Journal of Vocational Behavior 84 (2014) 188–198

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

Individual difference predictors of change in career

adaptability over time☆
Hannes Zacher
School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Career adaptability is a psychosocial construct that reflects individuals' resources for managing
Received 5 December 2013 career tasks and challenges. This study investigated the effects of demographic characteristics and
Available online 10 January 2014 three sets of individual difference variables (Big Five personality traits, core self-evaluations, and
temporal focus) on changes over time in career adaptability and its dimensions (concern, control,
Keywords: curiosity, and confidence). Data came from 659 full-time employees in Australia who participated in
Individual differences two measurement waves six months apart. Results showed that age and future temporal focus
Personality predicted change in overall career adaptability. In addition, age, education, extraversion, neuroticism,
Career adaptability
openness to experience, core self-evaluations, and future temporal focus differentially predicted
Career Adapt-Abilities Scale
change over time in one or more of the four career adaptability dimensions. While the lagged effects
found in this study were generally small, the findings suggest that certain individual difference
characteristics predispose employees to experience change in career adaptability over time.
© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Career adaptability is a central construct in vocational psychology (Ebberwein, Krieshok, Ulven, & Prosser, 2004; Goodman, 1994;
Hartung, Porfeli, & Vondracek, 2008; Savickas, 1997). First introduced by Super more than 30 years ago (e.g., Super & Knasel, 1981)
and embedded in career construction theory (Savickas, 2002), career adaptability is a psychosocial and multi-dimensional construct
that involves a combination of “attitudes, competencies, and behaviors that individuals use in fitting themselves to work that suits
them” (Savickas, 2013, p .45). Thus, career adaptability resides at the person–environment intersection and reflects individuals'
resources for managing career tasks and challenges. Consistently, research has shown that career adaptability positively predicts
favorable career outcomes such as graduates' employment quality (Koen, Klehe, & Van Vianen, 2012), job seekers' re-employment
quality (Koen, Klehe, Van Vianen, Zikic, & Nauta, 2010), and employees' subjective career success (Zacher, 2014).
Several recent cross-sectional studies have examined relationships between individual difference characteristics and career
adaptability (e.g., Creed, Fallon, & Hood, 2009; Duffy, 2010; Tolentino et al., 2014). However, hardly any research has so far
examined effects of individual differences on changes in overall career adaptability and career adaptability dimensions over time.
Thus, our knowledge about the extent to which certain individual differences may predispose individuals to experience increases
or decreases in career adaptability over time is currently limited. A notable exception is a study by Hirschi (2009), which showed
that a positive emotional disposition, perceived social support, non-immigration background, and continuing to vocational
education enhanced career adaptability of Swiss high school students over one school year. Until now, however, no research has
investigated predictors of change in career adaptability assessed with the recently developed and well-validated Career
Adapt-Abilities Scale (CAAS; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). The CAAS assesses four distinct career adaptability dimensions that can be
combined to indicate overall career adaptability: concern (i.e., the extent to which individuals prepare for future career tasks),

☆ Hannes Zacher, School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. This study was supported by a Discovery Early Career Researcher Award
(DE120100359) from the Australian Research Council (ARC). Part of the Time 1 data used in this study was previously published in a study with a different research
question (Zacher, 2014). Hannes Zacher is now at the Department of Psychology at the University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
E-mail addresses: h.zacher@psy.uq.edu.au, h.zacher@rug.nl.

0001-8791/$ – see front matter © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.01.001
 H. Zacher / Journal of Vocational Behavior 84 (2014) 188–198 189

control (i.e., the extent to which individuals take personal responsibility in terms of influencing their development and work
environment), curiosity (i.e., the extent to which individuals explore future possibilities), and confidence (i.e., the extent to which
individuals believe that they can realize their career goals; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). Tolentino et al. (2014) collected data from
108 university students in Australia at two measurement points separated by four weeks. These authors reported test–retest
reliabilities between .61 and .76 for the overall CAAS score and dimension scores. Their findings suggested that career adaptability
may increase or decrease over a relatively short time period. However, Tolentino et al. (2014) did not examine whether individual
difference characteristics predicted change in career adaptability over time.
The goal of the current study is to contribute to the budding vocational psychology literature on career adaptability by
investigating the effects of demographic characteristics and three sets of well-established individual difference variables (i.e., Big
Five personality traits, core self-evaluations, and temporal focus dimensions) on changes in employees' overall career adaptability
and its dimensions over a time period of six months. By using a research design with two measurement waves, this study allows a
comprehensive examination of the extent to which certain individual differences prompt employees to experience increases or
decreases in career adaptability over time. In the following section, I propose five sets of hypotheses on the effects of specific
demographic and individual difference characteristics on changes in career adaptability and its dimensions over time.

2. Development of hypotheses

2.1. Demographic characteristics

Employee age, gender, and highest level of education achieved are demographic characteristics that are assessed in most
empirical studies in the behavioral sciences. While a previous study reported gender differences in all dimensions of the CAAS
except for concern (Hou, Leung, Li, Li, & Xu, 2012), and another study found relationships between age and different dimensions
of the CAAS (Zacher, 2014), I do not hypothesize effects of age and gender on change in career adaptability over time due to a
current lack of theoretical support for such effects. However, I propose that employees' highest level of education achieved
positively predicts changes in overall career adaptability and in concern over time. Concern involves that employees prepare for
upcoming career tasks and challenges (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). Education is a form of human capital (Becker, 1975) that should
help employees acquire, maintain, use, and generate resources (e.g., new knowledge and skills) in order to master these tasks and
challenges. The positive effect of education on change in concern over time should further instigate a positive effect of education
on change in overall career adaptability over time.

Hypothesis 1. Education positively predicts changes over time in (a) overall career adaptability and (b) concern.

2.2. Big Five personality traits

Numerous studies have used the Big Five (also called the Five-Factor Model) as a theoretical framework to examine
relationships between personality traits and career development and outcomes (Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005; Seibert &
Kraimer, 2001; Zacher, Biemann, Gielnik, & Frese, 2012). The Big Five traits are: extraversion (being assertive, energetic, and sociable),
conscientiousness (being responsible, dependable, and orderly), neuroticism (being anxious, insecure, and depressed), agreeableness
(being cooperative, trusting, and caring), and openness to experience (being imaginative, independent-minded, and autonomous;
Digman, 1990). Previous cross-sectional research found positive relationships between career adaptability and extraversion,
conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness to experience, and a negative relationship between career adaptability and
neuroticism (Teixeira, Bardagi, Lassance, Magalhães, & Duarte, 2012; van Vianen, Klehe, Koen, & Dries, 2012; Zacher, 2014). However,
this research has not provided theoretical justifications for effects of the Big Five traits on change in career adaptability over time, and
the pattern and magnitude of cross-sectional relationships might differ from the pattern and magnitude of lagged relationships due to
occasion factors and background variables (Zapf, Dormann, & Frese, 1996).
In this study, I propose hat conscientiousness and openness to experience, but not the other three Big Five traits, positively predict
changes in overall career adaptability and several of its dimensions over time. First, conscientiousness should positively predict
change over time in concern, as conscientious employees are more likely to be motivated to plan and prepare for future career tasks
than their less conscientious counterparts. In addition, conscientious employees have high levels of self-discipline and need for
achievement, they show effort and persistence, take personal responsibility, and solve problems successfully (Digman, 1990). These
attributes, in turn, should enhance these employees' control and confidence with regard to career tasks and challenges (cf. Pouyaud,
Vignoli, Dosnon, & Lallemand, 2012). The positive effects of conscientiousness on changes in concern, control, and confidence should
further bring about a positive effect of conscientiousness on change in overall career adaptability over time.
Second, openness to experience should positively predict change in curiosity over time, as employees with high compared to
low levels of openness to experience are more likely to mentally explore possible future career selves and opportunities, and to
think and fantasize about how they might have an impact in different work roles and environments in the future (cf. Markus &
Nurius, 1986; Oettingen & Mayer, 2002). The positive effect of openness to experience on change in curiosity over time should
further instigate a positive effect of openness to experience on change in overall career adaptability over time. I argue that, in contrast
to conscientiousness and openness to experience, extraversion, neuroticism, and agreeableness appear to have less theoretical overlap
with career adaptability, and therefore I do not propose effects of these personality traits on change in career adaptability over time.
190 H. Zacher / Journal of Vocational Behavior 84 (2014) 188–198

Hypothesis 2. Conscientiousness positively predicts changes over time in (a) overall career adaptability, (b) concern, (c) control,
and (d) confidence.

Hypothesis 3. Openness to experience positively predicts changes over time in (a) overall career adaptability and (b) curiosity.

2.3. Core self-evaluations

Core self-evaluation is a higher-order construct that involves individuals' fundamental appraisals of themselves (Judge, 2009; Judge,
Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998) and integrates four lower-order personality dimensions: self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of
control, and emotional stability (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2002). Research has shown that employees' core self-evaluations
positively predict their subjective and objective career success (Judge & Hurst, 2008; Zacher, 2014). Furthermore, previous
cross-sectional research has found career adaptability to associate positively with constructs that are integrated in or resemble core
self-evaluations, including self-esteem (van Vianen et al., 2012), locus of control (Pouyaud et al., 2012), job search self-efficacy (Guan
et al., 2013), and tenacious goal pursuit (Tolentino, Garcia, Restubog, Bordia, & Tang, 2013). In contrast, career adaptability has been found
to relate negatively to career commitment self-doubt (Porfeli & Savickas, 2012), general anxiety, and fear of failing (Pouyaud et al., 2012).
I propose that core self-evaluations positively predict changes in control and confidence over time. Employees with high core
self-evaluations should be more likely to take an interest in, and to take personal responsibility for, their career development and
their influence on the work environment (i.e., control) compared to employees with low core-self-evaluations. In addition,
employees with high core self-evaluations should be more likely to be confident in their abilities to successfully address career
challenges and to realize their personal career goals (i.e., confidence). These effects of core self-evaluations on control and
confidence over time, in turn, should further prompt an effect of core self-evaluations on change in overall career adaptability.

Hypothesis 4. Core self-evaluations positively predict changes over time in (a) overall career adaptability, (b) control, and
(c) confidence.

2.4. Temporal focus

The multi-dimensional construct of temporal focus has been defined as the level of attention that employees typically allocate
toward thinking about past experiences, present situations, and future expectations (Bluedorn, 2002; Shipp, Edwards, & Lambert,
2009). Temporal focus is conceptually and empirically related to constructs such as time perspective and time orientation (Shipp
et al., 2009). Psychological research over the past decades has proposed and empirically shown that past, current, and future temporal
foci influence employee attitudes, motivation, and behavior (Bluedorn & Standifer, 2006; Lewin, 1939; Nuttin, 1985; Schmitt, Gielnik,
Zacher, & Klemann, 2013; Seijts, 1998). Temporal focus, future temporal focus in particular, is also considered to be an important
individual difference characteristic in the vocational psychology literature. For instance, Marko and Savickas (1998) described future
temporal focus as “a fundamental dimension in career choice attitudes and competencies” (p. 106). Cross-sectional research has
found positive relationships between future temporal focus (or future time perspective) and career adaptability (Pouyaud et al.,
2012). However, so far no evidence exists for the effect of future temporal focus on change in career adaptability over time.
I propose that a future temporal focus, but not past and current temporal foci, positively predicts changes in all four career
adaptability dimensions over time. This assumption is consistent with theorizing in the vocational psychology literature (Ebberwein
et al., 2004; Phillips & Blustein, 1994; Savickas, 1997). For instance, Super and Knasel (1981) suggested that “being forward-looking”
(p. 199) enables individuals to proactively shape their careers and adapt successfully to career tasks and transitions. Savickas (1997)
argued that high levels of career adaptability require an orientation toward the future. Only individuals with a high future temporal
focus should be able to mentally explore and foresee potential future work roles and environments, and successfully master the career
planning and career preparation aspects of career adaptability that necessitate these skills (Savickas, 1997). In a similar vein,
Ebberwein et al. (2004) proposed that a future temporal focus represents one of the strongest influences on career adaptability as it
provides the basis for career exploration, planning, and mastering career transitions successfully. In contrast, focusing attention and
thinking primarily on the past or present should not impact on individuals' career planning and preparation, and thus be unrelated to
career adaptability. As all four dimensions of career adaptability require an orientation toward the future, I expect that future
temporal focus positively predicts changes over time in concern, control, curiosity, confidence, and overall career adaptability.

Hypothesis 5. Future temporal focus positively predicts changes over time in (a) overall career adaptability, (b) concern, (c),
control, (d) curiosity, and (e) confidence.

3. Method

3.1. Participants and procedure

Data for this two-wave survey study came from 659 full-time employees in Australia, including 322 men (48.9%) and 337 women
(51.1%). The average age of participants was 48.17 years (SD = 10.87) and ranged from 20 to 69 years. In terms of highest level of
education achieved, one participant had not finished high school (0.2%), 192 (29.1%) had finished high school, 179 (27.2%) held a
 H. Zacher / Journal of Vocational Behavior 84 (2014) 188–198 191

technical college degree, 186 (28.2%) held an undergraduate university degree, and 101 (15.3%) held a postgraduate university
degree. Participants worked in a broad range of jobs, occupations, industries, and organizations across Australia.
Participants were recruited by Australia's leading panel management and online research company, which manages the
largest research-only consumer and business panels in Australia. The company was commissioned to carry out the study because
it recruits its participants offline and on an invitation-only basis to avoid participation of professional online survey respondents.
To recruit Time 1 participants, 27,211 invitations were sent to potential participants in the company's database. In total, 6236
persons clicked on the survey link, and 4299 persons chose to proceed past the study's information sheet and provided basic
demographic information. Of these, 1515 persons indicated that they were currently unemployed or retired, and 601 indicated
working less than 20 h per week, and were excluded from participation. The other 2784 persons indicated that they were
working more than 20 h per week. After completing basic demographic information, 1929 persons started answering the survey,
and 1723 participants provided complete data on the focal constructs of this study at Time 1 (see Zacher, 2014).
Time 1 participants were re-contacted by the company six months later and invited to participate in a follow-up survey. In
total, 917 persons clicked on the survey link at Time 2, 853 persons provided preliminary demographic information, 688 persons
started the survey following the demographic questions, and 659 persons provided complete data on career adaptability.
Independent sample t-tests were used to compare Time 1 participants who also participated at Time 2 with Time 1 participants who
did not participate at Time 2 in the Time 1 study variables. These drop-out analyses showed that there were no significant differences
between the two groups in overall career adaptability, the four career adaptability dimensions, education, extraversion,
conscientiousness, agreeableness, past temporal focus, and current temporal focus.
However, there were significant differences between the groups with regard to age (T2 participants: M = 48.17, SD =
10.87; non-respondents: M = 45.75, SD = 11.48; t[1721] = − 4.34, p b .01), neuroticism (T2 participants: M = 2.58, SD = .75;
non-respondents: M = 2.67, SD = .76; t[1721] = 2.36, p b .05), openness to experience (T2 participants: M = 3.32, SD = .75;
non-respondents: M = 3.43, SD = .74; t[1721] = 2.93, p b .01), core self-evaluations (T2 participants: M = 3.48, SD = .57;
non-respondents: M = 3.40, SD = .55; t[1721] = − 2.89, p b .01), and future temporal focus (T2 participants: M = 3.42, SD =
.69; non-respondents: M = 3.50, SD = .72; t[1721] = 2.45, p b .05). In addition, relatively more men than women participated
at Time 2 (322 men, 337 women) compared to Time 1 (440 men, 624 women), χ2(1) = 9.30, p b .01. Thus, Time 2 participants
were somewhat older, less neurotic, less open to experience, higher in core self-evaluations, lower in future temporal focus, and
more likely to be men than women compared to those participants who participated only at Time 1 but not at Time 2.

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Career adaptability

At both Time 1 and Time 2, overall career adaptability and career adaptability dimensions were measured with the 24-item
international version of the CAAS (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). The CAAS consists of four subscales with six items each that measure
concern, control, curiosity, and confidence as psychosocial resources for individuals' career development. Participants were
presented with the following instruction: “Different people use different strengths to build their careers. No one is good at
everything, each of us emphasizes some strengths more than others. Please rate how strongly you have developed each of the
following abilities.” Example items for each of the subscales are “Thinking about what my future will be like” (concern), “Making
decisions by myself” (control), “Exploring my surroundings” (curiosity), and “Performing tasks efficiently” (confidence). Participants
provided their ratings on 5-point scales ranging from 1 (not strong) to 5 (strongest).
At Time 1, Cronbach's alpha for the overall scale was .95, and alphas for the subscales were .89 (concern), .89 (control), .91
(curiosity), and .92 (confidence). At Time 2, Cronbach's alpha for the overall scale was .95, and alphas for the subscales were .88
(concern), .90 (control), .91 (curiosity), and .93 (confidence). Several recent studies with participants from more than a dozen
countries (including two studies conducted in Australia; Tolentino et al., 2014; Zacher, 2014) showed that the CAAS has very good
psychometric properties and confirmed its hierarchical and multidimensional structure (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012).

3.2.2. Big Five personality traits

The Big Five traits were assessed at Time 1 with five 4-item scales developed and validated by Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, and Lucas
(2006). Example items and Cronbach's alphas for the scales are “I don't talk a lot” (reverse scored; extraversion; alpha = .84), “I get
chores done right away” (conscientiousness; alpha = .70), “I have frequent mood swings” (neuroticism; alpha = .78), “I sympathize
with others' feelings” (agreeableness; alpha = .82), and “I have a vivid imagination” (openness to experience; alpha = .80).
Participants responded to the items on 5-point scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

3.2.3. Core self-evaluations

Core self-evaluations were measured at Time 1 with a 12-item scale developed by Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen (2003).
Example items are “I am confident I get the success I deserve in life” and “I do not feel in control of my success in my career”
(reverse scored). Participants responded to the items on 5-point scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Cronbach's alpha for the scale was .87.

3.2.4. Temporal focus

Past, current, and future temporal focus dimensions were assessed at Time 1 with four items each (Shipp et al., 2009). Example
items and Cronbach's alphas for the scales are “I replay memories of the past in my mind” (past temporal focus; alpha = .94), “I
192 H. Zacher / Journal of Vocational Behavior 84 (2014) 188–198

focus on what is currently happening in my life” (current temporal focus; alpha = .90), and “I think about what my future has in
store” (future temporal focus; alpha = .92). Participants responded to the items on 5-point scales ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Shipp et al. (2009) validated their temporal focus scales in four empirical studies. Specifically, they
confirmed the three-dimensional factor structure of the items and provided support for the scales' convergent, nomological, and
predictive validity by correlating it with time perspective and time orientation variables, personality traits, and job attitudes.

3.2.5. Demographic variables

Participants reported their age in years, gender (1 = male and 2 = female), and highest level of education (1 = did not complete
high school, 2 = completed high school, 3 = technical college degree, 4 = undergraduate degree, 5 = postgraduate degree).

3.3. Statistical analyses

Hypotheses were tested using five hierarchical linear regression analyses predicting overall career adaptability, concern,
control, curiosity, and confidence. The demographic variables age, gender, and education were entered in Step 1, followed by the
Big Five personality traits, core self-evaluations, and temporal focus dimensions in Step 2. These analyses allowed investigating
lagged effects of individual differences at Time 1 on career adaptability at Time 2. In the third step, overall career adaptability at
Time 1 was entered in the analysis predicting overall career adaptability at Time 2, and the career adaptability dimensions at Time
1 were entered separately in the other analyses predicting the respective career adaptability dimensions at Time 2. These analyses
allowed investigating the effects of individual differences on changes in overall career adaptability and its dimensions over time
(Zapf et al., 1996).

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive statistics and correlations

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliability estimates for the study variables. The test–retest
correlations between career adaptability variables measured at Time 1 and variables measured at Time 2 were r = .66 for overall
career adaptability, r = .66 for concern, r = .56 for control, and r = .60 for curiosity, and r = .63 for confidence (all ps b .01).
Overall career adaptability and career adaptability dimensions assessed at Time 1 and Time 2 had similar patterns of relationships
with the other study variables (Table 1). At Time 1, age was negatively related to concern at Time 1 (r = − .15) and positively
related to control and confidence (rs = .14 and .16, respectively, all ps b .01). At Time 2, age was positively related to overall
career adaptability (r = .13), control (r = .22), and confidence (r = .23, all ps b .01).
Gender was unrelated to career adaptability with one exception: women appeared to have somewhat higher levels of
confidence at Time 1 than men. At Time 1, education was positively correlated with overall career adaptability (r = .14, p b .01)
as well as with concern (r = .19, p b .01), control (r = .08, p b .05), and curiosity (r = .14, p b .01), but it was not significantly
correlated with confidence. At Time 2, education was also positively correlated with overall career adaptability (r = .11) as well
as with concern (r = .18), and curiosity (r = .12, all ps b .01), but it was not significantly correlated with control and confidence.
All of the Big Five personality traits had small to moderate correlations with overall career adaptability and career adaptability
dimensions assessed at Time 1 and Time 2 (Table 1). Specifically, extraversion and all career adaptability variables at Time 1 and
Time 2 were positively related with correlations ranging from r = .15 to r = .25 (ps b .01). Similarly, conscientiousness and all
career adaptability variables at Time 1 and Time 2 were positively correlated (rs between .10 and .30, ps b .01). Neuroticism and
career adaptability variables were negatively correlated (rs between −.18 and − .36, ps b .01) with the exception of
non-significant correlations between neuroticism and concern at Time 1 and Time 2. Agreeableness and all career adaptability
variables at Time 1 and Time 2 were positively correlated (rs between .15 and .28, ps b .01), as were openness to experience and
career adaptability variables (rs between .09, p b .05, and .26, p b .01).
Core self-evaluations and all career adaptability variables at Time 1 and Time 2 were moderately and positively correlated (rs
between .18 and .48, ps b .01). Past temporal focus was positively correlated with all career adaptability variables at Time 1 (rs
between .11 and .21, ps b .01), and positively correlated with overall career adaptability (r = .11, p b .01), concern (r = .18,
p b .01), and curiosity (r = .09, p b .05) at Time 2. Finally, current temporal focus and all career adaptability variables at Time 1
and Time 2 were moderately and positively correlated (rs between .16 and .40, ps b .01), as were future temporal focus and career
adaptability variables (rs between .22 and .48, ps b .01).

4.2. Test of hypotheses

Table 2 shows the results of the five hierarchical linear regression analyses used to test the five sets of hypotheses of this study.

4.2.1. Individual difference predictors of change in overall career adaptability

According to Hypotheses 1a, 2a, 3a, 4a, and 5a, change in overall career adaptability over time is positively predicted by
education, conscientiousness, openness to experience, core self-evaluations, and future temporal focus, respectively. As shown in
Table 2, demographic variables and individual difference characteristics explained 4% and 26% of variance in overall career
adaptability at Time 2 when entered in Steps 1 and 2, respectively. Overall career adaptability at Time 2 was significantly
Table 1
Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and correlations of variables.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

1. Career 3.23 0.69 (.95)

adaptability T1
2. Concern T1 2.77 0.84 .78⁎⁎ (.89)
3. Control T1 3.48 0.76 .87⁎⁎ .52⁎⁎ (.89)
4. Curiosity T1 3.10 0.84 .90⁎⁎ .64⁎⁎ .70⁎⁎ (.91)
5. Confidence T1 3.58 0.79 .85⁎⁎ .48⁎⁎ .75⁎⁎ .70⁎⁎ (.92)
6. Career 3.20 0.68 .66⁎⁎ .52⁎⁎ .57⁎⁎ .59⁎⁎ .57⁎⁎ (.95)

H. Zacher / Journal of Vocational Behavior 84 (2014) 188–198

adaptability T2
7. Concern T2 2.76 0.82 .56⁎⁎ .66⁎⁎ .37⁎⁎ .49⁎⁎ .36⁎⁎ .78⁎⁎ (.88)
8. Control T2 3.43 0.79 .52⁎⁎ .33⁎⁎ .56⁎⁎ .42⁎⁎ .48⁎⁎ .87⁎⁎ .53⁎⁎ (.90)
9. Curiosity T2 3.07 0.82 .59⁎⁎ .45⁎⁎ .46⁎⁎ .60⁎⁎ .48⁎⁎ .89⁎⁎ .64⁎⁎ .70⁎⁎ (.91)
10. Confidence T2 3.56 0.78 .57⁎⁎ .32⁎⁎ .54⁎⁎ .47⁎⁎ .63⁎⁎ .86⁎⁎ .49⁎⁎ .75⁎⁎ .69⁎⁎ (.93)
11. Age 48.17 10.87 .03 −.15⁎⁎ .14⁎⁎ −.03 .16⁎⁎ .13⁎⁎ −.07 .22⁎⁎ .07 .23⁎⁎ –
12. Gender 1.51 0.50 .07 .04 .05 .01 .13⁎⁎ .03 .05 .00 .00 .06 −.16⁎⁎ –
13. Education 3.29 1.05 .14⁎⁎ .19⁎⁎ .08⁎ .14⁎⁎ .07 .11⁎⁎ .18⁎⁎ .04 .12⁎⁎ .04 −.14⁎⁎ .05 –
14. Extraversion 2.85 0.85 .22⁎⁎ .18⁎⁎ .15⁎⁎ .25⁎⁎ .15⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎ .20⁎⁎ .19⁎⁎ .25⁎⁎ .15⁎⁎ .00 .02 .01 (.84)
15. 3.62 0.66 .23⁎⁎ .14⁎⁎ .22⁎⁎ .13⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎ .19⁎⁎ .12⁎⁎ .18⁎⁎ .10⁎⁎ .24⁎⁎ .16⁎⁎ .10⁎⁎ .01 .03 (.70)
Conscientiousness
16. Neuroticism 2.58 0.75 −.26⁎⁎ −.07 −.36⁎⁎ −.18⁎⁎ −.27⁎⁎ −.26⁎⁎ −.06 −.35⁎⁎ −.23⁎⁎ −.26⁎⁎ −.22⁎⁎ .07 .00 −.23⁎⁎ −.19⁎⁎ (.78)
17. Agreeableness 3.77 0.66 .27⁎⁎ .17⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎ .28⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎ .15⁎⁎ .20⁎⁎ .20⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎ .19⁎⁎ .21⁎⁎ .02 .18⁎⁎ .22⁎⁎ −.11⁎⁎ (.82)
18. Openness to 3.32 0.75 .21⁎⁎ .09⁎ .19 ⁎⁎ .23 ⁎⁎ .19 ⁎⁎ .20 ⁎⁎ .09 ⁎ .16 ⁎⁎ .26 ⁎⁎ .18⁎⁎ .05 −.01 .09⁎ .28⁎⁎ .03 −.11⁎⁎ .21⁎⁎ (.80)
experience
19. Core 3.48 0.57 .41⁎⁎ .21⁎⁎ .48⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎ .43⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎ .18⁎⁎ .42⁎⁎ .30⁎⁎ .39⁎⁎ .27⁎⁎ −.01 .06 .24⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎ −.70⁎⁎ .22⁎⁎ .17⁎⁎ (.87)
self-evaluations
20. Past temporal 3.21 0.74 .18⁎⁎ .21⁎⁎ .11⁎⁎ .17⁎⁎ .11⁎⁎ .11⁎⁎ .18⁎⁎ .04 .09⁎ .06 −.09⁎ .00 .04 −.03 .01 .31⁎⁎ .14⁎⁎ −.06 −.24⁎⁎ (.94)
focus
21. Current temporal 3.81 0.64 .37⁎⁎ .17⁎⁎ .40⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎ .40⁎⁎ .33⁎⁎ .16⁎⁎ .35⁎⁎ .28⁎⁎ .33⁎⁎ .24⁎⁎ .11⁎⁎ .03 .13⁎⁎ .19⁎⁎ −.29⁎⁎ .27⁎⁎ .13⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎ .05 (.90)
focus
22. Future temporal 3.42 0.69 .41⁎⁎ .48⁎⁎ .27⁎⁎ .36⁎⁎ .27⁎⁎ .36⁎⁎ .45⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎ .22⁎⁎ −.05 .08⁎ .04 .16⁎⁎ .05 .03 .20⁎⁎ .08⁎ .07 .36⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎ (.92)
focus

Note. N = 659. T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2 (6 months after T1). Variables 11–22 were measured at Time 1. Reliability estimates (α), where available, are shown in parentheses along the diagonal.
⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.

193
 194
Table 2
Results of regression analyses.

Step/predictor Career adaptability T2 Concern T2 Control T2 Curiosity T2 Confidence T2

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Step 1
Age .16⁎⁎ .05 .09⁎⁎ −.04 −.07 .03 .24⁎⁎ .11⁎⁎ .11⁎⁎ .09⁎ .01 .06 .26⁎⁎ .13⁎⁎ .11⁎⁎

H. Zacher / Journal of Vocational Behavior 84 (2014) 188–198

Gender .05 .00 .00 .03 −.01 .01 .03 −.01 −.01 .01 −.03 −.00 .10⁎⁎ .05 .01
Education .13⁎⁎ .08⁎ .03 .17⁎⁎ .14⁎⁎ .07⁎ .07 .02 .01 .13⁎⁎ .08⁎ .04 .07 .02 .01

Step 2
Extraversion .08⁎ .06 .11⁎⁎ .07⁎ .05 .06 .11⁎⁎ .06 .01 .02
Conscientiousness .06 .01 .06 .02 .04 .02 −.00 −.01 .10⁎⁎ .02
Neuroticism −.06 −.04 .04 .02 −.15⁎⁎ −.09⁎ −.08 −.07 −.03 −.02
Agreeableness .03 −.00 .03 −.01 .02 .01 .04 .00 .03 .00
Openness to experience .09⁎ .04 −.01 −.01 .06 .02 .16⁎⁎ .10⁎⁎ .10⁎⁎ .05
Core self-evaluations .23⁎⁎ .07 .17⁎⁎ .05 .21⁎⁎ .08 .16⁎⁎ .05 .26⁎⁎ .10⁎
Past temporal focus .10⁎⁎ .02 .06 .02 .10⁎ .03 .08⁎ .02 .11⁎⁎ .03
Current temporal focus .07 .01 −.05 −.02 .12⁎⁎ .06 .07 .02 .10⁎ .02
Future temporal focus .25⁎⁎ .11⁎⁎ .40⁎⁎ .17⁎⁎ .13⁎⁎ .08⁎ .21⁎⁎ .11⁎⁎ .11⁎⁎ .05

Step 3
Career adaptability T1 .54⁎⁎ – – – –
Concern T1 – .55⁎⁎ – – –
Control T1 – – .40⁎⁎ – –
Curiosity T1 – – – .49⁎⁎ –
Confidence T1 – – – – .52⁎⁎
ΔR2 .26⁎⁎ .18⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎ .20⁎⁎ .21⁎⁎ .10⁎⁎ .22⁎⁎ .17⁎⁎ .19⁎⁎ .18⁎⁎
R2 .04 .30 .48 .03 .27 .47 .06 .27 .37 .02 .24 .41 .07 .26 .44
F 8.25⁎⁎ 23.01⁎⁎ 45.16⁎⁎ 7.76⁎⁎ 20.25⁎⁎ 44.86⁎⁎ 12.79⁎⁎ 19.85⁎⁎ 29.44⁎⁎ 4.90⁎⁎ 17.31⁎⁎ 35.14⁎⁎ 15.88⁎⁎ 18.51⁎⁎ 38.14⁎⁎

Note. N = 659. T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2 (6 months after T1). Standardized regression coefficients (β) are shown.
⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
 H. Zacher / Journal of Vocational Behavior 84 (2014) 188–198 195

predicted in Step 2 by education (β = .08, p b .05), extraversion (β = .08, p b .05), openness to experience (β = .09, p b .05),
core self-evaluations (β = .23, p b .01), past temporal focus (β = .10, p b .01), and future temporal focus (β = .25, p b .01).
When overall career adaptability at Time 1 was entered in Step 3 to examine the effects of individual difference predictors on change
in overall career adaptability over time, only age (β = .09, p b .01) and future temporal focus (β = .11, p b .01) had positive and
significant effects. Thus, only Hypothesis 5a was supported, whereas Hypotheses 1a, 2a, 3a, and 4a were not supported.

4.2.2. Individual difference predictors of change in concern

Hypotheses 1b, 2b, and 5b state that education, conscientiousness, and future temporal focus positively predict change in
concern over time. Table 2 shows that demographic variables and individual difference characteristics explained 3% and 23% of
variance in concern at Time 2 when entered in Steps 1 and 2, respectively. Concern at Time 2 was significantly predicted in Step 2
by education (β = .14, p b .01), extraversion (β = .11, p b .01), core self-evaluations (β = .17, p b .01), and future temporal
focus (β = .40, p b .01). When concern at Time 1 was entered in Step 3 to examine the effects of individual difference predictors
on change in over time, education (β = .07, p b .05), extraversion (β = .07, p b .05), and future temporal focus (β = .17,
p b .01) had positive and significant effects. These findings provide support for Hypothesis 1b and 5b, but not for Hypothesis 2b.

4.2.3. Individual difference predictors of change in control

According to Hypotheses 2c, 4b, and 5c, change in control over time is positively predicted by conscientiousness, core
self-evaluations, and future temporal focus, respectively. Demographic variables and individual difference characteristics
explained 6% and 21% of variance in control at Time 2 when entered in Steps 1 and 2, respectively (Table 2). Control at Time 2 was
significantly predicted in Step 2 by age (β = .11, p b .01), neuroticism (β = − .15, p b .05), core self-evaluations (β = .21,
p b .01), current temporal focus (β = .12, p b .01), and future temporal focus (β = .13, p b .01). When control at Time 1 was
entered in Step 3 to examine the effects of individual difference predictors on change in control over time, age (β = .11, p b .01),
neuroticism (β = − .09, p b .05), and future temporal focus (β = .08, p b .05) had positive and significant effects. Hypothesis 5c
was therefore supported, and Hypotheses 2c and 4b were not supported.

4.2.4. Individual difference predictors of change in curiosity

Hypotheses 3b and 5d propose that change in curiosity over time is positively predicted by openness to experience and future
temporal focus, respectively. Table 2 shows that demographic variables and individual difference characteristics explained 2% and
22% of variance in curiosity at Time 2 when entered in Steps 1 and 2, respectively. Curiosity at Time 2 was significantly predicted
in Step 2 by education (β = .08, p b .05), extraversion (β = .11, p b .01), openness to experience (β = .16, p b .01), core
self-evaluations (β = .16, p b .01), past temporal focus (β = .08, p b .05), and future temporal focus (β = .21, p b .01). When
curiosity at Time 1 was entered in Step 3 to examine the effects of individual difference predictors on change in curiosity over time,
only openness to experience (β = .10, p b .01) and future temporal focus (β = .11, p b .01) had positive and significant effects.
These results provide support for Hypotheses 3b and 5d.

4.2.5. Individual difference predictors of change in confidence

According to Hypotheses 2d, 4c, and 5e, change in confidence over time is positively predicted by conscientiousness, core
self-evaluations, and future temporal focus, respectively. Demographic variables and individual difference characteristics explained
7% and 19% of variance in confidence at Time 2 when entered in Steps 1 and 2, respectively. Confidence at Time 2 was significantly
predicted in Step 2 by age (β = .13, p b .01), conscientiousness (β = .10, p b .01), openness to experience (β = .10, p b .01), core
self-evaluations (β = .26, p b .01), past temporal focus (β = .11, p b .01), current temporal focus (β = .10, p b .05), and future
temporal focus (β = .11, p b .01). When confidence at Time 1 was entered in Step 3 to examine the effects of individual difference
predictors on change in confidence over time, only age (β = .11, p b .01) and core self-evaluations (β = .10, p b .05) had positive
and significant effects. Thus, Hypothesis 4c was supported, whereas Hypotheses 2d and 5e were not supported by these findings.

4.2.6. Summary of findings

Of the demographic variables, age positively predicted changes in overall career adaptability, control, and confidence over
time, and education positively predicted change in concern over time. With regard to the individual difference characteristics,
extraversion positively predicted change in concern over time, neuroticism negatively predicted change in control over time,
openness to experience positively predicted change in curiosity over time, and core self-evaluations positively predicted change
in confidence over time. Finally, of all individual difference predictors investigated in this study, future temporal focus had the
most consistent effects on changes in career adaptability variables over time, as it positively predicted changes in overall career
adaptability as well as in concern, control, and curiosity.

5. Discussion

The construct of career adaptability has been discussed in the vocational psychology literature for more than thirty years
(Goodman, 1994; Savickas, 1997; Super & Knasel, 1981). However, advances in the psychometric assessment of career adaptability
have only recently led to an increase in empirical studies on its nomological net (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012). The goal of this article was
to contribute to this emerging literature by examining demographic characteristics and three sets of individual difference variables
(Big Five personality traits, core self-evaluations, and temporal focus) as predictors of changes in career adaptability and its four
196 H. Zacher / Journal of Vocational Behavior 84 (2014) 188–198

dimensions over time. While several recent cross-sectional studies have examined bivariate associations between demographics,
individual differences, and career adaptability, this study was the first to examine the effects of these characteristics on change in
career adaptability over time among full-time employees. Previous studies on career adaptability with two or more measurement
waves used either shorter time intervals than six months or collected data from high school and university students (Guan et al.,
2013; Hirschi, 2009; Tolentino et al., 2014).
In this study, seven hypotheses were supported and nine hypotheses were not supported. In addition, a number of unexpected
effects of demographics and individual differences on change in career adaptability were found. Consistent with expectations based
on human capital theory (Becker, 1975), education positively predicted change in concern over time. In contrast, the hypothesized
effect of education on overall career adaptability was not found. This was probably due to the small and non-significant effects of
education on changes in control, curiosity, and confidence over time, which may have weakened the influence of education on overall
career adaptability. Unexpectedly, employee age positively predicted changes in control, confidence, and overall career adaptability
over time. These findings may be explained using theories and findings from the life span developmental literature. Specifically, the
motivational theory of life span development suggests that individuals' primary control capacity (i.e., the ability to align the
environment with the self) decreases with age, and that aging individuals compensate for this decline by enhancing their secondary
control striving (i.e., the desire to align the self with the environment). This may manifest itself in increases in self-esteem,
perceptions of personal control, and self-efficacy (Heckhausen, Wrosch, & Schulz, 2010). Consistent with this assumption, an
empirical study found that self-esteem gradually increases throughout adulthood (Robins, Trzesniewski, Tracy, Gosling, & Potter,
2002). Thus, consistent with the current findings, the motivational theory of life span development suggests that older individuals
experience greater increases in control and confidence over time than younger individuals.
With regard to the Big Five personality traits, all of the hypotheses on positive effects of conscientiousness on changes in
career adaptability and its dimensions were not supported. A possible explanation for these findings may be that other individual
difference characteristics included in this study were relatively more important predictors than conscientiousness or captured
those aspects of conscientiousness that are particularly relevant for career adaptability. The fact that conscientiousness was
positively related to career adaptability at both time points on a bivariate level speaks to these potential explanations. Consistent
with expectations based on theories and findings on possible selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986; Oettingen & Mayer, 2002), openness
to experience positively predicted change in curiosity over time. However, the effect of openness to experience on change in a
single dimension of career adaptability may not have been strong enough to also instigate an effect on change in overall career
adaptability over time. Unexpectedly, extraversion positively predicted change in concern over time, and neuroticism negatively
predicted change in control over time. In hindsight, these effects may seem plausible given that preparation for future career tasks
requires employees to be sociable and assertive (e.g., convincing one's supervisor that a specific training is required), and that
neurotic employees may be more hesitant than emotionally stable employees to take personal responsibility for their development
and their influence on others and the work environment.
As hypothesized based on core self-evaluation theory and findings (Judge, 2009), core self-evaluations positively predicted change
in confidence over time. However, the expected effects of core self-evaluations on control and overall career adaptability were not
found. A possible, however somewhat speculative, explanation may be that the high levels of confidence among employees with high
core self-evaluations lead to a trade-off among career adaptability dimensions, such that these employees do not consider it necessary
to also strive for high levels of personal responsibility and control (as they are already convinced of their capabilities).
Finally, future temporal focus positively predicted changes over time in concern, control, curiosity, and overall career adaptability,
but not in confidence. The positive effects are consistent with theorizing in the vocational psychology literature, which has characterized
future temporal focus as a key predictor of career adaptability (Ebberwein et al., 2004; Phillips & Blustein, 1994; Savickas, 1997; Super
& Knasel, 1981). The current results suggest that a future temporal focus may be more important for preparing future career tasks
(concern), taking responsibility for influences one's development and work environment (control), and exploring future possibilities
(curiosity) than for employees' beliefs that they can turn their career goals into reality (confidence). Indeed, changes in employees'
level of confidence over time may be better predicted by individual differences that focus on the current self instead of future
possibilities, such as core self-evaluations.

5.1. Limitations and future research

This study has some limitations that could be addressed in future research on career adaptability. First, the self-report data
used in this study came from a single source, which may raise concerns about common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, &
Podsakoff, 2012). However, temporally separating the measurement of the predictor and outcome variables by introducing a time
lag, as was done in the current study, is a potential procedural remedy to this problem (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Nevertheless,
future studies should also include objective measures and peer- or supervisor-reports of predictors or career adaptability. Second,
while the time lag of six months was chosen based on conventions in the literature, it remains arbitrary as no theory of change in
career adaptability over specific time frames exists. However, career researchers have suggested that adapting to career tasks and
challenges is an important process across the entire working life span (Biemann, Zacher, & Feldman, 2012; Savickas et al., 2009),
and therefore longitudinal studies with multiple measurement points across years and decades would be desirable. Indeed, the
relationships between age and career adaptability found in this study suggest that career adaptability may change across much
longer time frames than six months. Furthermore, the time lag used in this study may have been too short or long to uncover
some hypothesized relationships that really exist. Importantly, the time lag required for some individual differences to impact on
 H. Zacher / Journal of Vocational Behavior 84 (2014) 188–198 197

change in career adaptability may be longer than for others. Future research on the mechanisms that underlie these differential
effects would be useful.
Third, less than half of the participants surveyed at Time 1 returned to complete the survey at Time 2, and returning
participants differed slightly from non-respondents in some of the predictor variables (however, no differences were found for
career adaptability). The response rate may have been influenced by the relatively long time lag between measurements. Future
research should ensure a higher response rate to minimize selection bias. Fourth, the predictors in the study were limited to only
four sets of well-established individual difference variables, and no situational predictors were included. However, results of previous
cross-sectional studies suggest that other individual differences may impact on career adaptability, such as spirituality and
religiousness (Duffy & Blustein, 2005), or alternative conceptualizations of time perceptions, such as time orientation (Zimbardo &
Boyd, 1999) and occupational future time perspective (Schmitt, Zacher, & de Lange, 2013; Zacher & Frese, 2009; Zacher, Heusner,
Schmitz, Zwierzanska, & Frese, 2010). In this regard, it is important that future studies examine the incremental validity of predictors
of career adaptability (Zacher, 2014). In addition, future research should investigate the effects of career-related events and changes
in employees' work characteristics on employees' career adaptability (Ito & Brotheridge, 2005).

5.2. Practical implications and conclusion

Career adaptability is an important psychosocial resource of employees in a time of more unpredictable, diverse, and global
careers. Practitioners in the fields of vocational education and counseling could use the findings of this study to identify employee
who are more likely to experience change in career adaptability over time. Moreover, the results suggest which specific demographic
and individual difference characteristics may influence changes in particular career adaptability dimensions, allowing for more
individualized counseling. Practitioners could also provide additional support to those individuals who are likely to experience no or
even negative change in career adaptability. In conclusion, this study showed that several demographic and individual difference
characteristics predicted change in career adaptability over a time period of six months. While future temporal focus emerged as the
strongest and most consistent predictor of changes in career adaptability and its dimensions over time, age, education, extraversion,
neuroticism, openness to experience, and core self-evaluations also had differential effects.

References

Becker, G. S. (1975). Human Capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education (2nd ed.). New York: National Bureau of Economic
Research.
Biemann, T., Zacher, H., & Feldman, D. C. (2012). Career patterns: A twenty-year panel study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81(2), 159–170.
Bluedorn, A. C. (2002). The human organization of time: Temporal realities and experience. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bluedorn, A. C., & Standifer, R. L. (2006). Time and the temporal imagination. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(2), 196–206.
Creed, P. A., Fallon, T., & Hood, M. (2009). The relationship between career adaptability, person and situation variables, and career concerns in young adults.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(2), 219–229.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.
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, 18(2), 192–203.
Duffy, R. D. (2010). Sense of control and career adaptability among undergraduate students. Journal of Career Assessment, 18(4), 420–430. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/1069072710374587.
Duffy, R. D., & Blustein, D. L. (2005). The relationship between spirituality, religiousness, and career adaptability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(3), 429–440.
Ebberwein, C. A., Krieshok, T. S., Ulven, J. C., & Prosser, E. C. (2004). Voices in transition: Lessons on career adaptability. The Career Development Quarterly, 52(4),
292–308.
Goodman, J. M. (1994). Career adaptability in adults: A construct whose time has come. Career Development Quarterly, 43(1), 74–84.
Guan, Y., Deng, H., Sun, J., Wang, Y., Cai, Z., Ye, L., et al. (2013). Career adaptability, job search self-efficacy and outcomes: A three-wave investigation among
Chinese university graduates. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 561–570.
Hartung, P. J., Porfeli, E. J., & Vondracek, F. W. (2008). Career adaptability in childhood. Career Development Quarterly, 57(1), 63–74.
Heckhausen, J., Wrosch, C., & Schulz, R. (2010). A motivational theory of life-span development. Psychological Review, 117(1), 32–60.
Hirschi, A. (2009). Career adaptability development in adolescence: Multiple predictors and effect on sense of power and life satisfaction. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 74(2), 145–155.
Hou, Z. -J., Leung, S. A., Li, X., Li, X., & Xu, H. (2012). Career Adapt-Abilities Scale—China Form: Construction and initial validation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80,
686–691.
Ito, J. K., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2005). Does supporting employees' career adaptability lead to commitment, turnover, or both? Human Resource Management, 44(1),
5–19.
Judge, T. A. (2009). Core self-evaluations and work success. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(1), 58–62.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Are measures of self-esteem, neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicators of a
common core construct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 693–710.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES): Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303–331.
Judge, T. A., & Hurst, C. (2008). How the rich (and happy) get richer (and happier): Relationship of core self-evaluations to trajectories in attaining work success.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(4), 849–863.
Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(1), 17–34.
Koen, J., Klehe, U. -C., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2012). Training career adaptability to facilitate a successful school-to-work transition. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
81(3), 395–408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2012.10.003.
Koen, J., Klehe, U. -C., Van Vianen, A. E. M., Zikic, J., & Nauta, A. (2010). Job-search strategies and reemployment quality: The impact of career adaptability. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 77(1), 126–139.
Lewin, K. (1939). Field theory and experiment in social psychology: Concepts and methods. American Journal of Sociology, 44, 868–896.
Marko, K. W., & Savickas, M. L. (1998). Effectiveness of a career time perspective intervention. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 106–119.
Markus, H. R., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954–969.
Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58(2),
367–409.
198 H. Zacher / Journal of Vocational Behavior 84 (2014) 188–198

Nuttin, J. R. (1985). Future time perspective and motivation. Hilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Oettingen, G., & Mayer, D. (2002). The motivating function of thinking about the future: Expectations versus fantasies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
83(5), 1198–1212.
Phillips, S. D., & Blustein, D. L. (1994). Readiness for career choices: Planning exploring and deciding. Career Development Quarterly, 43, 63–71.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendation on how to control it. Annual
Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.
Porfeli, E. J., & Savickas, M. L. (2012). Career Adapt-Abilities Scale-USA Form: Psychometric properties and relation to vocational identity. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 80, 748–753.
Pouyaud, J., Vignoli, E., Dosnon, O., & Lallemand, N. (2012). Career adapt-abilities scale-France form: Psychometric properties and relationships to anxiety and
motivation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(3), 692–697.
Robins, R. W., Trzesniewski, K. H., Tracy, J. L., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2002). Global self-esteem across the life span. Psychology and Aging, 17(3), 423–434.
Savickas, M. L. (1997). Career adaptability: An integrative construct for life-span, life-space theory. Career Development Quarterly, 45, 247–259.
Savickas, M. L. (2002). Career construction: A developmental theory of vocational behavior. In D. Brown (Ed.), Career choice and development (pp. 149–205) (4th
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Savickas, M. L. (2013). Career construction theory and practice. In R. W. Lent, & S. D. Brown (Eds.), Career development and counselling: Putting theory and research
into work (pp. 147–183) (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Savickas, M. L., Nota, L., Rossier, J., Dauwalder, J. -P., Duarte, M. E., Guichard, J., et al. (2009). Life designing: A paradigm for career construction in the 21st century.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75(3), 239–250.
Savickas, M. L., & Porfeli, E. J. (2012). Career Adapt-Abilities Scale: Construction, reliability, and measurement equivalence across 13 countries. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 80(3), 661–673.
Schmitt, A., Gielnik, M. M., Zacher, H., & Klemann, D. K. (2013). The motivational benefits of specific versus general optimism. Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(5),
425–434.
Schmitt, A., Zacher, H., & de Lange, A. H. (2013). Focus on opportunities as a boundary condition of the relationship between job control and work engagement: A
multi-sample, multi-method study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(5), 505–519.
Seibert, S., & Kraimer, M. (2001). The five-factor model of personality and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(1), 1–21.
Seijts, G. H. (1998). The importance of future time perspective in theories of work motivation. Journal of Psychology, 132(2), 154–168.
Shipp, A. J., Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2009). Conceptualization and measurement of temporal focus: The subjective experience of the past, present, and
future. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(1), 1–22.
Super, D. E., & Knasel, E. G. (1981). Career development in adulthood: Some theoretical problems and a possible solution. British Journal of Guidance & Counselling,
9, 194–201.
Teixeira, M. A. P., Bardagi, M. P., Lassance, M. C. P., Magalhães, M. O., & Duarte, M. E. (2012). Career Adapt-Abilities Scale—Brazilian Form: Psychometric properties
and relationships to personality. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(3), 680–685.
Tolentino, L. R., Garcia, P. R. J. M., Lu, V. N., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Plewa, C. (2014). Career adaptation: The relation of adaptability to goal orientation,
proactive personality, and career optimism. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(1), 39–84.
Tolentino, L. R., Garcia, P. R. J. M., Restubog, S. L. D., Bordia, P., & Tang, R. L. (2013). Validation of the career adapt-abilities scale and an examination of a model of
career adaptation in the Philippine context. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 410–418.
van Vianen, A. E. M., Klehe, U. -C., Koen, J., & Dries, N. (2012). Career adapt-abilities scale—Netherlands form: Psychometric properties and relationships to ability,
personality, and regulatory focus. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(3), 716–724.
Zacher, H. (2014). Career adaptability predicts subjective career success above and beyond personality traits and core self-evaluations. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 81(1), 21–30.
Zacher, H., Biemann, T., Gielnik, M. M., & Frese, M. (2012). Patterns of entrepreneurial career development: An optimal matching analysis approach. International
Journal of Developmental Science, 6(3–4), 177–187.
Zacher, H., & Frese, M. (2009). Remaining time and opportunities at work: Relationships between age, work characteristics, and occupational future time
perspective. Psychology and Aging, 24(2), 487–493.
Zacher, H., Heusner, S., Schmitz, M., Zwierzanska, M. M., & Frese, M. (2010). Focus on opportunities as a mediator of the relationships between age, job complexity,
and work performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(3), 374–386.
Zapf, D., Dormann, C., & Frese, M. (1996). Longitudinal studies in organizational stress research: A review of the literature with reference to methodological issues.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 145–169.
Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6),
1271–1288.