMBO), 2 = MBO, 3 = HAVO/VWO, 4 = HBO and 5 = WO.1 Finally, personality was inserted as a control variable since several personality traits formerly have been linked to issues concerning employment and unemployment. Wanberg et al. (1996) linked conscientiousness to job seeking behavior. Schmit, Amel, and Ryan (1993)
furthermore, supported the relevance of personality to the job-search process in general by reporting that persons high on extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness, and low on neuroticism (i.e. high emotional stability) engage in higher levels of assertive job-search behavior. Personality was measured with the use of the 20-item measure of Donnellan et al. (2006). This measure is a shortened version of the International Personality Item Pool – Five Factor Model (IPIP-FFM, Goldberg, 1999), which is based on the Big Five model. The Big Five contains the following personality domains: extraversion, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness. In the questionnaire, each domain is measured by a four-item subscale. The respondent can indicate the extent to which the statements accurately describe him or herself on a five-point scale, ranging from ‘very inaccurate’ to ‘very accurate’. Statements for example are: “I get chores done right away” and “I get upset easily”. An overview of all items can be found in appendix 2, scale 4. The Cronbach alpha’s for the five subscales are: extraversion = .78, agreeableness = .72, conscientiousness = .59, neuroticism = .72, openness = .54.
Analysis
The data analyses were done in SPSS. After deriving the final sample (N) from the total sample by filtering those persons who meet the research criteria, the characteristics, descriptive statistics and correlations of this final sample were calculated. Thereafter, the
1
1. Since all participants have Dutch educational degrees, data concerning this variable was obtained by using the Dutch school system. LBO/MAVO (VMBO) = Lower professional education/Midlevel general secondary education. MBO = Midlevel professional education. HAVO/VWO = Higher general secondary
hypotheses of this paper were tested using a moderated hierarchical regression analysis. By means of this method the relationship between a dependent variable and several independent variables can be examined. With regard to this paper, the analysis contains three steps. In the first step, the regression of job search related self efficacy on the control variables was assessed. Then, in order to test the first and second hypothesis, the variables PsyCap and SocCap were inserted in step two. Finally, in step three the interaction variable was added in order to test the third hypothesis. Before creating the interaction variable, both PsyCap and SocCap were grand mean-centered (Aiken & West, 1991).
RESULTS
p > .05). Furthermore, research has formerly indicated neuroticism as an important factor within personal resources (Schmit et al., 1993). Employment status will also be inserted because of the reasonable thought that employed individuals possess larger amounts of job search related self efficacy than unemployed individuals. The results of this study
furthermore, show that the correlation between this variable and job search related self efficacy nears the level of significance within this sample (r = .17; p > .05).
***** Table 2 *****
Table 3 shows the results of the moderated hierarchical regression analysis. After taking into account the control variables in the first step of the analysis, the second step of the regression analysis shows a significant and positive relationship between job search related self efficacy and psychological capital (β = .33 ; p< .05). This finding supports Hypothesis 1. Step two of the regression analysis also shows a significant and positive relationship between job search related self efficacy and social capital (β = .29 ; p< .05). This finding supports hypothesis 2. Over and above the effects of the control variables, psychological capital and social capital contribute 15,3% to the prediction of job search related self efficacy.
By inserting the interaction variable which consists of the interaction between PsyCap and SocCap, the third step op the regression analysis tested Hypothesis 3. Table 3 shows that the relationship between job search related self efficacy and the interaction variable is positive but not significant. Hypothesis 3 is therefore not supported by the findings in step three of the regression analysis.
***** Table 3 *****
DISCUSSION
possibility of an interaction between psychological capital and social capital that may be of influence on job search related self efficacy. In virtue of the results, it can be concluded that both psychological capital and social capital are significantly and positively related to job search related self efficacy. This means that individuals with a high amount of psychological capital or social capital in general also possess a high amount of job search related self efficacy. Consistent with the findings of the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), the results imply that persons with larger amounts of psychological capital or social capital are less vulnerable to resource loss and more capable of resource gain. Since these persons are better able to make constructive use of their resources when coping with difficult situations, it is expected that their self confidence is also higher. In contrast, persons who lack psychological capital or social capital will be less capable of resource gain (Hobfoll, 1989). As a result, they will also have less confidence in their own abilities to find a job again.
Limitations
Even though the results of this study add to former research, there are limitations that should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results. First, the sample size is rather small which makes it more complicated to apply the results to the entire group of unemployed individuals. The characteristics of the sample should also be taken into account. First of all, the sample contains former participants of a reemployment program which means that an intervention had already taken place before these individuals filled in the
questionnaires. The focus of this intervention was, among other things, put on increasing psychological capital and social capital. This means that these resources most likely have altered during the program. On the one hand this is not a problem, since the results show the type of relationship between psychological capital, social capital and job search related self efficacy, despite of interventions. On the other hand, it can lead to a biased picture of how individuals cope with job loss on their own. Furthermore, the average age and the average level of education of the sample is quite high. Since literature regarding this target group of older, highly educated individuals is scarce, these features on the one hand are of added value. It gives more apprehension of how older, highly educated individuals cope with job loss and finding a job again. On the other hand, this means that without further research, the results do not represent the mechanisms for the entire group of unemployed, job searching persons. Finally, the results of the analysis only show that the variables (job search related self efficacy, psychological capital, and social capital) are related with each other. No causal conclusions, however, can be drawn from these results.
Future research directions
job search related self efficacy and its antecedents before these features are influenced by external interventions. Researching these groups after an intervention has taken place can subsequently show if job search related self efficacy can be altered, hopefully in a positive direction.
Furthermore, within this study, part of the sample contained individuals who are still unemployed and part of the sample contained individuals who are employed again. Even though the correlation between job search related self efficacy and employment status was not significant, the choice was made to control for this difference in the analysis since the
correlation approximated the level of significance (Becker, 2005). The sample of this study was too small to use it in order to examine the differences between unemployed individuals and employed individuals. However, it is very interesting to examine the differences in psychological capital, social capital, and job search related self efficacy between these two groups. Knowledge on this part can contribute to the understanding why some people re-enter the labor market successfully and why some do not.
Finally, as stated in the introduction, unemployment can be one of life’s major events. It is also a subject of influence to the economy and a concern to modern society in general. Therefore, this matter seems to concern two scientific disciplines, namely psychology and business. In order to develop knowledge which gives insight into the whole process concerning unemployment and in order to develop proactive approaches which fight unemployment, psychological knowledge and business knowledge should be intertwined more than they are at the moment.
Practical implications
programs. However, this knowledge could very well be used to improve the reemployment process. By understanding the mechanisms between psychological capital and social capital on the one hand and having the confidence of being able to find a job again on the other, it will be possible to develop interventions in order to strengthen these resources. This not only helps to understand more of the overall phenomenon of unemployment, it can also be used for practical purposes regarding reemployment.
If a negative life event such as job loss occurs, this will most certainly have an effect on ones’ confidence in being able to find a job again. The question then rises: ‘If people do not naturally possess the right skills and characteristics, is it then possible to teach them?’ Van Ryn and Vinokur examined job search related self efficacy in prior research and found that enhancing self-efficacy can aid the process of adaptation to situations which require
‘persistence at coping behaviors over an extended period of time and in spite of rejections or setbacks’ (Van Ryn & Vinokur, 1992, p. 595). Increasing one’s self efficacy can undo the vicious circle and it can help people to engage in constructive job search behavior.
Furthermore, research has shown that the level of self efficacy can be altered in a positive direction. This can happen naturally, after one or more positive experiences but it can also be affected, for example, by training which was among others found by Martocchio (1994), Caplan et al. (1989), and Eden and Kinnar (1991). According to the last authors the overall message of these interventions is: ‘You can do it’. Caplan et al. (1989) and Eden and Aviram (1993) reported that self-efficacy training for unemployed individuals increased
reemployment. Employment agencies should therefore use an updated theoretical background on which they base their supply of reemployment services and programs. Instead of the current tendency to immediately start with job searching, the emphasis within these
capital and social capital of the unemployed individuals since this will have a positive effect on one’s job search related self efficacy.
Conclusion
By examining the relationship between job search related self efficacy and
psychological capital and social capital, this study has attempted to provide research results that can be of added value to the existing knowledge concerning unemployment and
reemployment. Hopefully, future research will build on the knowledge that psychological capital and social capital are positively related to one’s confidence in being able to find a job again. From an individual perspective, this knowledge can contribute to higher psychological well-being and a more constructive job search, and from a business perspective, this
knowledge can contribute to better (re)employment rates. REFERENCES
Abbey, A., Abramis, D.J., Caplan, R.D. (1985) ‘Effects of Different Sources of Social Support and Social Conflict on Emotional Well-Being’. Basic and Applied Social Psychology Vol. 6(2): 111-129
Aiken, L.S., West, S.G. (1991) ‘Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions’ Newbury Park CA: Sage
Atkinsson, T., Liem, R., Liem, J.H. (1986) ‘The Social Costs of Unemployment: Implications for Social Support’. Journal of Health and Social Behavior Vol. 27: 317-331
Bandura, A. (1982) ‘Self Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency’. American Psychologist Vol. 37(2): 122-147
Becker, T.E. (2005) ‘Potential Problems in the Statistical Control of Variables in Organizational Research: A Qualitative Analysis with Recommendations’. Organizational Research Methods Vol. 8(3): 274-289
and Mental Health: A Randomized Field Experiment in Coping With Job Loss’. Journal of Applied Psychology Vol. 74(5): 759-769
Cascio W.F., Aguinis, H. (2005) Applied Psychology in Human Resource Management, sixth edition, Ch. 1. Pearson Education, Inc. New Yersey
Donnellan, M.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 Vol. 18(2): 192-203
Eden, D., Aviram, A. (1993) ‘Self-Efficacy Training to Speed Reemployment: Helping People to Help Themselves’. Journal of Applied Psychology Vol. 78(3): 352-360 Eden, D., Kinnar, J. (1991) ‘Modeling Galatea: Boosting Self Efficacy to Increase
Volunteering’. Journal of Applied Psychology Vol. 76(6): 770-780
Hobfoll, S.E., Shirom, A. (2000) ‘Stress and Burnout in the Workplace: Conservation of Resources’.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989) ‘Conservation of Resources: A New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress’. American Psychologist Vol. 44(3): 513-524
Hobfoll, S.E., Nadler, A., Leiberman, E. (1986) ‘Satisfaction with Social Support during Crisis: Intimacy and Self Esteem as Critical Determinants’. Journal of Personality and Social psychology Vol 51(2): 296-304
Holmes, T.H., Rahe, R.H. (1967) ‘The Social Readjustment Rating Scale’. Journal of Psychosomatic Research Vol. 11: 213-218
Kinicky, A.J., Prussia, G.E., McKee-Ryan, F.M. (2000) ‘A Panel Study of Coping with Involuntary Job Loss’. Academy of Management Journal Vol. 43(1): 90-100 Leana, C.R., Feldman, D.C. 1992 ‘Finding New Jobs after a Plant Closing. Antecedents and
Luthans, F., Youssef, C.M., Avolio, B.J. (2007) Psychological Capital: Developing the Human Competitive Edge. Oxford University Press, New York
Luthans, F., Vogelgesang, G.R., Lester, P.B. (2006) ‘Developing the Psychological Capital of Resiliency’. Human Resource Development Review Vol. 5(1): 25-44
Luthans, F., Luthans, K.W., Luthans, B.C. (2004) ‘Positive Psychological Capital: Beyond Human and Social Capital’. Business Horizons Vol. 47(1): 45-50
Martocchio, J.J. (1994) ‘Effects of Conceptions of Ability on Anxiety, Self-Efficacy, and Learning in Training’. Journal of Applied Psychology Vol. 79(6): 819-825 Schmit, M.J., Amel, E.L., Ryan, A.M. (1993) ‘Self-Reported Assertive Job-Seeking
Behaviors of Minimally Educated Job Hunters’. Personnel Psychology Vol. 46: 105 -124
Taris, T.W. (2002) ‘Unemployment and Mental Health: A Longitudinal Perspective’. International Journal of Stress Management Vol. 9(1): 43-57
Van Ryn, M., Vinokur, A.D. (1992) ‘How Did It Work? An Examination of the Mechanisms Through Which an Intervention for the Unemployed Promoted Job-Search Behavior’. American Journal of Community Psychology Vol. 20(5): 577-597
Vinorkur A.D., Schul, Y. (2002) ‘The Web of Coping Resources and Pathways to
Reemployment Following a Job Loss’. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology Vol. 7(1): 68-83
Vinokur, A.D., Price R.H., Caplan R.D. (1996) ‘Hard Times and Hurtful Partners: How Financial Strain Affects Depression and Relationship Satisfaction of Unemployed Persons and Their Spouses’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol. 71(1): 166-179
Physical Well-Being during Unemployment: A Meta-Analytic Study’. Journal of Applied Psychology Vol. 90(1): 53-76
Wanberg, C.R., Song, Z., Hough, L.M. (2002) ‘Predictive Validity of a Multidisciplinary Model of Reemployment Success’. Journal of Applied Psychology Vol. 87(6): 1100-1120
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 Vol. 84(6): 897-910
Table 1 Characteristics of the sample Characteristic Total N = 79 Gender Male (%) Female (%) 56 (70,9%) 23 (29,1%) Age in years Below 40 years (%) 40-45 (%) 45-50 (%) 50-55 (%) 55-60 (%) 60 and above (%) 9 (11,4%) 6 (7,6%) 10 (12,7%) 32 (40,5%) 13 (16,5%) 9 (11,4%) Education
Table 2 Descriptive statistics and correlations Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 Gender 1,29 ,46 - 2 Age 3,77 1,43 -,15 - 3 Level of education 3,92 ,95 ,26* -,12 - 4 Employment status ,54 ,50 -,09 -,22 ,01 - 5 Extraversion 3,25 ,74 ,01 -,06 ,04 ,21 - 6 Agreeableness 3,96 ,68 ,19 ,24* ,00 -,09 ,15 - 7 Conscientiousness 4,04 ,58 ,04 ,18 ,03 -,18 -,01 ,02 - 8 Neuroticism 3,59 ,76 -,14 ,21 ,02 ,05 ,33** ,14 ,28* - 9 Openness 3,85 ,63 ,03 ,23* ,27* -,14 ,17 ,06 ,04 ,11 - 10 PsyCap 4,45 ,60 ,17 ,17 ,13 ,12 ,37** ,01 ,29** ,53** ,23* - 11 SocCap 3,67 ,76 ,13 ,19 -,06 ,09 ,16 ,44** ,22 ,48** -,06 ,33** -
12 Job search related self efficacy
3,35 ,86 -,03 ,07 -,05 ,17 ,06 ,08 ,08 ,16 -,09 ,35** ,32** -
Table 3 Regression Analysis
Variables entered Job search related self efficacy
Step 1 Gender Employment status Neuroticism R² (adjusted R²) ,00 ,16 ,15 ,05 (,01) Step 2 Gender Employment status Neuroticism PsyCap SocCap ∆R² R² (adjusted R²) -,06 ,10 -,17 ,33* ,29* ,15* ,20** (,14) Step 3 Gender Employment status Neuroticism PsyCap SocCap Interaction ∆R² R² (adjusted R²) -,07 ,11 -,18 ,33* ,31* ,06 ,00 ,21* (,13) *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Figure 1
Conceptual model of the relationship between job search related self efficacy and psychological capital and social capital
Job Search related Self Efficacy Psychological Capital
APPENDIX I
Scale 1 The 24 items of the Psychological Capital Questionnaire (Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007)
1. I feel confident analysing a long-term problem to find a solution
2. I feel confident in representing my work area in meetings with management 3. I feel confident contributing to discussions about the company’s strategy 4. I feel confident helping to set targets/goals in my work area
5. I feel confident contacting people outside the company (e.g., suppliers, customers) to discuss problems
6. I feel confident presenting information to a group of colleagues
7. If I should find myself in a jam at work, I could think of many ways to get out of it 8. At the present time, I am energetically pursuing my work goals
9. There are lots of ways around any problem
10. Right now I see myself as being pretty successful at work 11. I can think of many ways to reach my current work goals
12. At this time, I am meeting the work goals that I have set for myself
13. When I have a setback at work, I have trouble recovering from it, moving on (R) 14. I usually manage difficulties on way or another at work
15. I can be ‘on my own,’ so to speak, at work if I have to 16. I usually take stressful thing at work in stride
17. I can get through difficult times at work because I have experienced difficulty before 18. I feel I can handle many things at a time at this job
19. When things are uncertain for me at work, I usually expect the best 20. If something can go wrong for me work-wise, it will (R)
22. I’m optimistic about what will happen to me in the future as it pertains to work 23. In this job, things never work out the way I want them to (R)
24. I approach this job as if ‘every cloud has a silver lining’.
Scale 2 The 6 items of the Social Capital questionnaire (Abbey, Abramis & Caplan, 1985)
In the last 7 days, how much have people in your personal life 1. acted in ways that show they appreciate what you do 2. treated you with respect
3. cared about you as a person
4. given you useful information and advice when you wanted it 5. helped out when too many things needed to get done
6. listened when you wanted to confide about things that were important to you
Scale 3 The 6 items of the Job Search Related Self Efficacy questionnaire (Van Ryn and Vinokur, 1992)
How confident do you feel about being able to do the following things successfully: 1. make the best impression and get points across in an interview
2. contact and persuade employers to consider you for the job 3. complete a good job-application or resume
4. use friends or other contacts to discover promising job-openings
Scale 4 The 20 items of the Personality questionnaire (Goldberg, 1999, shortened version of IPIP-FFM)
Subscales: E = extraversion, A = altruism, C = conscientiousness, N = neuroticism, O = openness 1. I am the life of the party (E)
2. I don’t talk a lot (E)
3. I keep in the background (E)
4. I talk to a lot of different people at parties (E) 5. I sympathize with others’ feelings (A)
6. I am not interested in other people’s problems (A) 7. I feel others’ emotions (A)
8. I am not really interested in others (A) 9. I get chores done right away (C)
10. I often forget to put things back in their proper place (C) 11. I like order (C)
12. I make a mess of things (C) 13. I have frequent mood swings (N) 14. I am relaxed most of the time (N) 15. I get upset easily (N)
16. I seldom feel blue (N)
17. I have difficulty understanding abstract ideas (O) 18. I have a vivid imagination (O)
