INDIVIDUAL ADAPTABILITY: TESTING A MODEL OF ITS DEVELOPMENT AND
OUTCOMES
By
Mark Zorzie

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Psychology
2012

ABSTRACT
INDIVIDUAL ADAPTABILITY: TESTING A MODEL OF ITS DEVELOPMENT AND
OUTOMES
By
Mark Zorzie
Researchers have proposed and investigated a variety of concepts similar to adaptability. In
recent years, greater attention has been given to viewing adaptability as a trait-based construct
relevant to the work context. The purpose of the present study is to propose and test a model of
individual adaptability. In the present model, the antecedents of cognitive ability,
Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience, and Emotional Stability influence cultural, work
stress, interpersonal, learning, and uncertainty dimensions of adaptability. These relationships are
moderated by experiences individuals encounter that aid in the development of adaptability. The
adaptability dimensions subsequently influence the outcomes of task and contextual
performance, emotional adjustment, and efficacy to adapt. These adaptability-outcome
relationships are moderated by the changes one encounters in an unfamiliar context. This model
is tested in a sample of new undergraduates. Results support the effects of the antecedents on
adaptability and of adaptability on the outcomes. The proposed moderators are not supported, but
supplemental analyses reveal that experiences predict adaptability incrementally over the
antecedents and that changes incrementally predict the outcomes over adaptability. Additionally,
adaptability was relatively stable across the two time points of measurement in the study. The
results support the viability of the conceptualization of adaptability as a trait-like construct.
Theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Neal Schmitt, for his thoughtful and timely
feedback and for the support he has given me throughout the dissertation process and graduate
school in general. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Ann Marie Ryan, Dr.
Kevin Ford, and Dr. John Schaubroeck for their guidance, which undoubtedly improved this
dissertation.
Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Paul and Barb Zorzie, for the support they have
given me over the years and continue to provide, and Allison Shaw, whose encouragement was
steadfast and much appreciated.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................v
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... vi
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
Conceptualizations of Adaptability......................................................................................2
Concepts Similar to Adaptability .........................................................................................2
Adaptive Performance .............................................................................................2
Adaptive Expertise ...................................................................................................6
Functional Flexibility...............................................................................................7
Coping ......................................................................................................................8
Trait-based Adaptability ....................................................................................................10
Adaptability in Narrow Work Contexts .................................................................11
Adaptability at Work..............................................................................................14
Review of Adaptability and Related Constructs ................................................................17
I-Adapt Model Dimensions................................................................................................19
Components of the Present Model .....................................................................................22
Antecedents ............................................................................................................23
Potentially Adaptability-building Experiences ......................................................27
Outcomes ...............................................................................................................30
Change ...................................................................................................................35
Adaptability as a Mediator .................................................................................................37
Stability of Adaptability.....................................................................................................41
Similarities to and Differences from Related Articles .......................................................41
Implications for I/O............................................................................................................43
METHOD ......................................................................................................................................46
Procedure and Sample Characteristics ...............................................................................46
Measures ............................................................................................................................47
RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................51
Scale Modification .............................................................................................................51
Descriptive Statistics ..........................................................................................................58
Antecedent-Adaptability Relationships .............................................................................59
Experience Moderation ......................................................................................................61
Adaptability-Outcome Relationships .................................................................................63
Change Moderation ............................................................................................................66
Mediation ...........................................................................................................................67
Task Performance ..................................................................................................68
Contextual Performance.........................................................................................69
Emotional Adjustment ...........................................................................................72
Efficacy to Adapt ...................................................................................................73
iv

Stability of Adaptability.....................................................................................................77
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................80
Antecedent-Adaptability Relationships .............................................................................80
Experience Moderation ......................................................................................................83
Adaptability-Outcome Relationships .................................................................................84
Change Moderation ............................................................................................................85
Mediation ...........................................................................................................................86
Stability of Adaptability.....................................................................................................88
Overall Results ...................................................................................................................88
Research Implications ........................................................................................................89
Practical Implications.........................................................................................................91
Limitations .........................................................................................................................91
Future Directions ...............................................................................................................92
CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................95
APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................................97
APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................................98
APPENDIX C ..............................................................................................................................100
APPENDIX D ..............................................................................................................................102
APPENDIX E ..............................................................................................................................104
APPENDIX F...............................................................................................................................105
APPENDIX G ..............................................................................................................................106
APPENDIX H ..............................................................................................................................107
APPENDIX I ...............................................................................................................................134
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................140

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Definitions of Adaptive Performance Dimensions by Pulakos et al (2006). .................107
Table 2. Means, SDs, and intercorrelations among the variables. ...............................................109
Table 3. Multiple regression analyses of the adaptability dimensions on the antecedents. .........114
Table 4. Moderating effects of experiences. ................................................................................115
Table 5. Multiple regression analyses of the adaptability dimensions on the antecedents and
experiences. ..................................................................................................................................117
Table 6. Multiple regression analyses of the outcomes on the adaptability dimensions. ............118
Table 7. Moderating effects of changes. ......................................................................................120
Table 8. Regressions of task performance, emotional adjustment, and efficacy to adapt on
adaptability and change................................................................................................................122
Table 9. Mediating effects of learning adaptability on the relationship between the antecedents
and task performance. ..................................................................................................................123
Table 10. Mediating effects of the adaptability dimensions on the relationship between the
antecedents and contextual performance. ....................................................................................124
Table 11. Mediating effects of the adaptability dimensions on the relationship between the
antecedents and internal contextual performance. .......................................................................125
Table 12. Mediating effects of the adaptability dimensions on the relationship between the
antecedents and external contextual performance. ......................................................................126
Table 13. Mediating effects of the adaptability dimensions on the relationship between the
antecedents and emotional adjustment.........................................................................................127
Table 14. Mediating effects of the adaptability dimensions on the relationship between the
antecedents and efficacy to adapt. ...............................................................................................128
Table 15. Stability of adaptability from Time 1 to Time 2. .........................................................130
Table 16. Summary of Support for Direct Relationships. ...........................................................131
Table 17. Summary of Supported Mediation Hypotheses. ..........................................................133

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The hypothesized model. ..............................................................................................134
Figure 2. Pulakos et al.’s (2002) tested model of adaptive performance. ....................................135
Figure 3. The hypothesized interaction between adaptability and perceived change. .................136
Figure 4. The moderating effect of uncertainty experiences on the relationship between
Conscientiousness and uncertainty adaptability. .........................................................................137
Figure 5. The moderating effect of work stress experiences on the relationship between cognitive
ability and work stress adaptability..............................................................................................138

vii

Introduction
Organizations are increasingly faced with a dynamic environment due to changing
technology (Hollenbeck & McCall, 1999; Baird & Griffin, 2006), an increased focus on
knowledge and service-based work (Hesketh & Neal, 1999), an increase in employee mobility
(Wang, Zhan, McCune, & Truxillo, 2011), and increased globalization (Cascio, 2003). These
changes have implications for individuals within organizations. For instance, employees faced
with new technologies must learn how to use them, and individuals who must deal with
individuals from other cultures must be able to do so in an effective manner. If the technology or
culture one is encountering is new or different from what he or she has experienced before, the
employee must adapt to these changes. Changing work requirements necessitate that one can
perform new tasks or alter the manner in which such tasks are performed, and an inability to do
so may be detrimental to organizational performance.
The purpose of the present study is to present and test a model of trait-based adaptability.
The idea that adaptability is a trait is not new, though its conceptualization has changed over
time. The predominant treatment of adaptability in recent years has been as an aspect of
performance rather than a trait. Aside from these two conceptualizations, others also have been
offered. The first section of this paper will describe these different conceptualizations, followed
by a summary that compares and contrasts them. Next, a model of how adaptability develops
within a person and eventually affects performance will be discussed. This model is represented
by Figure 1. Each of the variables and relationships in the model will be explained in greater
detail. Third, a study with the purpose of testing the presented model in a sample of new
undergraduates will be outlined. The context of new undergraduates is considered a natural and
appropriate context in which to study adaptability for reasons to be explained further.

1

Conceptualizations of Adaptability
The following two sections describe different views of adaptability-related constructs.
Because a number of concepts related to adaptability have been popular in recent years, in the
first section, several of these constructs are reviewed. Adaptive performance and the similar
notion of adaptive expertise are discussed, followed by reviews of functional flexibility and
coping. In the second section, the conceptualization of adaptability as a trait is outlined.
Research into adaptability in narrow contexts is first reviewed, followed by more general
conceptualizations of work-related trait-based adaptability. After these sections, the differing
perspectives are compared and contrasted.
It is important to note that though aspects of the conceptualizations reviewed below are
criticized, these conceptualizations are not devoid of value. For instance, a model from Pulakos
et al. (2002) is critiqued for its relative simplicity, but a subset of the adaptability dimensions
identified through Pulakos’ line of research is used in the present investigation. Rather than
present an entirely new conceptualization and model of adaptability, the goal of this study is to
build upon previous work, including Pulakos’ and Ployhart and Bliese’s (2006), by drawing from
the portions of their adaptability-related research most relevant and valuable to the present
investigation. The model utilized in the present study shares many similarities with previous
work, but is also distinct in several ways. This is further discussed throughout the introduction
and summarized in the section entitled Similarities to and Differences from Related Articles
toward the end of the introduction.

Concepts Similar to Adaptability
Adaptive Performance.
2

In most of the extant research into adaptability, it has typically been treated as a
characteristic of some types of performance and is often referred to as adaptive performance or
adaptation (e.g. Lepine, Colquitt, & Erez, 2000; Kozlowski et al., 2001; Chen, Thomas, &
Wallace, 2005; Lang & Bliese, 2009; Jundt, 2010). This performance is often conceptualized as
performance on a task following a change or the transfer of skills from one task to another rather
than as an individual-level, trait-like construct. For instance, LePine, Colquitt, and Erez (2000)
treated adaptability as performance on an aircraft simulation task in which rules had changed,
while Kozlowski et al. (2001) operationalized adaptability as one’s exhibited generalized
knowledge and skills from one task to another. Using this conceptualization, adaptability is
defined by performance on a particular task rather than as a broader capacity for performing in
situations that require individual adaptability.
Rench (2009) reviews the components of adaptation: a changing task, recognition of the
cues indicating the need to change, altering one’s cognitions, affect, or behavior, and success
after the change. The first element is self-explanatory; for an individual to need to adapt, he or
she must encounter an aspect of the task that requires adaptation. Second, even when such a
change in the task is present, an individual may not recognize it. A cue, which can be subtle or
obvious, signals the individual that a change is necessary. Third, the change occurs. A
contribution of Rench’s (2009) conceptualization to this line of literature is that the change does
not have to be purely behavioral, but can also be cognitive or emotional. Lastly, a change is not
considered adaptive if it does not at least maintain performance in the task. That is, if
performance decreases, the change is not considered adaptive.
This approach is useful in that it presents adaptation as a general process that should be
similar across tasks. If something changes, an individual must notice the change to take any

3

action. To maintain performance in the presence of a task element change, some sort of action
must be taken. The theory presents a fairly simple linear process. However, this approach has a
significant downside. Generalizability of an ability to adapt beyond the task used in a particular
study is unclear. The tasks used in such studies (e.g. Lepine, Colquitt, & Erez, 2000; Rench,
2009) may not be similar to those encountered in work situations, and change detection and
eventual adaptation to changes in a controlled lab-based task do not necessarily indicate an
individual will adapt to work-related challenges. An employer looking to select individuals who
can adapt will find this research less useful than that involving a trait-based approach.
Studies utilizing this conceptualization also ignore potential mediating effects. For
instance, while some have found support for the effect of personality factors on adaptive
performance (e.g. Lepine, Colquitt, & Erez, 2000), the idea that a personality factor directly
leads to adaptation is simplistic and conceptually lacking. There is little explanation for why an
individual who is open to experiences would simply be better at adjusting behaviors when
encountering task changes; processes are sometimes mentioned but are rarely tested. For
instance, Lepine et al. (2000) explain that a person high on Openness to Experience may selfmonitor better and be more creative, contributing to performance on their adaptability task;
however, this is an implicit process that is not tested. One potential explanation is that a person
open to experiences has exposed him or herself to a broader range of them and thus has been able
to “practice” different approaches to executing and adapting to tasks, providing a greater
repertoire from which to draw and increasing trait adaptability; this is a similar explanation to
that which is presented in this article. Such a conceptualization allows for testing of this
explanation. Individual differences may lead indirectly to adaptation, but this is not the manner

4

in which studies focusing on adaptation as an outcome test the process. The possibility that
adaptability may be a trait that facilitates adaptation is neglected.
A study with many similarities to the present comes from Pulakos’ line of research.
Pulakos et al. (2002) expanded upon a model of adaptive performance developed by Pulakos,
Arad, Donovan, and Plamondon (2000) by studying the predictors of adaptive performance.
Military personnel completed experience, interest, and self-efficacy to adapt measures designed
to reflect the previously identified (by Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, and Plamondon, 2000) eight
dimensions of adaptive performance; these are considered by the authors to be elements of
adaptability. Participants also completed personality (Openness to Experience, Emotional
Stability and achievement motivation) measures, and cognitive ability scores were derived from
ASVAB assessment scores. The intent was to see if the experience, interest, and efficacy
measures predicted adaptive performance incrementally above personality and cognitive ability.
Soldiers’ supervisors completed criterion measures of adaptive performance also designed to
reflect the eight-dimensional model. Results indicated that the eight-factor model of adaptability
was confirmed for experience, interest, and self-efficacy measures, but not for the adaptive
performance (criterion) measure, which was best fit by a single factor. While many adaptability
dimensions (i.e. experience, interest, and self-efficacy dimensions) correlated significantly with
adaptive performance, no interest or self-efficacy subscales predicted adaptive performance
above personality or cognitive ability; the learning subscale of experience, however, did.
This study expands our understanding of adaptability, but it is a relatively simplistic
model. Figure 2 represents the model that was tested. Adaptability is not treated as a trait as it is
in the present article. Personality and cognitive ability are not antecedents of anything but
adaptive performance. While experience in adapting is included in the model, it simply results in

5

adaptive performance. The implicit assumption is that people will be shaped by these
experiences regardless of other individual differences, namely cognitive ability and personality.
In the model offered in the present article, these predispositions result in responses to
experiences that facilitate the development of adaptability as a capability. While the focus in
Pulakos’ article is largely on performance that is adaptive in nature, the focus of the present
article is on adaptability as a trait-based construct.

Adaptive Expertise.
Another closely related concept to adaptability is that of adaptive expertise. Holyoak
(1991) distinguishes between routine experts, who are able to solve problems similar to those
they have encountered before using learned strategies and procedures, and adaptive experts, who
can create new strategies and procedures when novel problems are encountered. Adaptive
expertise is conceptualized similarly to the definition of adaptability as performance. Smith,
Ford, and Kozlowski (1997) discuss adaptive performance in the context of tasks and explain
that “adaptability or adaptive expertise is evidenced when the individual responds successfully to
changes in the nature of the trained task” (p. 93). Individuals recognize changes in a task and
alter their strategies to deal with the changes.
As is the case in the view that adaptability is performance, adaptive expertise is not
applied to a broad range of situations one might encounter, but rather is applied to specific,
frequently simplistic tasks. For instance, adaptive expertise is frequently applied to mathematics
education for basic concepts such as addition and subtraction (e.g. Baroody, 2003; Ben-Zeev &
Kagan, 2004; Torbeyns, Vershaffel, & Ghesquiere, 2006; Verschaffel, Luwel, Torbeyns, & Van
Dooren, 2009; Hickendorff, van Putten, Corneilus, Verhelst, & Heiser, 2010). For the purposes
of educating or training an individual on such tasks, adaptive expertise may indeed be useful, but
6

this would not be useful, for instance, for an organization desiring to hire an individual who has
the ability to adapt across a range of situations. Research has demonstrated cognitive ability
underlies the ability to alter a strategy (as an adaptive expert would) to some degree (Schunn &
Reder, 1998), but it is unclear what other individual differences might facilitate this; it is possible
adaptability (conceptualized as a trait) is one of these differences.

Functional Flexibility.
Paulhus and Martin (1988) introduced functional flexibility to this stream of literature.
Though some authors have used the term to refer to an organizational-level variable indicating
the ability of the organization to deploy employees to fulfill different roles (Desombre, Kelliher,
Macfarlane, & Ozbilgin, 2006; van den Berg & van der Velde, 2005; Martinez-Sanchez, VelaJiminez, Perez-Perez, & de-Luis-Carnicer, 2008), the traditional conceptualization of functional
flexibility as pertaining to interpersonal situations (e.g. Paulhus & Martin, 1988; Baird, Le, &
Lucas, 2006; Driskell, Goodwin, Salas, & O’Shea, 2006) will be considered here. Functional
flexibility is based on previous conceptualizations of interpersonal flexibility, which is a concept
with two components: having a wide range of behaviors one can access, and having the ability to
exhibit the behaviors when needed. Traditional measures of interpersonal flexibility, Paulhus
and Martin argue, fail to capture these two components because they focus too narrowly on traits
(e.g. personality factors) or behaviors that are not strongly linked to flexibility or do not cover
the breadth of traits or behaviors that are indeed relevant. In response to the measures’ perceived
inadequacy, the authors developed the Battery of Interpersonal Capabilities (BIC) Inventory,
which purportedly captures the full range of traits and interpersonal behaviors relevant to
flexibility in interpersonal situations. Paulhus and Martin’s conceptualization of functional

7

flexibility is valuable in its treatment of flexibility as a combination of an available repertoire of
behaviors and a capability to exhibit them; previous authors had suggested this was the case, but
their measures did not reflect it. However, their theory is limited in that it only pertains to
interpersonal situations. The measure reflects this; for instance, one item asks “How capable are
you of being dominant when the situation requires it?” (p. 91). This is adequate for gauging
capabilities in interpersonal situations, but individual adaptability occurs in more than
interpersonal situations. Because of this, functional flexibility is thus limited in its usefulness.

Coping.
One construct which has similarities to adaptability is coping in response to stressors.
According to Sonnentag and Frese (2003), the term “stressors” refers to “conditions and events
that evoke strain,” (p. 454) while strain refers to negative physiological, affective, or behavioral
reactions to these stressors. Stressors and strain have numerous negative consequences on
people (e.g. cardiovascular problems; Schwartz, Pickering, & Landisbergis, 1996; Vrijkotte, van
Doornen, & de Geuss, 1999) and organizations (e.g. turnover; Chen & Spector, 1992). Because
of these consequences, it is of interest to both individuals and organizations to reduce stressors
where possible.
While several theories regarding the cause of strain as a result from stressors have been
proposed, one of the most commonly used and most empirically supported grows out of the
literature into person-environment fit (Harrison, 1978). This theory contends that stress reactions
result from a decrease in person-environment fit; this decrease in fit results from demands at
work exceeding one’s abilities or from one’s needs at work exceeding available resources.

8

Certain psychological attributes, such as one’s coping style, self-efficacy, and locus of
control are considered to be available resources, referred to by some authors as psychological
capital (e.g. Avery, Luthans, & Jensen, 2009). Individuals can use these attributes to deal with
stressors and lessen the potential impact of strain. The use of these resources is termed “coping.”
Coping can either be problem-focused or emotion-focused. Problem-focused coping refers to
“behaviors that aim directly to change the stressor, other aspects of the environment, or one’s
own behavior,” while emotion-focused coping “refers to attempts to manage cognitions or
emotions directly” (Sonnentag and Frese, 2003 p. 469). While there is some evidence that
emotional coping may be effective in response to some stressors, research generally supports the
effectiveness of problem-focused coping over emotion-focused coping.
Theories of adaptability and coping are similar in several ways. Both involve an
individual encountering something that needs to be dealt with; if whatever is encountered is not
dealt with, negative outcomes will result. Both also involve the interplay of individual and
environmental characteristics. Some individuals have an easier time accessing necessary
resources to adjust strategies and continue performing at an acceptable level, while others do not.
A particular event is not a stressor for everyone, just as a particular event does not require
everyone to adapt. Still, they are distinct concepts. Stressors are defined by their resultant strain,
which is a negative consequence in and of itself because it results in negative health outcomes
(Sonnentag & Frese, 2003) even though it may not affect other outcomes such as performance
(Tafalla & Evans, 1997). The changes that require adaptability are not innately “bad.” In fact,
changes are often required for organizations to remain competitive, and one’s reaction to these
changes is not necessarily negative, at least on a theoretical basis. If one is able to deal with
changes effectively, the negative consequences may not result. Stressful events are simply one

9

kind of event to which an individual may have to adapt. This is evidenced by their inclusion in
Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, and Plamondon’s (2000) taxonomy of the dimensions of adaptive
performance. Coping may be useful when adapting to stressful situations or contexts because an
individual may utilize similar strategies to deal with them, but the strategies to reduce strain (i.e.
cope with stressors) may not be effective when strain is not present, which may be the case for
situations requiring other types of adaptability. Therefore, while stress and coping are part of
adaptability, they are not the entirety of this concept.
A concept similar to coping is resilience. Like coping, resilience also is an effective
response to negative events, described by Luthar and Cicchetti (2000) as “significant adversity or
trauma” (p. 858). Resilience also does not necessarily lead to positive outcomes, but rather may
only imply an absence of severe negative outcomes such as psychopathology (Campbell-Sills,
Cohan, & Stein, 2006). As discussed above, adaptability does not have to be in response to
negative changes or challenges, and a simple avoidance of a serious negative outcome is not
sufficient to constitute adaptive behavior. Resilience is useful in the clinical psychology context
(where it is most commonly utilized) because avoidance of strong negative outcomes when
significant negative events occur is certainly important. In everyday work or academic contexts,
however, it does not seem appropriate to describe one’s ability to respond effectively to more
common challenges or changes.

Trait-based Adaptability
As was mentioned, the general idea that adaptability is a trait is not a recent development.
Allport (1924) identified general adaptability as a trait that facilitated adjustment to one’s social
environment. In his view, an adaptable individual encountering a new social group would attend

10

to the social norms of the group and alter his or her behaviors to assimilate with the group.
While Allport’s focus was on the broad social nature of individuals and not on adaptability, his
view of adaptability is important in that it introduced it as a trait that aids individuals in adjusting
behaviors when required by a changing environment.

Adaptability in Narrow Work Contexts.
Others have treated adaptability as a trait, implicitly or explicitly, with a focus on a
specific work context rather than exploring the general nature of adaptability. Early authors (e.g.
Sells, 1956; Trites, Kubala, & Cobb, 1959) utilized and defined adaptability solely within the
context of aviation. For instance, Trites, Kubala, & Cobb (1959) defined adaptability as
“temperamental and motivational characteristics, such as emotional disturbance or programoriented motivation deficit, which contribute to a man's success or failure in training and his
continued adjustment to military flying” (p. 25). While the nature of adaptability is not
explicated in such articles, the definitions suggest a trait-based conceptualization highlighting the
ability to learn and perform in a new context (in this case, flying airplanes).
More recent lines of research have also focused on the context rather than the adaptability
construct. For instance, some authors have investigated adaptable or flexible leadership. This
has been conceptualized as a leader’s tolerance for uncertainty (White & Shullman, 2010),
adjusting leadership styles as contexts change (Kaiser & Overfield, 2010; Yukl & Mahsud,
2010), leaders’ acquisition and application of knowledge to new situations (DeMeuse, Dai, &
Hallenbeck, 2010), and the previously discussed concept of adaptive expertise (Nelson, Zaccaro,
& Herman, 2010). These definitions differ in their details, but the focus in each is on leaders and
how they deal with challenging or dynamic situations.

11

While this contextual approach may have utility for researchers attempting to understand
how pilots or leaders behave in certain situations, these definitions are somewhat limiting when
attempting to understand the general nature of adaptability. Do the actions of a pilot faced with
an equipment malfunction reflect those individuals in other jobs may exhibit when encountering
a problem? Do leaders respond differently than lower-level employees when their position’s
priorities change? The focus on one particular context makes generalization, along with a more
complex understanding of adaptability, difficult.
Morrison and Hall (2002) discuss adaptability in the context of careers. As workers in
present times become more mobile and establish weaker ties with their employers, adaptability is
becoming more important because it aids workers in changing jobs and careers. Morrison and
Hall conceptualize adaptability as a metacompetency, indicating that mastery of it precedes
mastery of other competencies. The authors distinguish between adaptability, which is “the
capacity to adapt or change” and adaptation, which is the “action process involved in responding
to a new situation” (p. 205). They go on to describe adaptability and adaptation in greater detail.
Adaptability consists of four elements. The first two are traditional definitional elements of
response learning and adaptive motivation, which refer to monitoring the environment and
adjusting behaviors to deal with changing situations, and having the motivation to use adaptive
competence and exhibit these behaviors. The latter two elements, identity exploration and
integrative potential, are less common in definitions of adaptability. Identity exploration
involves self exploration for the purpose of matching or modifying one’s identity to a situation;
integrative potential is ensuring this alignment between identity and the situation. One cannot
act in accordance with his or her identity if he or she does not truly know this identity.

12

Conversely, the authors characterize exploring and knowing this identity without translating it
into behavior as “navel gazing.”
This divergent view of adaptability is interesting, but again, its application is limited
outside of the career adaptability space. The key point of differentiation between Morrison and
Hall’s definition and other conceptualizations of adaptability is the introduction of identity. One
could argue that identity is relevant to all forms of adaptability, or all behaviors for that matter;
individuals must always be exhibiting behaviors consistent with their identity or must reconcile
the differences. However, identity is more relevant to the context of careers than the broader
work context. For instance, the importance of matching one’s career to his or her identity is
likely greater than the importance of matching one’s response to a copy machine malfunctioning.
One’s career is simply a larger and more significant part of his or her life.
Furthermore, Morrison and Hall’s discussion of matching one’s identity seems to fall
outside the realm of individual adaptability. Just as Morrison and Hall discuss matching identity
to one’s career, the person-environment fit literature (e.g. van Vianen, 2005) discusses matching
individuals with jobs, others, and organizations based on characteristics of each. Measurement
of individual and career or organizational characteristics may be difficult; one advantage to traitbased adaptability theories is that, theoretically, strong fit may be less important for adaptable
individuals because they can adapt to the situation or context even if a strong fit between
individual and organizational characteristics is not present. If adaptability is indeed an important
individual difference when fit is weak, measurement of adaptability may be an easier and
relatively effective alternative to measurement of fit. It may be difficult for individuals to alter
their identity, especially as often as situations may necessitate it in today’s world. It is also
likely possible individuals can deal with changes to the environment without having to go so far

13

as to make identity modifications; an ability to adapt is important in that individuals can deal
with changing environments without the difficulties that could result from attempting to alter
their identities. A match between a person and his or her environment is certainly important, but
in the present paper (and the majority of the extant literature), it is not considered an element of
adaptability.
While some authors have chosen to focus on a narrow context, others have sought a
broader understanding of adaptability. The following section will review work-related traitbased adaptability and then compare and contrast the constructs that have been discussed.

Adaptability at Work.
More recently some researchers (e.g. Ployhart & Bliese, 2006; Wang, Zhan, McCune, &
Truxillo, 2011) have begun studying adaptability as a trait applicable to work situations in
general rather than as a characteristic of performance or tasks individuals or teams complete, or
as a trait only relevant to specific work contexts. It is unclear the extent to which adaptive
performance on one task may generalize to other tasks. However, viewing adaptability as an
individual-level trait, if an individual possesses the general capacity for adapting, he or she
should be more likely to behave in this manner across situations.
Ployhart & Bliese (2006) recently developed a theory of individual adaptability labeled
“I-Adapt.” In this theory, adaptability is defined as “… an individual’s ability, skill, disposition,
willingness, and/or motivation, to change or fit different task, social, and environmental features”
(p. 13). The authors discuss several key features of their conceptualization of adaptability. First,
as should be clear, adaptability is an individual difference and is distinguished from adaptive

14

performance. Like other individual differences, it is a construct that varies among people and
influences how they interpret and behave across situations.
Ployhart and Bliese do contend that adaptability may be needed or utilized even when
one’s environment has not changed but his or her behaviors are not effective in the present
situation (i.e. it is proactive as opposed to reactive). This is an interesting claim, but proactive
adaptability is not explicitly considered in this study. It is unclear from the description by
Ployhart and Bliese’s discussion under what circumstances one would need to proactively adapt.
If one is performing in a new context, the context has by definition changed, requiring reactive
adaptability. If one is performing in a seemingly familiar context, but his or her behaviors
(which have been effective previously) are ineffective, the situation or context must have
changed, even if the change is not immediately apparent. Consider how an employee may
interact with his or her supervisor. Perhaps every day the employee gives the supervisor a
friendly ribbing before work. If one day the supervisor reacts negatively to this teasing,
something has still changed. Perhaps the manner in which the message is being delivered is
different, or perhaps the supervisor is experiencing family troubles that influence his or her mood
at work. Again, either possibility will require reactive adaptability regardless of whether the
employee knows the source of the changes. If all of the inputs into a system or process are
controlled, the same outputs will result; if different outputs are resulting, something has changed.
Instances in which adaptability may be required but the environment has not changed are not
discussed by Ployhart and Bliese, so it is difficult to know to what the authors are referring.
Regardless, the context of this study is one’s transition to college, which is assumed to be a
context in which much changes. For these reasons, the traditional conceptualization of

15

adaptability (i.e. as being required in response to contextual or situational changes) will be used
in this study.
In the authors’ conceptualization, adaptability results from a number of KSAOs. While
they posit that cognitive ability and personality may contribute to adaptability, there is little
discussion of how adaptability might develop as a result of these KSAOs; this is one of the goals
of the present study, and will be discussed in greater detail later. Additionally, contextual and
situational change can occur in different areas of work or life; again, this is an element explored
in this study that will be discussed in greater detail later.
Consistent with Ployhart and Bliese’s (2006) view, adaptability in the present article is
conceptualized as a relatively distal trait with regard to its effect on behavior, but more proximal
in this regard than the antecedents in the model (i.e. personality, cognitive ability). Traits are
thought to lie somewhere along a distal-proximal continuum, and more proximal traits are more
malleable, affected by situations, and have a more direct influence on outcomes than more distal
traits. This means that a person’s ability to adapt is somewhat difficult to learn or change, though
because it is not as distal as other trait-like variables such as personality, it retains some
malleability. This facilitates its position in the model in the present study; more stable individual
differences (i.e. cognitive ability and personality) lead to adaptability, which in turn leads to
several outcomes. The idea of traits leading to other traits may seem unnecessarily complex or
counterintuitive at first, but viewing them in this manner helps describe the process thought to
occur. This process-based view has been applied to other concepts; for instance, Chen, Gully,
Whiteman, and Kilcullen (2000) proposed a model in which cognitive ability, general selfefficacy, and goal orientation affect context-specific self-efficacy, which in turn affects
performance. The distal-proximal continuum was used to support the placement of the variables

16

in Chen et al.’s (2000) model. The same is done in the present study. Not all traits are equivalent
simply because they are traits, and it is reasonable theoretically that stable, distal traits affect
more malleable, proximal traits.

Review of Adaptability and Related Constructs
Thus far, trait-based adaptability has been reviewed, as have the related constructs of
adaptive performance, functional flexibility, adaptive expertise, and coping. These concepts
share similarities. All of these concepts pertain to changing or challenging situations or contexts.
Whether on a lab-based task, in an interpersonal situation, or in the presence of a stressor,
something happens with which an individual must deal. Second, these concepts have all been
applied at the individual level. While adaptive performance has also been applied to the team
level, studies have investigated it at the individual level. This distinguishes these concepts from
others such as the aforementioned alternative (i.e. not Paulhus and Martin’s) definition of
functional flexibility which refers to organizational capabilities. As such, another similarity is
that these conceptualizations share the idea that there are antecedents (such as personality) to
each adaptability-related concept.
As was mentioned in some of these sections, there are significant differences between the
concepts presented. First, much research into these has been contextually bound. Adaptabilityrelated concepts have been studied within the contexts of aviation, career choice, leadership, and
interpersonal situations. Such conceptualizations are limiting in their generalizability. Even
though, for instance, Morrison and Hall’s (2002) definition of adaptability does not explicitly
refer to careers, they explain that the components of adaptability include identity alteration and
matching (with one’s career); this limits the usefulness of their conceptualization beyond the

17

realm of career choice. Coping is similar to these contextually-bound conceptualizations in that
it is only one element of a broader theory of trait-based adaptability. As was discussed,
individuals may have to adapt to stressful situations, but other situations to which one may have
to adapt may not cause stress reactions. Coping is a response to stressful situations, and the
strategies used to cope with stressors may not be the same as those used to deal with other
situations or contexts requiring adaptability. For this reason, coping seems to be part of
adaptability, but it does not comprise the entire concept as it is usually defined.
Additionally, concepts such as adaptive performance and adaptive expertise typically
focus on simplistic tasks, such as lab-based and mathematics tasks. These may be useful for
understanding finer-grained mental processes that occur under controlled conditions, but they are
not as useful beyond the confines of these experiments. If certain individuals exhibit this
adaptive performance across such tasks or situations, there may be an underlying construct
(adaptability) facilitating performance that would explain such behavioral consistency. These
studies also tend to focus solely on task performance; this is not the only type of performance
that is of interest to organizations (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997).
The above differences suggest reasons for which trait-based adaptability is advantageous
compared to these other conceptualizations. It is true that adaptability as it is defined in the
present article pertains to work contexts; however, in I/O psychology, this is typically the
broadest context of interest. Additionally, a number of the dimensions included in Pulakos,
Arad, Donovan, and Plamondon’s (2000) taxonomy of adaptability may be applicable beyond
the work context. Individuals encounter stress, uncertainty, interpersonal situations, learning,
and other cultures outside of work. For these reasons, the present view of trait-based adaptability
is considered less contextually-bound than other concepts.

18

Additionally, viewing adaptability as an individual difference is also more practically
useful for organizations, largely due to the generalization issue. An HR manager may not be
confident that one will exhibit adaptability on the job because he or she exhibited adaptive
performance on a lab-based task; the range of situations to which the employee may have to
adapt is much broader and contains more variety than the lab-based task likely represents.
Therefore, it would be difficult to select such a person based on this adaptive performance. If an
individual exhibits trait-based adaptability, however, it is more likely this will translate to the
breadth and variety of workplace contexts and situations. It may make more sense to select an
individual for this capacity.
Because of these advantages, the present article utilizes trait-based adaptability largely as
it is conceptualized by Ployhart and Bliese (2006). Adaptability in the present article is
conceptualized as a relatively stable trait that results from more distal traits, specifically
cognitive ability and personality factors. When individuals encounter a changing or challenging
situation or context, adaptability allows them to exhibit appropriate strategy selection and
behavior that ultimately leads to positive outcomes. There are differences between Ployhart and
Bliese’s model and the present model, but these differences will be discussed after presentation
of the present model. At this point, the dimensions of Ployhart and Bliese’s model will be
discussed along with a discussion of which dimensions are relevant to the present study, which is
based in the new undergraduate context rather than the workplace.

I-Adapt Model Dimensions
Ployhart and Bliese’s model utilizes the eight dimensions identified by Pulakos et al.
(2000). These dimensions are crisis, cultural, work stress, interpersonal, physical, creativity,

19

learning, and uncertainty adaptability. Table 1, which was adapted from Pulakos et al.’s article,
presents the definitions of these dimensions. Five of these eight dimensions are included in the
model to be investigated in the present article; the crisis, physical, and creativity dimensions are
omitted due to their lack of relevance given the context of the study. The crisis dimension
pertains to “life threatening, dangerous, or emergency situations” (Pulakos, Dorsey, & White,
2000, p. 617). These situations could indeed affect performance and adjustment, but they are
uncommon and relatively unlikely to occur over a semester in college. This adaptability
dimension would only be relevant if such situations occurred. The physical dimension pertains
to physically challenging environments or tasks. College challenges are likely psychological
rather than physical; while it is possible it could, for instance, get very cold, this is unlikely in the
fall semester when the research is planned, and also unlikely to be severe enough to affect
performance or adjustment. Other challenges, such as having to walk further than one is used to,
are possible but should not be severe enough to require significant amounts of physical
adaptability. The creativity dimension involves generating unique or innovative ideas,
employing creative solutions to problems, and performing when resources are insufficient. This
dimension seems more applicable to the work context, in which individuals frequently work with
teams and must generate such ideas, and in which resources for performing may be lacking due
to (for instance) budget cuts. Similar tasks or situations may occur in a student’s first semester,
but these are likely infrequent or occur for a minority of students, at least at this stage in college.
Early college courses, for instance, are often large lecture-based courses that do not utilize teambased activities. While the creativity dimension may be relevant, the expected infrequency of
tasks or situations requiring it support its omission in the present study.

20

The other five dimensions are conceptually relevant to this context. A student may
encounter more difficult academic assignments and material, different work schedules, different
types of assignments (regardless of difficulty) than he or she commonly experienced in high
school. These may cause stress that needs to be dealt with and may also require learning
information in a different manner. This suggests the stress and learning adaptability dimensions
are relevant to this context. Additionally, a student may encounter new and different cultural
groups and groups of peers who behave and interact differently than those from his or her
hometown. Cultural and interpersonal adaptability may then be necessary to make friends and
have a satisfying social circle and avoid emotional problems such as feeling isolated. Lastly,
uncertainty adaptability involves acting without full information and adjusting one’s cognitions
and behaviors when necessary. Going into academic and social situations, an individual may not
know exactly what to expect and may have to adjust thoughts or behaviors to act appropriately.
For this reason, uncertainty adaptability is relevant to this context. The relevance of these
dimensions will be further discussed later when the present study’s model is described in greater
detail.
Wang, Zhan, McCune, and Truxillo (2011) conducted the only published study utilizing
the I-Adapt measure from Ployhart and Bliese’s article. These authors tested a model in which
adaptability led to person-environment (P-E) fit, and P-E fit led to job performance, job
satisfaction, and turnover intentions. Wang et al. found that even after controlling for proactive
personality and Openness to Experience (two personality variables conceptualized alongside
adaptability rather than as antecedents), the adaptability dimensions of culture, work stress,
interpersonal, and learning were positively related to P-E fit. P-E fit was in turn related to these
work outcomes.

21

The present study differs from Wang et al.’s in two important aspects. First, though the
authors largely adopt Ployhart and Bliese’s model, they conceptualize adaptability as a distal
personality variable similar to those in the Big Five. In Wang et al.’s model proactive
personality and Openness to Experience do not lead to adaptability, but rather are considered to
be personality variables covarying with adaptability facets. The authors did not test for
antecedents to adaptability and were therefore unable to investigate mediating or moderating
elements of the antecedent-adaptability relationship such as experiences that may have resulted
in its development. Ployhart and Bliese (2006), along with the present study, conceptualize
adaptability as a capacity more proximal to behavior than, and perhaps resulting from, traditional
personality variables, allowing for investigation of antecedents and contributing factors to
development. Second, Wang et al. propose that adaptability will lead to increased P-E fit and
subsequent outcomes regardless of the changes or differences from previous environments one
encounters. The present study proposes that simply entering a new context is not a sufficient
condition for adaptability to be needed; specific aspects of the context must change to require
adaptability. Also, while the authors did consider multiple outcomes (performance, satisfaction,
and turnover intentions), they did not distinguish between task and contextual performance as the
present study does. As Borman and Motowidlo (1997) explain, distinguishing between these
two types of performance and investigating differences among their predictors advances our
knowledge of performance and has utility in contexts such as selection.

Components of the Present Model
As was mentioned toward the beginning of this paper, Figure 1 presents a model of
adaptability containing antecedents (personality and cognitive ability) of adaptability,

22

adaptability facets, and four potential outcomes of adaptability. The antecedent-adaptability
relationships are moderated by experiences that have the potential to develop adaptability, and
the adaptability-outcome relationships are moderated by the perceived changes in college. Each
of these components is discussed in further detail below.

Antecedents.
Adaptability is thought to arise from more distal, non-malleable variables. Two likely
antecedents are personality and cognitive ability. Cognitive ability is associated with general
information processing (Ackerman, 1988), and allows individuals to acquire knowledge in order
to apply it in new contexts (Humphreys, 1979). The present study conceptualizes adaptability as
resulting from an individual’s responses to situations in which adaptability could be beneficial.
An intelligent individual who tries different strategies in changing or new contexts or situations
will be more able to learn from these situations and apply this knowledge in the future; his or her
adaptability will increase because of the interaction between this intelligence and the situation.
This interaction is discussed later, but the key idea is that increased cognitive ability will tend to
lead to increased adaptability. Cognitive ability has been shown to correlate with adaptive
performance in previous research (Pulakos et al., 2002).
Of the five-factor dimensions of personality, it seems most likely that Openness to
Experience, Emotional Stability, and Conscientiousness relate to adaptability. Openness to
Experience includes being curious, broad-minded, and intelligent (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
Such individuals would be willing to try new strategies and behaviors when presented with a
situation in which this is possible. For instance, when moving to a new school, if an individual
were not getting along with a group of students he or she tried to befriend, he or she could try to
interact with a new group of students or try new activities where friendships may be made; this
23

would be facilitated by Openness to Experience. Openness to Experience was used by Pulakos
et al. (2002), Wang et al. (2011), and Lepine et al. (2002); all three studies found that it
correlated with either adaptive performance or adaptability dimensions. Emotional Stability
involves remaining calm rather than angry or worried when difficult circumstances arise (Barrick
& Mount, 1991). If an individual were having difficulty with an assignment, it would require
remaining calm to evaluate the strategy being used and to try new strategies. Pulakos et al.
(2002) found that Emotional Stability correlated with adaptive performance. Conscientiousness
is a personality variable that includes organization and perseverance (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
Such a trait would aid an individual in trying new strategies and persisting when troubles are
encountered. Interestingly, Lepine et al. (2002) found a negative relationship between
Conscientiousness and adaptive performance. However, it is unclear whether performance on
this lab-based task is similar to trait-based adaptability, and thus Conscientiousness deserves
further study as a predictor. For these reasons, these three personality factors are hypothesized to
positively affect adaptability.
Hypotheses 1-4 propose that each of these antecedents will affect all of the adaptability
facets to some extent. Cognitive ability is hypothesized to lead to all five facets of adaptability
because an individual who has high cognitive ability will be able to acquire and apply knowledge
more efficiently than an individual low on cognitive ability. This applies to acquiring knowledge
and strategies and applying them in learning, cultural, work stress, interpersonal, and uncertain
situations; regardless of the context, cognitive ability should affect whether one can adapt
through knowledge and strategy acquisition and application. Openness to Experience would
increase one’s tendency to try new behaviors or strategies in both interpersonal and learning
contexts, and in uncertain situations in general. Remaining calm (through Emotional Stability)

24

would aid an individual dealing with preparation for a tough exam, homework, a difficult
roommate, or an unpredictable situation, or even when encountering an unfamiliar culture. For
instance, consider the situation in which a neighbor constantly makes what a college student
considers to be unpleasant-smelling food. An emotionally unstable person might get angry about
the odor, while a more emotionally stable person may remain calm enough to politely approach
the neighbor, or possibly research the nature of the food for a better understanding of its place in
the other student’s culture. Regarding Conscientiousness, an individual who is disorganized and
can’t keep a schedule may have trouble with assignments, school-related stressors, and changing
situations, but may also endanger interpersonal relationships (such as roommates or floormates)
by creating a mess or skipping social activities. The point is that it is conceivable to think of
instances in which all adaptability facets would be affected by these antecedents. Because of
this, Hypotheses 1-4 propose these relationships.
Despite this, it is expected that certain personality variables will relate more strongly to
certain adaptability facets than others. Cognitive ability should relate more strongly to learning
adaptability than the other adaptability facets because cognitive ability directly relates to the
application of knowledge on exams, papers, and other course activities. Comparatively less
knowledge must be acquired and applied in interpersonal situations; the purpose of a course is to
acquire and demonstrate knowledge, while this is not the purpose of an interpersonal situation.
Curiosity and broad-mindedness (aspects of Openness to Experience) would facilitate interacting
with people from unfamiliar cultures and engaging in a variety of social activities in general,
resulting in a stronger relationship with cultural and interpersonal adaptability. As mentioned, it
is also a personality factor tied to intelligence, which should result in a stronger relationship with
learning adaptability. Emotional Stability will be more useful when stressors are encountered

25

because these are elements that cause strain and need to be dealt with, and will also be important
in handling difficult people, resulting in stronger relationships with stress and interpersonal
adaptability. Lastly, Conscientiousness should be more directly applicable to learning
adaptability, in which students must remain organized and persistent, and interpersonal
adaptability, in which individuals must be considerate to others. Hypotheses 1-4 account for
these differences in expected relationship strength.
While it is possible that different facets of these personality factors may exhibit
relationships of different strengths with adaptability, personality facets are not utilized in the
present study. Two of these three personality factors (i.e. Emotional Stability and
Conscientiousness) have not been investigated in conjunction with the trait-based adaptability
measure used in the present study. It is beneficial to establish a broader understanding of these
relationships before investigating the intricacies of each. Also, parsimony is valuable in such a
model; the addition of personality, especially in conjunction with the moderator tests (described
in the next section) for each relationship, would lead to a large increase in hypotheses at this
stage of the model and might decrease focus on relationships in later stages of the model. While
not investigated in the present study, the relative effect of different facets of the Big Five
constructs is an avenue for future research.

Hypothesis 1: Cognitive ability, Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience, and Emotional
Stability will be positively related to cultural adaptability, but Openness to Experience will
exhibit a stronger relationship than the other antecedents.

26

Hypothesis 2: Cognitive ability, Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience, and Emotional
Stability will be positively related to stress adaptability, but Emotional Stability will exhibit a
stronger relationship than the other antecedents.
Hypothesis 3: Cognitive ability, Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience, and Emotional
Stability will be positively related to interpersonal adaptability, but the three personality
characteristics will exhibit stronger relationships than cognitive ability.
Hypothesis 4: Cognitive ability, Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience, and Emotional
Stability will be positively related to learning adaptability, but cognitive ability,
Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience will exhibit stronger relationships than
Emotional Stability.
Hypothesis 5: Cognitive ability, Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience, and Emotional
Stability will be positively related to uncertainty adaptability.

Potentially Adaptability-building Experiences.
While it is hypothesized that adaptability results (at least in part) from personality and
cognitive ability, individuals high on these characteristics would not develop adaptability without
the life experiences to facilitate it. Most researchers now agree that behavior is a result of
person-situation interactions rather than a direct result of either (e.g. Kenrick & Funder, 1988).
Situations provide the opportunity for person-centered characteristics to be exhibited and for
adaptive behavior to result.
Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, and Tucket (2007) explain that when newcomers enter
organizations, they seek information to reduce uncertainty about the situation and undergo a
socialization process. These elements lead to newcomer adjustment, which includes learning

27

how to perform job tasks and becoming socially accepted by peers. Whether entering
organizations or other social situations, if tasks or social situations are challenging or unfamiliar,
one may try different strategies to learn and perform tasks or interact effectively with others.
This is a foundation for adaptability; people who have encountered more of these situations have
had more opportunity to utilize strategies to seek information about tasks and socialize with
others. They have been able to alter their strategies to see what works and what doesn’t, and
additionally, if adaptability leads to success, these adaptive strategies will have been reinforced.
One’s ability to perform in an adaptable manner would increase, and this would likely lead to
more exhibition of adaptability in the future.
Different types of events can facilitate each of the identified facets of adaptability. For
instance, individuals may encounter tasks with ambiguous instructions at school or their job
(uncertainty adaptability), have too many assignments to complete at a given time (stress
adaptability), may take AP courses (learning adaptability), may change schools and need to make
new friends (interpersonal adaptability), or may encounter others of different ethnicities or
religions (cultural adaptability). Experiences in the present study are conceptualized along the
dimensions of adaptability, and the experiences associated with a dimension of adaptability are
conceptualized to facilitate the development of that particular adaptability dimension.
Individuals with more of these experiences should experience a stronger relationship between
these antecedents and adaptability than individuals with fewer experiences.
It is hypothesized that these experiences will have a moderating influence rather than a
mediating influence; that is, the relationship between the antecedents and adaptability will be
moderated by personal experiences. Individuals’ personality and cognitive ability do not
necessarily lead to them experiencing a certain situation; for instance, these antecedents would

28

not result in one changing schools or being assigned an ambiguous task. These occur regardless
of one’s standing on personality and cognitive ability; the antecedents simply affect how one
responds in the situation. Thus, these experiences that have the potential to affect adaptability
are moderators rather than mediators of the antecedent-adaptability relationship.

Hypothesis 6: Potentially adaptability-building cultural experiences will moderate the
relationship between the antecedents and cultural adaptability, such that individuals with more
of these experiences should experience a stronger relationship between the antecedents and
adaptability.
Hypothesis 7: Potentially adaptability-building work stress experiences will moderate the
relationship between the antecedents and stress adaptability, such that individuals with more of
these experiences should experience a stronger relationship between the antecedents and
adaptability.
Hypothesis 8: Potentially adaptability-building interpersonal experiences will moderate the
relationship between the antecedents and interpersonal adaptability, such that individuals with
more of these experiences should experience a stronger relationship between the antecedents
and adaptability.
Hypothesis 9: Potentially adaptability-building learning experiences will moderate the
relationship between the antecedents and learning adaptability, such that individuals with more
of these experiences should experience a stronger relationship between the antecedents and
adaptability.
Hypothesis 10: Potentially adaptability-building uncertainty experiences will moderate the
relationship between the antecedents and uncertainty adaptability, such that individuals with

29

more of these experiences should experience a stronger relationship between the antecedents
and adaptability.

Outcomes.
Adaptability should lead to positive outcomes in a new or changing environment. For
new students, going to college is an experience that presents a new environment containing
different challenges than have been encountered before. Students must deal with these, and the
more adaptable students will likely more easily alter their strategies to do so when necessary.
Adaptability is hypothesized to affect performance, emotional adjustment, and one’s efficacy to
adapt. These outcomes are reviewed below.
Borman and Motowidlo (1997) review two types of performance: task performance and
contextual performance. Task performance refers to “activities that contribute to the
organization’s technical core” (p. 99). These tasks are usually derived from formal job roles and
responsibilities. Task performance is typically what is rated in performance evaluations, largely
due to the centrality of prescribed tasks to one’s job. Contextual performance refers to behaviors
that are voluntary, extra-role, helpful, consistent with organizational rules, and in support of
organizational objectives (Borman and Motowidlo, 1993). These behaviors are extremely
similar to Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCBs); indeed, the overlap is strong enough
that some authors treat them as synonymous (e.g. Organ, 1997; Kaufman & Borman, 2003).
Though some authors refer to adaptive performance, it is argued in the present study that
adaptive performance is not a distinct type of performance but rather is an application of a
capability (i.e. adaptability) to instances of performance. As Pulakos, Dorsey, and White (2006)
explain, equivalent tasks or jobs may or may not require adaptability. A factory employee may
30

use the same machine to punch holes in steel sheets for the duration of his or her responsibilities
for that particular task. Adaptability may not be required for this specific task. If a new machine
is acquired for this task, adaptability may be required for its continued execution. Similarly, an
employee may get along well with others at work and help out where possible. If the culture and
personnel in the organization change, he or she may find it more difficult to exhibit contextual
performance. In such a case adaptability may be required. Such examples support the idea that
adaptive performance may or may not be required with regard to task or contextual performance.
Adaptability is therefore related to task and contextual performance; if no task or context
changes, an individual does not need to adapt.
This is one area where the concept of adaptability exhibits a conceptual advantage over
adaptive performance. In the traditional conceptualization of adaptive performance, the focus is
frequently not on the task to which an individual is adapting. Employees are not simply
exhibiting adaptive performance in a vacuum, independent of work-related tasks or
responsibilities; they are exhibiting performance on a task that simply happens to require
adaptability at the time. Adaptability facilitates these other types of performance when the
situation requires it. For this reason, adaptive performance is not conceptualized as a specific
outcome of adaptability, but rather is viewed as a descriptor of performance in certain
circumstances.
New undergraduates’ “jobs” may require performance on a variety of tasks, such as
attendance, class participation, homework, papers, and examinations. The specific components
of task performance vary from class to class. Regardless of the components, however, they are
typically summarized in the grade point average (GPA) that one receives at the end of a
semester. Therefore, a student’s GPA is a representation of his or her task performance for a

31

given semester. It does not include any extra-role behaviors, but is solely a representation of
how a student performed on the various required tasks. Just as an employee receives
performance appraisal scores, a student receives a “report card” or transcript of his or her
performance scores. For this study, GPA will be treated as a representation of task performance
for undergraduates.
Aside from the above tasks, new students may also take on a variety of citizenship
behaviors. Just as organizations desire performance above or outside of job-required tasks,
universities claim to desire behaviors consistent with OCBs from students in their mission
statements (Schmitt et al., 2009). These can include helping other students with social or
academic problems, defending the university against criticism, and participating in clubs to
improve the university. Thus, contextual performance is also an important criterion for
evaluating undergraduate success.
In addition to performance, one’s emotional adjustment to college is an important
criterion. A student may be able to perform well academically and may engage in citizenship
behaviors toward other students or the university, but internal emotional issues may still exist.
The transition to college has been found to relate to a number of emotional problems such as
anxiety and depression (Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994; Shankland, Genolini, Franca, Guelfi, &
Ionescu, 2010). A student who is performing well but is experiencing emotional problems may
be more likely to dropout (Tinto, 1993), so it is of interest to universities to consider this
outcome alongside performance. Emotional adjustment is thus employed as an outcome in the
present study.
Lastly, adaptability should influence one’s self-efficacy to adapt. Self-efficacy broadly
refers to one’s belief that he or she is capable of accomplishing some goal (Bandura, 1986). In

32

the present context, self-efficacy to adapt refers to one’s belief that he or she is capable of
adapting when necessary. Theoretically, one should recognize his or her ability to adapt, which
should increase confidence that one can adapt when the situation requires it. Pulakos et al.’s
(2002) efficacy to adapt measure targeted the aforementioned eight dimensions of adaptability
and was conceptualized as a predictor of adaptive performance. Each of the efficacy to adapt
measures correlated with adaptive performance, but none predicted this outcome incrementally
above personality and cognitive ability. A previous examination of academic self-efficacy in
college students has suggested that it may take time or experience in the context to develop
accurate efficacy beliefs (Zorzie, 2010); similarly, efficacy to adapt may be more accurately
conceptualized as an outcome than as a predictor of adaptability. In the present study, each of the
adaptability dimensions is hypothesized to positively influence one’s efficacy to adapt. Here,
efficacy to adapt is conceptualized as a unidimensional construct rather than the
multidimensional view of Pulakos et al. (2002). For this reason, all of the adaptability
dimensions are hypothesized predictors of efficacy to adapt.
Conceptually, it does not seem that all of the adaptability facets will lead to all of the first
three outcomes discussed (i.e., task and contextual performance, emotional adjustment). Rather,
specific relationships are proposed between certain adaptability facets and certain outcomes.
First, learning adaptability is hypothesized to positively relate to task performance. This scale
deals with acquiring new skills, knowledge, and approaches to problems. A person who is high
on these activities should be more effective at exhibiting this capability in the form of task
performance (which in this study is operationalized as GPA). Additionally, school work can be
very stressful, especially types of work one has not encountered before. Handling this stress is

33

necessary to perform well on tests and assignments. Therefore, stress adaptability is
hypothesized to positively affect task performance.
Upon entering college an individual may encounter new cultures. Many students are
required to live in dormitories their freshman year and may not have their choice of roommates
or floormates. If an individual is not getting along with others socially, he or she will be less
likely to exhibit OCBs toward them. He or she may also be less likely to join clubs or groups if
the individuals in them are multicultural; this would lead to less integration into the school in
general. For this reason, cultural adaptability is hypothesized to positively affect contextual
performance.
Interpersonal adaptability involves flexibility and open-mindedness when interacting with
others. A person with low interpersonal adaptability may have trouble interacting with others,
making friends, and joining clubs or groups, and may also lead to emotional distress. Thus,
interpersonal adaptability is hypothesized to relate to both contextual performance and emotional
adjustment.
Lastly, uncertainty adaptability involves dealing with change and unpredictable situations
and conditions more broadly. The transition to college includes much change and
unpredictability in academics, social and interpersonal situations, and potentially in terms of the
resources available (e.g. friends, family) for an individual to manage his or her emotions. For
these reasons, it is hypothesized that uncertainty adaptability will relate positively to task
performance, contextual performance, and emotional adjustment.

Hypothesis 11: Learning, work stress, and uncertainty adaptability will be positively related to
task performance.

34

Hypothesis 12: Cultural, interpersonal, and uncertainty adaptability will be positively related to
contextual performance.
Hypothesis 13: Interpersonal and uncertainty adaptability will be positively related to emotional
adjustment.
Hypothesis 14: Each of the adaptability dimensions will be positively related to efficacy to adapt.

Change.
To the extent that the environment and responsibilities encountered at a university are
different from those encountered prior to entering the university, a student will need to adapt.
From this, the following hypothesis is derived: Students high on adaptability will exhibit stronger
task and contextual performance and emotional adjustment than students low on adaptability
only when changes relevant to these outcomes are perceived. Figure 3 illustrates the
hypothesized interaction. When an individual is high on adaptability, it does not matter whether
the tasks or environment changes substantially; he or she has the capacity to deal with the need
for change and will perform the same regardless of this need. Individuals low on adaptability
will perform at a similar level when changes do not occur, but when changes do occur, they will
not be able to adapt and performance and adjustment will suffer. Similar to the manner in which
adaptive performance is treated by other authors (e.g. Rench, 2009), adapting in this study is
represented by successful maintenance of performance and adjustment when challenges are
encountered. No moderated relationships are proposed between the adaptability dimensions and
efficacy to adapt; though it is hypothesized that more adaptable individuals will perform and
adjust better when greater change occurs, it is expected that individuals high on adaptability will

35

believe in their capability to adapt regardless of such changes, so only the (previously described)
direct relationships between adaptability and this outcome are proposed.

Hypothesis 15a: Perceived academic change will moderate the relationship between learning
adaptability and task performance, such that the relationship between adaptability and task
performance will be stronger when perceived academic change is greater.
Hypothesis 15b: Perceived academic change will moderate the relationship between stress
adaptability and task performance, such that the relationship between adaptability and task
performance will be stronger when perceived academic change is greater.
Hypothesis 15c: Perceived academic change will moderate the relationship between uncertainty
adaptability and task performance, such that the relationship between adaptability and task
performance will be stronger when perceived academic change is greater.

Hypothesis 16a: Perceived social change will moderate the relationship between cultural
adaptability and contextual performance, such that the relationship between adaptability and
contextual performance will be stronger when perceived social change is greater.
Hypothesis 16b: Perceived social change will moderate the relationship between interpersonal
adaptability and contextual performance, such that the relationship between adaptability and
contextual performance will be stronger when perceived social change is greater.
Hypothesis 16c: Perceived social change will moderate the relationship between uncertainty
adaptability and contextual performance, such that the relationship between adaptability and
contextual performance will be stronger when perceived social change is greater.

36

Hypothesis 17a: Perceived emotional/supportive change will moderate the relationship between
interpersonal adaptability and emotional adjustment, such that the relationship between
adaptability and contextual performance will be stronger when perceived emotional/supportive
change is greater.
Hypothesis 17b: Perceived emotional/supportive change will moderate the relationship between
uncertainty adaptability and emotional adjustment, such that the relationship between
adaptability and contextual performance will be stronger when perceived emotional/supportive
change is greater.

Adaptability as a Mediator
Until this point, the present paper has focused on the relationships between personality
and cognitive ability and the adaptability facets, the relationships between the adaptability facets
and the specified outcomes, and moderator effects for each of these relationships. Implicit in this
model is the mediating effect of adaptability on the relationships between the antecedents of
personality and cognitive ability and the outcomes. This is one of the contributions of the
present model over previous models (e.g. Pulakos et al., 2002), and the nature of this mediating
effect is discussed in this section.
Motowidlo, Borman, and Schmidt (1997) theorized that both personality and cognitive
ability affect both task and contextual performance, but that personality is more strongly related
to contextual performance while cognitive ability is more strongly related to task performance.
Theoretically, cognitive ability affects one’s ability to acquire knowledge and skills for
exhibiting performance. Personality factors influence the behaviors in which one engages, and
these behaviors result in performance (or a lack thereof) for college students (Rothstein,

37

Paulonen, Rush, & King, 1994). Conscientious individuals are more dependable and
achievement striving, emotionally stable individuals regulate emotions and handle stress better,
and individuals high on Openness to Experience are more broad-minded and creative. Such
attributes should facilitate performing academic work and engaging in positive discretionary
behaviors at college. Academic assignments, along with contextual behaviors such as
volunteering and helping others, can require thoughtfulness and dependability, dealing with
stress, and creativity or broad-mindedness.
Support for the relationship between cognitive ability and the outcomes of task
performance (e.g. Schmidt, 2002; Lepine & Van Dyne, 2001) and GPA (e.g. Rhode &
Thompson, 2007) is robust, but relationships between cognitive ability and contextual
performance tend to be small and non-significant (Lepine & Van Dyne, 2001; Chan & Schmitt,
2002). Conscientiousness has demonstrated strong and consistent relationships with task
(Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001) and contextual (Hogan, Rybicki, Motowidlo, & Borman, 1998)
performance in the organizational context and GPA (O’Connor & Paunonen, 2007) in the
academic context. Emotional Stability tends to be a relatively consistent (but less strong)
predictor of task and contextual performance, while Openness to Experience tends to be only a
weak predictor of task and contextual performance (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; Hurtz &
Donovan, 2000). Meta-analytic results indicate both Emotional Stability and Openness to
Experience exhibit small positive relationships with GPA (O’Connor & Paunonen, 2007), though
many studies produce contradictory (i.e. positive and negative) findings in this regard. While
support is inconsistent for the relationships between cognitive ability and contextual performance
and between GPA and the personality factors of Emotional Stability and Openness to

38

Experience, they are theoretically relevant for the reasons mentioned above, and it is expected
they will exhibit positive relationships with the performance outcomes.
Emotional adjustment is also an outcome of interest in the present study. An individual’s
resources are crucial to dealing with stressful situations (Sonnentag & Frese, 2003). Similarly,
individuals with high cognitive ability have a greater capacity to assess challenging situations
encountered when entering college and effectively select strategies to deal with these challenges
emotionally; emotional adjustment should result from this greater ability. Research suggests
cognitive ability does predict strategy selection for dealing with job stressors (Pratt, 2006).
There is also evidence that Big Five factors influence emotional responses to stressful or
challenging situations. Emotional Stability is the personality factor that is conceptually most
closely related to the outcome of emotional adjustment because emotionally stable individuals
experience less anxiety, depression, and other negative emotions than emotionally unstable
individuals (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Of the Big Five factors, Emotional Stability relates most
strongly to problematic coping and to overall negative emotions, though Conscientiousness and
Openness to Experience are related to decreased negative emotions such as fear and shame
(Penley & Tomaka, 2002). This may be at least partially due to how people view challenging or
stressful tasks; individuals higher on Openness to Experience and Conscientiousness perceive
greater control over such tasks (Penley & Tomaka, 2002).
As the model suggests, the relationships between these antecedents and outcomes are
hypothesized to be mediated by adaptability. The antecedents affect performance and emotional
adjustment through their previously discussed affects on adaptability. In this theory, for
instance, greater cognitive ability does not simply result in better performance or emotional
adjustment. Individuals with greater cognitive ability learn more from changing or challenging

39

experiences about which strategies are effective and which are not, and subsequently select and
apply these strategies more efficiently than individuals with low cognitive ability. This ability to
adapt results in better performance and adjustment in situations that require adaptability.
Similarly, individuals high on Openness to Experience are more willing to try new strategies and
engage in adaptability-building experiences, increasing adaptability which in turn should affect
these outcomes. Individuals high on Emotional Stability remain calmer when faced with
changing or challenging situations, which facilitates the development of adaptability.
Individuals higher on Conscientiousness have more organization and perseverance. More
organized and persevering individuals will try a greater number of methods when dealing with
challenges, which should lead to more effective performance and adjustment. The general idea
is that possessing cognitive ability and beneficial personality traits facilitates the development of
adaptability, which in turn affects performance and emotional adjustment. Recognizing the
influence of adaptability is important for understanding the relationships between the antecedents
and outcomes. The adaptability facets hypothesized (hypotheses 10-12) to relate to each
outcome will be used as mediators of the antecedent-outcome relationships. From this, the
following hypotheses are derived:

Hypotheses 18a: Learning, stress, and uncertainty adaptability will mediate the relationships
between the antecedents of cognitive ability, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and
Openness to Experience and the outcome of task performance.
Hypothesis 18b: Cultural, interpersonal, and uncertainty adaptability will mediate the
relationships between the antecedents of cognitive ability, Conscientiousness, Emotional
Stability, and Openness to Experience and the outcome of contextual performance.

40

Hypothesis 18c: Interpersonal and uncertainty adaptability will mediate the relationships
between the antecedents of cognitive ability, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and
Openness to Experience and the outcome of emotional adjustment.

Stability of Adaptability
As was discussed, the present conceptualization of adaptability posits that the construct is
to some degree malleable (e.g. by life experiences) but generally relatively stable. It thus makes
sense to investigate the stability of adaptability over the course of a student’s first semester. It is
likely that adaptability will remain stable, but also possible that college experiences are strong
enough to alter adaptability in some ways. Therefore, the following research question is
proposed:

Research Question 1: To what extent does adaptability change over the course of a semester?

Similarities to and Differences from Related Articles
The present study exhibits most similarity with three other published works. Most
obviously, the first is Ployhart and Bliese’s (2006) chapter describing the I-Adapt theory. The
present conceptualization of adaptability shares much with theirs, though there are some
differences (e.g. the proactive vs. reactive distinction described earlier). The model described is
also somewhat similar to that which appears in their chapter. The authors call for researchers to
test the propositions they offer, a call that has been largely unheeded since the chapter’s
publication. Even so, the present model differs and expands upon theirs in several ways. First,
Ployhart and Bliese do expand upon the traditional performance domain utilized in adaptive

41

performance studies by suggesting contextual performance also be included (as do Pulakos et al.,
2002). Performance is not the only outcome of interest, though, and the present study includes
emotional adjustment and efficacy to adapt as criteria of interest. Considering outcomes other
than performance would be useful for studies of adaptability in the future.
Though Ployhart and Bliese posit antecedents to adaptability, they do not discuss how
these antecedent elements might affect adaptability; these relationships are conceptualized as
direct. The present study explicates these relationships by investigating how they might develop
through certain experiences. Because the model presented in their chapter explains adaptability
as a process, it is important to explain the mechanisms through which the variables at one stage
of the model affect variables at the next stage, and the present study represents an attempt to do
so.
There are other conceptual differences as well. For instance, Ployhart and Bliese
graphically depict that performance will be ineffective for individuals low on adaptability
regardless of whether the environment is dynamic or static, and that adaptability will improve
performance rather than simply maintaining it. The present study posits that adaptability will aid
an individual when the environment or context is dynamic, and similar to Rench’s (2009)
conceptualization, will at least maintain positive outcomes (e.g. task performance) rather than
necessarily improving these outcomes. Additionally, Ployhart and Bliese do not consider
possible forms of change, but rather just refer to an environment being dynamic or static. The
present study considers dynamism in the context of academics, social elements, and supportive
relationships.
The next article among those with relatively strong similarities to the present is Pulakos
et al.’s (2002) study of adaptive performance, the model of which was presented in Figure 2.

42

Though the authors label their experience, interest, and self-efficacy scales adaptability, they do
not use the trait-based approach employed in this article. Of these three elements that the authors
label adaptability, self-efficacy to adapt is most similar to the present conceptualization of
adaptability. Self-efficacy involves the belief one can adapt, while adaptability involves an
actual capability to adapt; one can believe he or she can adapt but not be able to do so. One
could argue that this distinction is lost in measurement of these variables, but the conceptual
difference is important. Additionally, Pulakos et al. (2002) utilize cognitive ability, Openness to
Experience, and Emotional Stability in their model, finding they do correlate with adaptive
performance. Despite these similarities, the authors’ model posits a set of direct relationships
rather than describing a process that explains why these variables might affect adaptive
performance. As was mentioned, the authors also recognize the shortcoming of focusing only on
task performance and recommend that the performance domain be expanded in future studies,
which the present study aims to do.
The last article among those with similarities to the proposed work is Wang, Zhan,
McCune, and Truxillo’s (2011) study using the I-Adapt measure. Because this article and the
differences between it and the present study were described in greater detail earlier, they will not
be discussed again. However, in summary, the authors of this study conceptualized adaptability
differently and used a different model than is being used in the present study.

Implications for I/O
The construct of adaptability has much value in the field of I/O psychology; indeed, the
theory of trait-based adaptability in the present study is rooted in work. Jobs frequently require
employees to be adaptable; for instance, on a project (Huth & Zorzie, 2010) this author has

43

previously worked on, a consulting group was looking for a way to identify which employees
would be good at adjusting to a new environment when relocating from the consulting group’s
offices to the workplace of some of their larger clients. This was essentially a question of
adaptability; which employees are able to adapt to a new environment (of which the
characteristics are likely unknown) more effectively? In selection, it is easier, and likely more
generalizeable across situations, for an organization to select on trait adaptability rather than on
an adaptive performance task (e.g. the computer-based tasks that have been used in previous
studies of adaptive performance). Aside from its inherent theoretical value, the explication of
adaptability and a demonstration of its validity in predicting desired outcomes is a necessary step
before the construct can be useful in an applied setting.
The present study investigates this adaptability in the undergraduate context. This begs
the question: why test a theory of work-related adaptability in such a context? First, there have
been recent calls (e.g. Salas, 2011) to apply I/O psychology research in underexplored contexts,
specifically educational ones (Schmitt, 2011). Just as employees must adapt to new contexts, so
must students. Second, this context lends itself well to the adaptability construct. While new
employees may have come from other organizations and have had similar experiences, the vast
majority of new college students come from high school, which is arguably very different from
the collegiate context. Moving away from home is in and of itself an activity that likely requires
one to adjust to his or her surroundings. Thus, one’s entry into college provides a natural context
in which to study adaptability. Third, while the traditional organizational context and the
undergraduate context may seem dissimilar, Munson and Rubenstein (1992) argue that they are
very similar based on task, situational, and environmental similarities. As Zorzie (2010) explains
in reviewing Munson and Rubenstein’s points, “Types of schoolwork can be categorized along

44

the same dimensions of data, people and things on which other work is categorized (e.g.
O*NET). Students are attracted to and are successful in different areas of schoolwork just as
workers outside the classroom are in various careers. [In addition], both students and these
workers must operate under stressful conditions, perform tasks they would rather not, follow
directions, and work with others.” For these reasons, the new undergraduate experience is
especially appropriate for the study of adaptability.
Thus far, the present paper has described trait-based adaptability and its similarities to
and differences from other related concepts. In addition, it has described the components of a
model of adaptability that illustrates how adaptability develops and ultimately results in positive
outcomes in situations that require it. In this model the antecedents of cognitive ability,
Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability positively affect the
adaptability facets. These relationships are moderated by life experiences that provide the
opportunity for adaptability to develop. Adaptability leads to task and contextual performance,
emotional adjustment, and efficacy to adapt. The adaptability-performance and adaptabilityemotional adjustment relationships are moderated by changes students experience in the
transition to college. The next section outlines the present study, which is designed to test these
relationships.

45

Method
Procedure and Sample Characteristics
Students in their first semester at a large Midwestern university were solicited to
participate through the Human Participation in Research participant system. In exchange for
course credit, participants completed cognitive ability, personality, experiences, and adaptability
measures at time 1, which spanned the length of September, 2011. Students in this sample
received an e-mail in early November, 2011 soliciting further participation (i.e. to complete the
change, performance, and emotional adjustment measures). Grade point average and SAT/ACT
scores were obtained from the University after the semester concluded in December, 2011.
Students received course credit and a small gift card to an online retailer for participation at this
second time point.
Five-hundred two students accessed the survey, 479 of whom responded to the survey in
its entirety. Of these 479 respondents at time 1, 428 accessed the survey at time 2, 403 of whom
responded to the survey in its entirety. GPA data were obtained for 362 participants and
SAT/ACT data were obtained for 379 participants. Of the 403 students in the final sample, 77
(19.1%) identified as male and 325 (80.6%) identified as female; 1 individual did not indicate
gender. Two-hundred eighty (69.7%) were aged 17-19, 108 (26.9%) were aged 20-22, and 12
(2.8%) were aged 23-29. Regarding ethnicity, 7 participants (1.7%) identified as Hispanic, 4
(1.0%) identified as Latino, and 353 (87.6%) identified as neither Hispanic nor Latino. Thirtynine participants (9.7%) did not respond to the ethnicity item. Regarding race, 349 participants
(86.6%) identified as White, 23 (5.7%) as Asian, 17 (4.2%) as Black or African American, 1
(.2%) as Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 14 (3.5%) as “Other” or two or more

46

races. The demographics of participants in the time 1 survey (e.g. 78.7% female, 83% White) did
not appear to differ greatly from those in the final sample.

Measures
Cognitive ability. Cognitive ability was operationalized as one’s SAT/ACT score. As Boudreau,
Boswell, Judge, and Bretz (2001) write in explaining their use of SAT scores to represent
cognitive ability:
A standardized test score, such as the SAT or GMAT, is a valid and simple way to assess
an individual’s intelligence, shown to be predictive of a number of different types of
intellectual performance (Jensen, 1980), and has been used in previous research (O’Reilly
& Chatman, 1994; Wright, McCormick, McMahan, & Smart, 1995). Gottfredson and
Crouse (1986) concluded in their review of the use of SAT scores that it is a reasonable
measure of general cognitive ability. (p. 36)
Cognitive ability was measured through self-report items asking respondents their SAT/ACT
score, as well as through records obtained from the university.
Personality. Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability were assessed
using 10-item scales available from the International Personality Item Pool (Goldberg, 2011).
Each item represented a phrase descriptive of a person, such as, “Make a mess of things.”
Participants rated the extent to which they believed each phrase reflected their personalities on a
5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very inaccurate) to 5 (very accurate). The Openness to
Experience (α = .84), Conscientiousness (α = .79), and Emotional Stability (α = .86) scales have
all demonstrated good reliability in past research (Goldberg, 2011). See Appendix A.

47

Potentially adaptability-developing experiences. Experiences through which adaptability may
develop were informed by two sources: Pulakos et al.’s (2002) measure of past experiences
adapting and a focus group conducted with current students. Items from Pulakos et al.’s measure
were adapted to the college context where appropriate. In addition, the verb tense of items were
changed from present to past. Additionally, a focus group was conducted with ten
undergraduates. Participants listed experiences they had prior to college in which they had to be
adaptable. Subsequently, the researcher led a discussion about these experiences in which
participants spoke about their experiences and how they required and developed adaptability; this
discussion generated additional experiences, which were also recorded. The information
obtained through this focus group was used to add items to and remove items from the
instrument. After the instrument was created, the researcher conducted a session in which 15
raters were trained about the nature of the dimensions. These raters then sorted each item into
one of the adaptability dimensions. Five items were sorted to their a-priori category with less
than 50% success, and two additional items were sorted with less than 66% success; these seven
items were removed from the final instrument. The final instrument contained 37 items and is
presented in Appendix B. The items that were removed are identified in this appendix.
Adaptability. Five of the eight subscales from Ployhart and Bliese’s (2006) I-Adapt measure
were adapted for use in the present study. The crisis, physical, and creativity subscales were
excluded because of their conceptual inapplicability to the aspects of the collegiate context being
investigated. The remaining five subscales were measured with a total of 38 items. The learning
subscale was modified to reflect the academic context rather than the traditional work context.
For instance, “I enjoy learning new approaches for conducting work” was modified to “I enjoy
learning new approaches for tasks or problems in school” and “I take action to improve work

48

performance deficiencies” was modified to “I take action to improve school performance
deficiencies.” Items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very inaccurate)
to 5 (very accurate). See Appendix C.
Change. Perceived changes were measured with a 25 item measure developed by the researcher.
In the second part of the aforementioned focus group, participants listed academic, social, and
supportive changes they encountered upon coming to college. The researcher then led a
discussion about these changes to generate additional ideas. The results of this focus group were
used to generate the items in the perceived changes scale. Items were rated on a 5-point Likerttype scale ranging from 1 (very inaccurate) to 5 (very accurate). See Appendix D.
Task performance. Task performance is operationalized as a student’s grade point average
(GPA) for the first semester of college. GPA was obtained through a self-report item (“What is
your current GPA?”) as well as from the university after the semester concluded.
Contextual performance. Contextual performance (conceptualized as Organizational Citizenship
Behaviors) was measured with a 10-item instrument developed by the College Board research
team at Michigan State University (e.g. Schmitt et al., 2007; Schmitt et al., 2009). Individuals
rated the frequency with which they performed each behavior on a 5-point scale ranging from 1
(Very infrequently/never) to 5 (Very frequently/always). Schmitt et al. (2009) reported
acceptable reliability (α = .80) for this scale. See Appendix E.
Emotional adjustment. Emotional adjustment was measured with the emotional adaptation
subscale of the Student Adaptation to College (SAC) Questionnaire (Baker & Siryk, 1984; Baker
& Siryk, 1986). This instrument has been used extensively to assess emotional, academic, social,
adjustment to college, along with institutional attachment. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert-

49

type scale ranging from 1 (very inaccurate) to 5 (very accurate). Reliability for the emotional
subscale typically ranges from alpha= .79 to .85 (Smith, 2008). See Appendix F.
Efficacy to adapt. Efficacy to adapt was measured with an eight-item instrument developed by
the researcher. Items were designed to reflect one’s belief that he or she can handle college
challenges. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very inaccurate) to 5
(very accurate). See Appendix G.

50

Results
The results are divided into several sections. First, scale modification based on
examination of alpha reliabilities and factor analyses is reviewed. The revised descriptive
statistics are then presented. Next, the hypotheses are tested in the order in which they were
presented in the introduction. Lastly, the research question pertaining to the stability of
adaptability is tested.

Scale Modification
Prior to hypothesis testing, analyses were conducted to examine the measurement of the
variables in the study. First, alpha reliabilities and item-total correlations were examined for each
scale. Except for the change variables and the uncertainty dimension of the experience measure,
all alphas were above α=.70; the scales with α<.70 were the first targeted for improvement.
Uncertainty experiences contained three items with low item-total correlations (i.e. ≤.20).When
these items were removed, alpha improved from α=.65 to α=.68. The removal of no other items
would have improved the alpha of this scale. This revised structure was used in subsequent
analyses, and the items that were removed from the scale are identified in Appendix B.
The academic (α=.58), social (α=.30), and emotional (α=.59) change scales each
demonstrated poor alpha reliability. Removing two items with low item-total correlations from
the academic change scale improved reliability to α=.67. Removing one item with a low itemtotal correlation from the emotional change scale improved reliability to α=.62. With such low
reliability, most of the items in the social change scale exhibited low item-total correlations.
When the two items with the lowest item-total correlations (i.e. <.07) were removed, the
reliability improved to α=.43. The remaining item-total correlations ranged from .14 to .36, and

51

the removal of any item would not have improved reliability. Although the reliability of this
scale was poor, this improved structure was used in subsequent analyses. Items removed from
the change dimensions are identified in Appendix D.
Lastly with regard to reliability analyses, the statistics for all of the other scales were
examined. The work stress experiences (α=.71) and uncertainty adaptability (α=.77) scales each
had one item that exhibited a low item-total correlation (i.e. <.20), and the interpersonal
experiences (α=.73) scale had three such items. Because there was not strong theoretical
justification for keeping these items despite their low item-total correlations, they were removed.
The reliabilities of the work stress experiences (α=.75), interpersonal experiences (α=.81), and
uncertainty adaptability (α=.80) scales improved. These modified scales were used in subsequent
analyses. The items that were removed from the experience and uncertainty adaptability scales
are identified in Appendix B and Appendix C respectively.
Next, confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to further investigate the extent to
which the data fit the a-priori structure of each variable. For these analyses, the chi-squared, the
CFI, and the RMSEA are reported in accordance with recommendations from some researchers
2

(e.g. McDonald & Ho, 2002; Garson, 2009). Additionally, the relative chi-squared (χ r; i.e. the
ratio of the chi-square value to the degrees of freedom) is reported to provide another gauge of
relative fit. Common “rules of thumb” dictate that the CFI should be ≥.95 for good fit, the
RMSEA should be ≤.06 for good fit or ≤.08 for fair fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999), and the relative
chi-squared should be ≤ 5 (Kline, 2005, p. 137).
First, the structure of the personality variables was investigated through separate CFAs of
2

each personality dimension. Openness to Experience demonstrated poor fit (χ (36)=307.59,
2

p<.01, χ r=8.54, CFI=.71, RMSEA=.14), with indicator loadings ranging from .34-.72.
52

2

2

Conscientiousness demonstrated similar fit (χ (36)=302.42, p<.01, χ r=8.64, CFI=.75,
RMSEA=.14), with indicator loadings ranging from .33-.72. Emotional Stability also
2

2

demonstrated poor fit (χ (36)=314.65, p<.01, χ r=8.74, CFI=.81, RMSEA=.14). A test of all
three personality constructs simultaneously (but as separate latent variables) revealed poor model
fit as indicated by the CFI but better model fit as indicated by the RMSEA and relative chi2

2

squared (χ (404)=1761.14, p<.01, χ r=4.25, CFI=.65, RMSEA=.09). Despite questionable model
fit, there is a long history of theoretical justification for these personality scales and a lack of
theoretical justification of their modification in the present study; therefore, the structure of these
scales was retained.
The next set of variables examined using confirmatory factor analysis was the group of
2

experiences measures. Learning experiences demonstrated poor fit (χ (27)=208.50, p<.01,
2

χ r=7.71, CFI=.74, RMSEA=.13) with indicator loadings ranging from .28-.65. Because of this
poor fit, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to investigate the structure of the
scale. This analysis revealed three conceptually meaningful factors: a three-item factor focusing
on feedback-seeking behaviors, a three-item factor focusing on work-related initiative, and a
two-item factor focusing on taking difficult courses. Item 8, which refers to using varied study
strategies, loaded on the feedback-seeking factor; because this did not make conceptual sense, it
was discarded from this factor. Cross-loadings were low (i.e. ≤.24) for all items. A CFA of the
2

2

three-factor structure revealed good fit (χ (17)=44.14, p<.01, χ r=2.60, CFI=.95, RMSEA=.06).
Thus, scale scores were created of these factors, and the hypotheses utilizing the learning

53

experiences scale were analyzed using both the a-priori structure and the three-factor structure.
The items belonging to each factor are identified in Appendix B.
2

2

Uncertainty experiences demonstrated good fit (χ (9)=23.16, p=.01, χ r=2.57, CFI=.96,
RMSEA=.06) with indicator loadings ranging from .24-.69. Work stress experiences also
2

2

demonstrated good fit (χ (14)=37.48, p<.01, χ r=2.68, CFI=.96, RMSEA=.06) with indicator
loadings ranging from .40-.79. Interpersonal experiences demonstrated fit slightly below
2

2

recommended cutoffs (χ (14)=74.40, p<.01, χ r=5.31, CFI=.92, RMSEA=.10) with indicator
2

loadings ranging from .48-.70. Cultural experiences demonstrated poor fit (χ (20)=179.93,
2

p<.01, χ r=9.00, CFI=.80, RMSEA=.14) with indicator loadings ranging from .33-.75. An EFA
of this dimension revealed two factors, but two items had high cross-loadings (i.e. ≥.39), so the
a-priori structure was retained. A simultaneous test of the five experience variables revealed a
2

2

low CFI but an acceptable RMSEA and relative chi-squared (χ (619)=1261.66, p<.01, χ r=2.04,
CFI=.81, RMSEA=.05). Modification indices indicated that no path addition would result in a
chi-squared reduction of more than 29. The structure for these variables was retained.
Regarding the first administration of the adaptability measures, the uncertainty dimension
2

2

exhibited fit indices below the recommended cutoffs (χ (20)=151.46, p<.01, χ r=7.57, CFI=.91,
RMSEA=.11) with indicator loadings ranging from .26-.85. Work stress adaptability
2

2

demonstrated good fit (χ (5)=28.94, p<.01, χ r=5.79, CFI=.98, RMSEA=.06) with indicator
2

loadings ranging from .71-.85. Learning adaptability demonstrated acceptable fit (χ (14)=57.23,
2

p<.01, χ r=4.09, CFI=.95, RMSEA=.08) with indicator loadings ranging from .52-.76.

54

2

2

Interpersonal adaptability demonstrated poor fit (χ (14)=221.47, p<.01, χ r=15.82, CFI=.86,
RMSEA=.17) with indicator loadings ranging from .44-.78. Because of this poor fit, an EFA was
performed to identify if multiple factors better represented the interpersonal dimension. This
analysis revealed two factors that were somewhat intuitive, but also revealed high cross-loadings
(i.e. ≥.40) for two items. Due to the lack of clarity in the factors, the a-priori structure was
2

2

retained. Cultural adaptability demonstrated good fit (χ (5)=18.60, p<.01, χ r=3.72, CFI=.99,
RMSEA=.07) with indicator loadings ranging from .49-.77. A simultaneous test of the five
adaptability dimensions produced a poor CFI but acceptable RMSEA and relative chi-squared
2

2

(χ (454)=1456.43, p<.01, χ r=3.21, CFI=.86, RMSEA=.07). Modification indices indicated that
2

the greatest chi-squared drop (χ drop=56.41) would result by freeing the path between the
second uncertainty item (“I become frustrated when things are unpredictable”) and the latent
variable representing stress adaptability. No other modification would result in a chi-squared
drop of greater than 29. Because the modification indices did not provide strong evidence for
modification, the a-priori structure of all adaptability dimensions was retained.
Because the experience and adaptability measures targeted the same life-oriented
dimensions (i.e. uncertainty, work stress, learning, interpersonal, and cultural), a confirmatory
factor analysis was conducted on the 10 variables from these measures simultaneously. Similarly
to the separate analyses of experiences and adaptability, the simultaneous test produced a poor
2

2

CFI but good relative fit indices (χ (2232)=4308.06, p<.01, χ r=1.93, CFI=.79, RMSEA=.05).
When the CFA was performed using the modified structure of learning experiences, fit was very
2

2

similar (χ (2144)=4058.40, p<.01, χ r=1.89, CFI=.81, RMSEA=.05). Modification indices

55

revealed that the chi-squared drops from freeing any path between an experience item and an
adaptability construct or between an adaptability item and an experience construct were all less
than 20. Therefore, no modifications were made.
Additionally, to investigate the potential similarities of personality and adaptability, a
CFA was conducted on the five adaptability dimensions and the three personality dimensions
simultaneously. Similarly to the separate analyses of personality and adaptability, the CFI was
2

2

poor but the relative fit indices were better (χ (1801)=5163.26, p<.01, χ r=2.87, CFI=.74,
RMSEA=.06). Modification indices revealed that the largest chi-squared drop from freeing a
path between either a personality item and an adaptability construct or between an adaptability
item and a personality construct was 33.93, which would result from freeing the path between
the second uncertainty adaptability item (“I become frustrated when things are unpredictable”)
and the emotional stability construct. Given the limited evidence for modifying the scales based
on these indices, the a-priori structures were retained.
Next, CFAs were conducted on the change variables. Academic changes exhibited fit
2

2

indices below the recommended cutoffs (χ (20)=90.12, p<.01, χ r=4.51, CFI=.84, RMSEA=.09);
2

indicator loadings ranged from .23-.67. Social changes exhibited good fit (χ (5)=6.02, p>.05,
2

χ r=1.20, CFI=.99, RMSEA=.02), with indicator loadings ranging from .15-.74. Emotional
2

2

changes exhibited poor fit (χ (9)=70.66, p<.01, χ r=7.85, CFI=.77, RMSEA=.13), with indicator
loadings ranging from .21-.84. An EFA of the emotional changes items revealed two factors, but
these factors were not conceptually meaningful; thus, the structure was maintained.
Finally, confirmatory factor analyses were performed on the outcome variables. The
2

organizational citizenship behavior scale demonstrated poor fit (χ (35)=546.11, p<.01,
56

2

χ r=15.60, CFI=.57, RMSEA=.18), with indicator loadings ranging from .36-.72. Because of this
poor fit, an EFA was performed on these items. This analysis revealed three factors. The first
factor focused on positive behaviors toward other students. The second factor focused on
showing support for one’s school to others outside of the school. The third factor focused on
behaviors that would improve one’s school. Because of perceived similarities between the first
and third factors, a second EFA was conducted in which the analysis was restricted to produce
two factors. Indeed, the two items from the third factor (in the previous EFA) loaded onto the
first factor. Cross-loadings between items in the two factors were generally low; only one item
exhibited a cross-loading higher than .18 (i.e. the ninth contextual performance item, which
loaded .61 on the first factor and .34 on the second factor). A CFA of the two-factor structure
2

2

revealed improved fit (χ (34)=185.10, p<.01, χ r=5.44, CFI=.87, RMSEA=.09). Though
dimensions of OCBs and contextual performance have been proposed in the past (e.g. Organ,
1988; Williams & Anderson, 1991; Borman & Motowidlo, 1997), the factors identified in the
present study did not appear to match these previously-proposed dimensions. The final two
factors were labeled “internal” and “external” because they focused on behaviors directed at
those within the school and those outside of the school, respectively. Hypotheses utilizing the
contextual performance items were conducted using both the a-priori structure and the two-factor
structure. The items belonging to each factor are identified in Appendix E.
The emotional adjustment scale demonstrated fit slightly below the generally
2

2

recommended cutoffs (χ (77)=272.10, p<.01, χ r=3.53, CFI=.90, RMSEA=.07), with indicator
2

loadings ranging from .34-.81. The efficacy to adapt scale demonstrated poor fit (χ (20)=241.93,
2

p<.01, χ r=12.10, CFI=.83, RMSEA=.15), with indicator loadings ranging from .46-.81. An EFA
57

was performed on the efficacy to adapt scale, but it revealed two factors that were not intuitive
and contained multiple items with high cross-loadings (i.e. .42-.56), so the a-priori structure was
retained.
A CFA of the second administration of the adaptability measure was very similar to the
2

2

CFA of the first administration (χ (454)=1429.29, p<.01, χ r=3.15, CFI=.85, RMSEA=.07). Due
to the similarity of the overall factor analyses, CFA results for the individual adaptability
dimensions are not reported here. However, because the adaptability dimensions and efficacy to
adapt both targeted aspects of adaptability, they were tested jointly in a single CFA. This
2

2

revealed similar fit to the adaptability CFA reported above (χ (725)=2167.82, p<.01, χ r=2.99,
CFI=.81, RMSEA=.08); modification indices revealed that freeing the path between the final
efficacy to adapt item (“I know I can get along with people from cultures that are different than
mine”) and cultural adaptability would have reduced the chi-squared statistic by 76.89. This was
the only path addition that would have resulted in a reduction greater than 50. This chi-squared
drop was not as great as some researchers have indicated is necessary for path modification (e.g.
100; Garson, 2009), and conceptually, this item refers to one’s efficacy to interact effectively
with people from other cultures rather than an ability or disposition to do so; therefore, it was
retained only in the efficacy to adapt scale.

Descriptive Statistics
Means, SDs, and intercorrelations of the variables in the present study are presented in
Table 2. The statistics in this table reflect changes made to variables as a result examining alpha
reliabilities or from confirmatory or exploratory factor analysis.

58

Antecedent-Adaptability Relationships
Hypotheses 1-5 proposed relationships between the antecedents and each
adaptability dimension. To test these relationships, zero-order correlations were examined and
multiple regressions were conducted. Regression results are presented in Table 3; the
correlations in this table are slightly different than those in Table 2 due to the exclusion of
participants with missing data in the regression. Hypothesis 1 stated that each of the antecedents
would be related to cultural adaptability, but that Openness to Experience would demonstrate a
stronger relationship than the other antecedents. The zero-order correlations revealed significant
relationships between cultural adaptability and Openness to Experience (r=.25, p<.01),
Conscientiousness (r=.11, p<.05), and Emotional Stability (r=.11, p<.05). A multiple regression
of cultural adaptability on these antecedents revealed that the antecedents significantly predicted
2

this outcome (R =.08, F(4, 373)=7.76, p<.01). Openness to Experience (β=.23, p<.01) and
Emotional Stability (β=.10, p<.05) emerged as significant predictors. Though the beta weight for
Openness to Experience was the strongest of the antecedents, a test of the differences between
beta weights revealed it was significantly stronger than only cognitive ability (p<.01).
Hypothesis 2 stated that each of the antecedents would be related to stress adaptability,
but that Emotional Stability would demonstrate a stronger relationship than the other
antecedents. The zero-order correlations revealed a significant relationship between stress
adaptability and Emotional Stability (r=.65, p<.01). A multiple regression of stress adaptability
2

on these antecedents revealed that the antecedents significantly predicted this outcome (R =.44,
F(4, 374)=72.21, p<.01). Emotional Stability (β=.66, p<.01) emerged as the only significant
predictor. A test of the differences between the beta weights revealed that Emotional Stability
was a significantly stronger predictor than each of the other antecedents (p<.01).
59

Hypothesis 3 stated that each of the antecedents would be related to interpersonal
adaptability, but that Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience, and Emotional Stability would
demonstrate stronger relationships than cognitive ability. The zero-order correlations revealed
significant relationships between interpersonal adaptability and Openness to Experience (r=.35,
p<.01) and Conscientiousness (r=.16, p<.01). A multiple regression of interpersonal adaptability
2

on these antecedents revealed that the antecedents significantly predicted this outcome (R =.14,
F(4, 374)=15.72, p<.01). Conscientiousness (β=.12, p=.01) and Openness to Experience (β=.36,
p<.01) emerged as significant predictors. A test of the differences between the beta weights
revealed that both Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience were stronger predictors than
cognitive ability (p<.01).
Hypothesis 4 stated that each of the antecedents would be related to learning adaptability,
but that cognitive ability, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience would demonstrate
stronger relationships than Emotional Stability. The zero-order correlations revealed significant
relationships between learning adaptability and Conscientiousness (r=.42, p<.01), Openness to
Experience (r=.38, p<.01), and cognitive ability (r=.13, p<.05). A multiple regression of learning
adaptability on these antecedents revealed that the antecedents significantly predicted this
2

outcome (R =.29, F(4, 374)=38.35, p<.01). Cognitive ability (β=.09, p=.05), Conscientiousness
(β=.40, p<.01), and Openness to Experience (β=.32, p<.01) emerged as significant predictors. A
test of the differences between the beta weights revealed that both Conscientiousness and
Openness to Experience were stronger predictors than Emotional Stability (p<.01).
Hypothesis 5 stated that each of the antecedents would be related to uncertainty
adaptability. The zero-order correlations revealed significant relationships between uncertainty
adaptability and Openness to Experience (r=.36, p<.01) and Emotional Stability (r=.42, p<.01).
60

A multiple regression of uncertainty adaptability on these antecedents revealed that the
2

antecedents significantly predicted this outcome (R =.31, F(4, 373)=43.21, p<.01). Openness to
Experience (β=.35, p<.01) and Emotional Stability (β=.43, p<.01) emerged as significant
predictors.

Experience Moderation
Hypotheses 6-10 concerned the extent to which the experience dimensions moderated the
relationships between each antecedent and the adaptability dimensions. A separate moderated
regression was run utilizing each predictor and each pair of related experience and adaptability
dimensions (e.g. cultural experiences and cultural adaptability, learning experiences and learning
adaptability, etc.). Given four predictors and five experience/adaptability dimensions, this totaled
20 moderated regressions. To test these hypotheses, first, the relevant variables were meancentered to aid interpretation of any moderating effects. In each regression, the antecedent and
moderator were entered in the first block and the interaction term, which was a multiplication of
the centered antecedent and moderator variables, was entered in the second block. The results of
these regressions are presented in Table 4.
The first set of moderator analyses assessed moderating effects of uncertainty
experiences on uncertainty adaptability (i.e. Hypothesis 6). Only the relationship between
Conscientiousness and uncertainty adaptability was moderated by uncertainty experiences
2

2

(∆R =.01, p=.05), though the overall regression was not significant (R =.01, F(3, 399)=1.72,
p>.05). The standardized regression coefficient for the interaction term was β=.10 (p=.05). This
moderation is graphically depicted in Figure 4. At one standard deviation below the mean on
conscientiousness, individuals low on uncertainty experiences demonstrated slightly more
61

uncertainty adaptability than individuals high on uncertainty experiences (low uncertainty
x =3.49 vs. high uncertainty x =3.41). At one standard deviation above the mean on
conscientiousness, individuals low on uncertainty experiences demonstrated less uncertainty
adaptability than individuals high on uncertainty experiences (low uncertainty x =3.33 vs. high
uncertainty x =3.48). Thus, individuals higher on uncertainty experiences demonstrated a
positive relationship between conscientiousness and uncertainty adaptability, while individuals
lower on uncertainty experiences demonstrated a negative relationship between
conscientiousness and uncertainty adaptability.
The second set of moderator analyses assessed moderating effects of work stress
experiences on stress adaptability (i.e. Hypothesis 7). Only the relationship between cognitive
2

ability and work stress adaptability was moderated by work stress experiences (∆R =.02, p<.01);
2

the overall regression was significant (R =.05, F(3, 375)=7.96, p<.01). The standardized
regression coefficient for the interaction term was β=-.15 (p<.01). This moderation is graphically
depicted in Figure 5. At one standard deviation below the mean on cognitive ability, individuals
low on work stress experiences demonstrated slightly higher work stress adaptability than
individuals high on work stress experiences (low work stress x =3.48 vs. high work stress
x =3.38). At one standard deviation above the mean on cognitive ability, individuals low on
work stress experiences demonstrated even higher work stress adaptability than individuals high
on work stress experiences (low work stress x =3.76 vs. high work stress x =3.10). Thus,
individuals low on work stress experiences demonstrated a positive relationship between
cognitive ability and work stress adaptability, while individuals high on work stress experiences
demonstrated a negative relationship between cognitive ability and work stress adaptability. This
moderating effect was in the opposite direction of the prediction of the associated hypothesis.
62

The third, fourth, and fifth sets of moderator analyses assessed moderating effects of
learning experiences (both as a unidimensional construct and using the three-factor structure) on
learning adaptability, interpersonal experiences on interpersonal adaptability, and cultural
experiences on cultural adaptability respectively. No relationships between the antecedents and
these adaptability dimensions were moderated by the experience dimensions.
It is also possible that experiences contribute to adaptability in addition to the antecedents
rather than moderating the relationship between antecedents and adaptability. The cultural
(r=.38), interpersonal (r=.28), and learning experiences (r=.39) measures correlated positively
and significantly (p<.01) with their respective adaptability dimensions. Work stress experiences
were negatively related (r=-.19) to work stress adaptability. To further investigate this
possibility, the regressions from Hypotheses 1-5 were run adding the dimensionally-related
experience variables for each (e.g. cultural experiences were added to the regression predicting
cultural adaptability). These regressions are presented in Table 5. The results indicate that the
addition of cultural experiences, interpersonal experiences, and learning experiences to the
regressions involving their respective adaptability dimensions significantly increased the R

2

between .06 and .11. The betas for these experience variables ranged from .25 to .34. However,
the addition of work stress experiences and uncertainty experiences to their respective
regressions did not increase the variance accounted for in the adaptability outcomes.

Adaptability-Outcome Relationships
Hypotheses 11-14 proposed that a subset of the adaptability dimensions would be related
to each outcome. Regression analyses regarding these hypotheses are presented in Table 6.
Hypothesis 11 stated that learning, work stress, and uncertainty adaptability would be positively
63

related to task performance. The zero-order correlations revealed that learning adaptability was
significantly related (r=.13, p=.01) to task performance, but work stress (r=-.01, p>.05) and
uncertainty adaptability (r=.05, p>.05) were not. Neither of the adaptability dimensions that were
not hypothesized to relate to task performance (i.e., cultural and interpersonal) was significantly
correlated with this outcome. In a multiple regression of task performance on the hypothesized
predictors, only the beta weight for learning adaptability was significant (β=.12, p<.05), and the
2

overall regression was not significant (R =.02, F(3, 358)=2.15, p>.05).
Hypothesis 12 stated that cultural, interpersonal, and uncertainty adaptability would be
positively related to contextual performance. The zero-order correlations revealed significant
relationships between contextual performance and cultural (r=.28, p<.01), interpersonal (r=.22,
p<.01), and uncertainty adaptability (r=.15, p<.01). Though it was not hypothesized, learning
adaptability was significantly correlated (r=.37, p<.01) with contextual performance. Work stress
adaptability had no relationship (r=.00) with contextual performance. In a multiple regression of
contextual performance on the hypothesized predictors, cultural (β=.22, p<.01) and interpersonal
adaptability (β=.13, p=.01) were significant predictors. The overall regression was significant
2

(R =.10, F(3, 398)=15.09, p<.01). Because learning adaptability exhibited a significant bivariate
relationship with contextual performance, a second regression was performed in which this
dimension was included with the hypothesized predictors. In this regression, only interpersonal
(β=.17, p<.01) and learning adaptability (β=.29, p<.01) were significant predictors. The overall
2

regression was significant (R =.16, F(4, 397)=19.54, p<.01).
When the contextual performance scale was divided into internal and external facets, the
same pattern of correlations was exhibited for bivariate relationships with internal contextual

64

performance, but the pattern slightly differed for relationships with external contextual
performance. Cultural (r=.24, p<.01), interpersonal (r=.19, p<.01), uncertainty (r=.15, p<.01),
and learning (r=.36, p<.01) adaptability exhibit significant relationships with internal contextual
performance. With regard to external contextual performance, uncertainty adaptability (r=.08,
p>.05) does not exhibit a significant correlation, but cultural (r=.19, p<.01), interpersonal (r=.16,
p<.05), and learning adaptability (r=.17, p<.05) do exhibit significant correlations. These
correlations were uniformly weaker than those with internal contextual performance. In a
multiple regression of internal contextual performance on the hypothesized predictors and
learning adaptability, cultural (β=.14, p=.01) and learning adaptability (β=.30, p<.01) were
2

significant predictors. The overall regression was significant (R =.15, F(4, 397)=17.30, p<.01).
In a multiple regression of external contextual performance on the hypothesized predictors and
learning adaptability, only cultural adaptability (β=.13, p=.01) was a significant predictor. The
2

overall regression was significant (R =.06, F(4, 397)=5.80, p<.01).
Hypothesis 13 stated that interpersonal and uncertainty adaptability would be positively
related to emotional adjustment. The zero-order correlations revealed that uncertainty
adaptability correlated significantly (r=.15, p<.01) with emotional adjustment, but interpersonal
adaptability did not (r=-.05, p>.05). Of the adaptability dimensions not hypothesized to relate to
emotional adjustment, only work stress adaptability exhibited a significant correlation (r=.33,
p<.01). In a multiple regression of emotional adjustment on the hypothesized predictors, only
uncertainty adaptability emerged as a significant predictor (β=.18, p<.01). The overall regression
2

was significant (R =.03, F(2, 400)=6.44, p<.01), but only accounted for 3% of the variance in
emotional adjustment. A second regression was conducted with work stress adaptability added as

65

a predictor. In this analysis, only the beta weight for work stress adaptability was significant
2

(β=.33, p<.01). The overall regression was significant (R =.11, F(3, 399)=17.07, p<.01),
accounting for 11% of the variance in emotional adjustment.
Hypothesis 14 predicted that the adaptability dimensions would be positively related to
one’s efficacy to adapt. The zero-order correlations revealed significant correlations between
efficacy to adapt and cultural (r=.30, p<.01), work stress (r=.31, p<.01), interpersonal (r=.18,
p<.01), learning (r=.32, p<.01), and uncertainty adaptability (r=.34, p<.01). A multiple
regression of efficacy to adapt on the adaptability facets revealed significant beta weights for
cultural (β=.19, p<.01), work stress (β=.21, p<.01), learning (β=.20, p<.01), and uncertainty
(β=.15, p=.01) adaptability, but not interpersonal adaptability. The overall regression was
2

significant (R =.23, F(5, 395)=24.09, p<.01).

Change Moderation
To investigate moderating effects of academic, social, and emotional/supportive changes
on the relationships between adaptability dimensions and the outcomes (i.e. Hypotheses 15-17),
moderated regressions were conducted. These were conducted in the same manner as the
analyses conducted to assess the moderating effects of the experience variables. None of the
moderated regressions indicated that academic, social, or emotional changes were moderators of
any adaptability-outcome relationships. These analyses are presented in Table 7.
While conducting these analyses, it was observed that academic change correlated
negatively (r=-.15, p<.01) with task performance, emotional change correlated negatively (r=.38, p<.01) with emotional adjustment, and both social and emotional change correlated
negatively (social change r=-.21, p<.01; emotional change r=-.19, p<.01) with efficacy to adapt.
66

This suggests that greater changes negatively affect these outcomes; exploratory analyses were
conducted to further examine this possibility. To investigate the incremental impact of these
changes above the adaptability dimensions, the regressions run in hypotheses 11-14 were
conducted with the relevant change dimensions added as predictors. Though moderated
relationships were not hypothesized between adaptability and efficacy to adapt, an exploratory
analysis was also conducted with the social and emotional/supportive change dimensions (which
both correlated significantly with efficacy to adapt) as additional predictors. However, because
social change did not correlate with contextual performance, a regression was not conducted
involving these variables. These regressions, which appear in Table 8, indicate that adding these
variables to the regressions significantly increased the variance explained in each of the
2

outcomes. The prediction of task performance was increased (∆ R =.02, p<.01) by academic
2

change (β=-.16, p<.01), the prediction of emotional adjustment was increased (∆ R =.09, p<.01)
by emotional/supportive change (β=-.31, p<.01), and the prediction of efficacy to adapt was
2

increased (∆ R =.02, p<.01) by social change (β=-.13, p<.01). These analyses indicate that
increased change from high school to college negatively affects task performance, emotional
adjustment, and efficacy to adapt beyond one’s level of adaptability.

Mediation
To test Hypotheses 18a-18c, mediation analyses were conducted. Baron and Kenny’s
(1986) procedure for assessing mediating effects was used. This method consists of four steps.
First, the relationships between the predictors and an outcome are established. The general
consensus of current researchers is that this first step is not necessary to establish mediation

67

(Kenny, 2011). Second, the relationships between the predictors and mediator are established.
Third, a relationship between the mediator and outcome is established after controlling for the
predictors. Fourth, the effect of the predictor on the outcome is examined controlling for the
mediator; the lack of a relationship between the predictor and outcome establishes complete
mediation, while a reduction in the relationship but maintenance of statistical significance from 0
establishes partial mediation. Because the first step (establishing a relationship between the
predictors and the outcome) was not considered necessary in the present analyses, mediation of
an insignificant predictor-outcome relationship was considered partial. Finally, because Baron
and Kenny’s method has been criticized for being an incomplete test of the mediator’s
significance, bootstrapping (Preacher and Hayes, 2004) was used to test the strength of the
indirect effect of the mediation. Bootstrapping was conducted using 1000 samples, and
confidence intervals were established at the 95% level. Kenny (2011) recommends guidelines of
small ≥ .01, medium ≥ .09, and large ≥ .25 for assessing the effect sizes of indirect effects.
In these analyses, the mediating effects of a single adaptability variable on the
relationships between all antecedents and a single outcome were tested. It should be noted that
the MEDIATE dialogue (Hayes and Preacher, 2011) for SPSS was used to conduct these
analyses. This dialogue conducts each step of the mediation analyses in a single run and uses
listwise deletion across analyses. Thus, for some analyses that follow, results will differ to a
small extent from those presented earlier because they are based on slightly smaller samples. As
Hayes (2011) states, “… it would be inappropriate to piece together a causal model using tests of
significance when the analyses for different paths are based on different subsets of the data.”

Task Performance.

68

Hypothesis 18a stated that learning, work stress, and uncertainty adaptability would
mediate the relationships between the antecedents of cognitive ability, Conscientiousness,
Emotional Stability, and Openness to Experience and the outcome of task performance. Due to
the fact that in prior analyses only learning adaptability was related to task performance, learning
adaptability was the only mediator considered in this analysis. Total, direct, and indirect effects
are displayed in Table 9. The first step of this mediation analysis, which consisted of a regression
of task performance on the four antecedents, revealed that cognitive ability (β=.44, p<.01) and
Emotional Stability (β=.13, p=.01) were significantly related to task performance. The overall
2

total effect of the antecedents on task performance was significant (R =.19, F(4, 336)=20.18,
p<.01). The second step, which consisted of a regression of learning adaptability on the four
antecedents, revealed that cognitive ability (β=.12, p=.01) Openness to Experience (β=.32,
p<.01) and Conscientiousness (β=.44, p<.01) were significantly related to learning adaptability.
The third step, in which learning adaptability was added as a predictor to the regression of the
first step (i.e. the regression of task performance on the antecedents), revealed that learning
adaptability did not significantly predict task performance (β=.07, p>.05) when controlling for
the antecedents. Because this relationship was not supported, mediation could not be established,
and no further analyses are reviewed here.

Contextual Performance.
Hypothesis 18b stated that cultural, interpersonal, and uncertainty adaptability would
mediate the relationships between the antecedents of cognitive ability, Conscientiousness,
Emotional Stability, and Openness to Experience and the outcome of contextual performance.
Separate analyses were conducted focusing on each mediator in this hypothesis. Total, direct,
69

and indirect effects for the mediation analyses involving contextual performance are displayed in
Table 10. The first mediator tested was cultural adaptability. The first step of this mediation
analysis, in which contextual performance was regressed on the four antecedents, revealed that
Openness to Experience (β=.14, p=.01), Conscientiousness (β=.13, p=.01) and Emotional
Stability (β=.11, p<.05) were significantly related to contextual performance. The overall total
2

effect of the antecedents on contextual performance was significant (R =.05, F(4, 373)=5.34,
p<.01). The second step, in which cultural adaptability was regressed on the four antecedents,
revealed that Openness to Experience (β=.23, p<.01) and Emotional Stability (β=.10, p=.05)
were significantly related to cultural adaptability. The third step, in which cultural adaptability
was added as a predictor to the regression of the first step, revealed that cultural adaptability
significantly predicted contextual performance (β=.23, p<.01) when controlling for the
antecedents. The beta weights for Openness to Experience (β=.08, p>.05) and Emotional
Stability (β=.08, p>.05) were nonsignificant; however, the combined direct effect of the
2

predictors in this analysis was significant (R =.03, F(4, 372)=2.98, p<.05). Only Openness to
Experience had an indirect effect (IE=.05) for which the confidence interval did not include zero.
Thus, while cultural adaptability completely mediated the relationships between contextual
performance and both Openness to Experience and Emotional Stability based on changes in
statistical significance, only the indirect effect of Openness to Experience was significantly
different from 0.
The second mediator tested with regard to Hypothesis 18b was interpersonal adaptability.
The first step of this analysis is the same as it was for the test of cultural adaptability. The second
step, in which interpersonal adaptability was regressed on the four antecedents, revealed that
Openness to Experience (β=.36, p<.01) and Conscientiousness (β=.12, p=.01) were significantly
70

related to interpersonal adaptability. The third step, in which contextual performance was
regressed on the antecedents and interpersonal adaptability, revealed that interpersonal
adaptability significantly predicted contextual performance (β=.18, p<.01) when controlling for
the antecedents. The beta weight for Openness to Experience (β=.08, p<.05) was nonsignificant
and the beta weight for Conscientiousness (β=.11, p>.05) was slightly reduced but remained
2

significant. The combined direct effect of the predictors in this analysis was significant (R =.03,
F(4, 373)=3.18, p<.05). Only Openness to Experience had an indirect effect (IE=.06) for which
the confidence interval did not include zero. Thus, interpersonal adaptability completely
mediated the relationship between contextual performance and Openness to Experience and
partially mediated the relationship between this outcome and Conscientiousness based on
changes in statistical significance. However, only the indirect effect of Openness to Experience
was significantly different from 0.
The third mediator tested with regard to Hypothesis 18b was uncertainty adaptability.
The first step of this analysis is the same as it was for the tests of cultural and interpersonal
adaptability. The second step, in which uncertainty adaptability was regressed on the four
antecedents, revealed that Openness to Experience (β=.34, p<.01), Conscientiousness (β=-.13,
p<.01), and Emotional Stability (β=.42, p<.01) were significantly related to uncertainty
adaptability. The third step, in which uncertainty adaptability was added as a predictor to the
regression of the first step, revealed that uncertainty adaptability did not significantly predict
contextual performance (β=.11, p>.05) when controlling for the antecedents. Because this
relationship was not supported, mediation could not be established, and no further analyses are
reviewed here.

71

To further examine the hypotheses related to contextual performance, the above analyses
were repeated using internal contextual performance and external contextual performance as
outcomes. Because the results of these analyses were highly similar to those presented above,
they are not reviewed in their entirety here. These results can be found in Tables 11 and 12. As
was the case with the analyses in which contextual performance was represented as a
unidimensional construct, only Openness to Experience demonstrated significant indirect effects
on both internal and external contextual performance when either cultural or interpersonal
adaptability was used as a mediator. The only differences were observed in the analyses
involving the mediator of uncertainty adaptability. Both Openness to Experience (IE=.05) and
Emotional Stability (IE=.06) exhibited significant indirect effects (i.e., had confidence intervals
that did not include 0) when external contextual performance was used as an outcome.
Uncertainty adaptability was not significantly related to either internal contextual performance or
overall contextual performance when controlling for the antecedents.

Emotional Adjustment.
Hypothesis 18c stated that interpersonal and uncertainty adaptability would mediate the
relationships between the antecedents of cognitive ability, Conscientiousness, Emotional
Stability, and Openness to Experience and the outcome of emotional adjustment. Because
interpersonal adaptability did not demonstrate a significant relationship with emotional
adjustment, but work stress adaptability did, mediating effects of work stress adaptability were
tested instead of interpersonal adaptability. Total, direct, and indirect effects for mediation
analyses involving emotional adjustment are displayed in Table 13. In the first step of the
mediation test of work stress adaptability, emotional adjustment was regressed on the

72

antecedents. In this test, cognitive ability (β=.13, p=.01), Conscientiousness (β=.21, p<.01), and
Emotional Stability (β=.47, p<.01) emerged as significant predictors. The overall total effect of
2

the antecedents on emotional adjustment was significant (R =.28, F(4, 374)=36.86, p<.01). The
second step, in which work stress adaptability was regressed on the antecedents, revealed that
only Emotional Stability was a significant predictor (β=.66, p<.01). The third step, in which
emotional adjustment was regressed on the antecedents and work stress adaptability, revealed
that work stress adaptability did not significantly predict emotional adjustment (β=.07, p>.05)
when controlling for the antecedents. Because this relationship was not supported, mediation
could not be established, and no further analyses are reviewed here.
The second mediator tested with regard to Hypothesis 18c was uncertainty adaptability.
The first step of this analysis is the same as it was for the test of work stress adaptability. The
second step, in which uncertainty adaptability was regressed on the antecedents, revealed that
Openness to Experience (β=.35, p<.01), Conscientiousness (β=.-.13, p<.01), and Emotional
Stability (β=.42, p<.01) were significantly related to uncertainty adaptability. The third step, in
which uncertainty adaptability was added as a predictor to the regression in the first step,
revealed that this adaptability dimension did not significantly predict emotional adjustment (β=.02, p>.05) when controlling for the antecedents. Because this relationship was not supported,
mediation could not be established, and no further analyses are reviewed here.

Efficacy to Adapt.
Hypothesis 18d stated that each of the adaptability dimensions would mediate the
relationships between the antecedents of cognitive ability, Conscientiousness, Emotional
Stability, and Openness to Experience and the outcome of efficacy to adapt. Total, direct, and
73

indirect effects for the mediation analyses involving efficacy to adapt are displayed in Table 14.
The first mediator tested with regard to this hypothesis was cultural adaptability. The first step of
this analysis, in which efficacy to adapt was regressed on the antecedents, revealed that cognitive
ability (β=.16, p<.01), Conscientiousness (β=.16, p<.01), Openness to Experience (β=.13,
p=.01), and Emotional Stability (β=.36, p<.01) were significantly related to this outcome. The
2

overall total effect of the antecedents on efficacy to adapt was significant (R =.23, F(4,
372)=27.59, p<.01). The second step, in which cultural adaptability was regressed on the
antecedents, revealed that Openness to Experience (β=.23, p<.01) and Emotional Stability
(β=.10, p=.05) were significant predictors. The third step, in which cultural adaptability was
added as a predictor to the regression from the first step, revealed that this dimension of
adaptability was significantly related to efficacy to adapt (β=.23, p<.01) when controlling for the
antecedents. The beta weight for Openness to Experience was nonsignificant (β=.07, p>.05), and
the beta weight for Emotional Stability was slightly reduced but remained significant (β=.34,
2

p<.01). The combined direct effect of the predictors in this analysis was significant (R =.18, F(4,
371)=22.99, p<.01). Only Openness to Experience had an indirect effect (IE=.05) for which the
confidence interval did not include zero. Thus, cultural adaptability completely mediated the
relationship between efficacy to adapt performance and Openness to Experience and partially
mediated the relationship between this outcome and Emotional Stability based on changes in
statistical significance. However, only the indirect effect of Openness to Experience was
significantly different from 0.
The second mediator tested with regard to this hypothesis was work stress adaptability.
The first step in this analysis is the same as it was for the test of cultural adaptability. The second
step, in which stress adaptability was regressed on the antecedents, revealed that Emotional
74

Stability was a significant predictor (β=.65, p<.01). The third step, in which work stress
adaptability was added as a predictor to the regression from the first step, revealed that work
stress adaptability was a significant predictor of efficacy to adapt (β=.12, p<.05). The beta
weight for Emotional Stability was reduced but was significant (β=.29, p<.01). The combined
2

direct effect of the predictors in this analysis was significant (R =.14, F(4, 372)=17.15, p<.01).
However, the lower bound of the confidence interval of the indirect effect of Emotional Stability
(IE=.08) was 0. Therefore, work stress adaptability partially mediated the relationship between
efficacy to adapt and Emotional Stability based on changes in statistical significance, but the
indirect effect was not different from 0.
The third mediator tested with regard to this hypothesis was interpersonal adaptability.
The first step in this analysis is the same as it was for the test of cultural adaptability. The second
step, in which interpersonal adaptability was regressed on the antecedents, revealed that
Conscientiousness (β=.12, p<.05) and Openness to Experience (β=.36, p<.01) were significant
predictors. The third step, in which efficacy to adapt was regressed on the antecedents and
interpersonal adaptability, revealed this dimension of adaptability significantly predicted efficacy
to adapt (β=.12, p=.01). The beta weight for Conscientiousness was slightly reduced but
remained significant (β=.15, p<.01), and the beta weight for Openness to Experience was
nonsignificant (β=.09, p>.05). The combined direct effect of the predictors in this analysis was
2

significant (R =.21, F(4, 372)=25.78, p<.01). Though interpersonal adaptability partially
mediated the relationship between Conscientiousness and efficacy to adapt and completely
mediated the relationship between Openness to Experience and efficacy to adapt based on
changes in statistical significance, neither indirect effect was different from 0 based on the
bootstrapped confidence intervals.
75

The fourth mediator tested with regard to this hypothesis was learning adaptability. The
first step in this analysis is the same as it was for the test of cultural adaptability. The second
step, in which learning adaptability was regressed on the predictors, revealed that cognitive
ability (β=.09, p<.05), Conscientiousness (β=.40, p<.01), and Openness to Experience (β=.31,
p<.01) were significant predictors. The third step, in which learning adaptability was added as a
predictor to the regression from the first step, revealed that learning adaptability was a significant
predictor (β=.26, p<.01) when controlling for the antecedents. The beta weight for cognitive
ability was slightly reduced but was significant (β=.14, p<.01). The beta weights for
Conscientiousness (β=.06, p>.05) and Openness to Experience (β=.05, p>.05) were
nonsignificant. The combined direct effect of the predictors in this analysis was significant
2

(R =.15, F(4, 372)=20.37, p<.01). The confidence intervals for the indirect effects of
Conscientiousness (IE=.10) and Openness to Experience (IE=.08) did not include 0. Therefore,
while learning adaptability partially mediated the relationship between cognitive ability and
efficacy to adapt based on changes in statistical significance, the indirect effect was not different
from 0. Learning adaptability completely mediated the relationships between efficacy to adapt
and both Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience.
The fifth mediator tested with regard to this hypothesis was uncertainty adaptability. The
first step in this analysis is the same as it was for the test of cultural adaptability. The second
step, in which uncertainty adaptability was regressed on the predictors, revealed that
Conscientiousness (β=-.13, p<.01), Openness to Experience (β=.35, p<.01), and Emotional
Stability (β=.42, p<.01) were significant predictors. The third step, in which efficacy to adapt
was regressed on the antecedents and uncertainty adaptability, indicated that this dimension of
adaptability was a significant predictor when controlling for the antecedents (β=.23, p<.01). The
76

beta weight for conscientiousness increased (β=.20, p<.01). This variable exhibits what Cohen
and Cohen (1988) call cooperative suppression. This occurs when two predictors exhibit a
negative bivariate relationship with each other but both exhibit positive bivariate relationships
with the dependent variable, causing the beta weight in a regression for one predictor to be
stronger than the zero-order correlation between the predictor and the outcome. In the present
analysis, Conscientiousness and uncertainty adaptability are negatively related (though not
significantly; r=-.05, p>.05), but both Conscientiousness (r=.17, p<.01) and uncertainty
adaptability (r=.34, p<.01) are positively related to efficacy to adapt. This causes the beta weight
for Conscientiousness in this analysis to be stronger than the zero-order correlation with efficacy
to adapt. Openness to Experience exhibited a nonsignificant beta weight (β=.05, p>.05). The beta
weight for Emotional Stability was reduced but remained significant (β=.27, p<.01). The
2

combined direct effect of the predictors in this analysis was significant (R =.14, F(4,
372)=18.02, p<.01). The confidence intervals for the indirect effects of both Openness to
Experience (IE=.08) and Emotional Stability (IE=.10) did not include 0. Thus, uncertainty
adaptability completely mediated the relationship between Openness to Experience and efficacy
to adapt and partially mediated the relationship between Emotional Stability and efficacy to
adapt.

Stability of Adaptability
Though no specific hypotheses were presented, a research question concerned the
stability of adaptability. To examine this, statistics from the first administration of adaptability
were compared to statistics from the second administration. The means, standard deviations, and
test-retest reliabilities were presented earlier in Table 1, but for ease of comparison, these are
77

presented again in Table 15. In this table, Cohen’s d values are also presented to show sample
mean differences in SD units. D values ranged from -.12 to .15; thus, none reached Cohen’s
guideline for a small d (i.e. d=.20). Test-retest reliabilities that have been corrected for
measurement error are presented; these are all ≥.70 except for interpersonal adaptability for
which rcorrected=.61. These statistics indicate that the adaptability dimensions do exhibit some
variability over time, but this variability is not great.
Lastly in this table, percentages of individuals who have demonstrated score increases or
decreases based on the Reliable Change Index (RCI; Christenson & Mendoza, 1986) are
presented. The RCI estimates the likelihood that an individual’s difference from measurement at
time 1 to measurement at time 2 is due to measurement error or due to meaningful changes in the
construct. The RCI is defined as an individual’s difference score divided by the standard error of
the difference, which itself is an extension of the standard error of measurement based on testretest reliability. Specifically,
2

RCI=(x2-x1)/( √2SE ), where
x2= individual score at time 2,
x1= individual score at time 1, and
SE= s √(1-rxx), in which s= standard deviation of scores, and rxx=test-retest reliability.
From the RCI, it can be determined how many individuals experienced negative change, no
change, or positive change for each dimension. RCI values greater than 1.96 or less than -1.96
are considered unlikely to have occurred due to measurement error. For each adaptability
dimension, between 94% and 97% of individuals in this study exhibited score differences that
can be accounted for by measurement error in the test. This analysis suggests that few
78

individuals meaningfully changed on the adaptability dimensions from the first data collection to
the second data collection.

79

Discussion
In this section, I will discuss each set of analyses in the order in which they were
presented in the preceding (“Analyses”) section. I will then provide a broader discussion of the
model in general and the implications of the findings, followed by an acknowledgement of the
study’s limitations and ideas for future research.

Antecedent-adaptability Relationships
Hypotheses 1-5 proposed relationships between each of the antecedents and the
adaptability dimensions, also suggesting differences in strength between these relationships.
Support for these hypotheses is summarized in Table 16. First, cultural adaptability exhibited
significant relationships with the three personality dimensions at the bivariate level and was
significantly predicted by Openness to Experience and Emotional Stability in a regression.
Though it was hypothesized that Openness to Experience would be a stronger predictor than the
other antecedents, it was a stronger predictor than only cognitive ability. Stress adaptability
exhibited a significant relationship only with Emotional Stability. As hypothesized, Emotional
Stability was a stronger predictor than the other antecedents. Interpersonal adaptability
demonstrated significant relationships with Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience at the
bivariate level and in the regression equation. As hypothesized, these antecedents were more
strongly related to this adaptability dimension than cognitive ability. Learning adaptability
exhibited significant relationships with cognitive ability, Conscientiousness, and Openness to
Experience at the bivariate level and in the regression equation. As hypothesized,
Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience were stronger predictors than Emotional

80

Stability. Lastly with regard to this set of hypotheses, uncertainty adaptability was significantly
related to Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience.
In general, the results support the idea that some combination of antecedents significantly
predicts each of the adaptability dimensions, both at the bivariate level and in regression
equations. Openness to Experience was the most consistent predictor, demonstrating significant
relationships with four adaptability dimensions (the exception being stress adaptability) at the
bivariate level and in the regressions. These results suggest that Openness to Experience, which
describes individuals who are broad-minded, facilitates adaptability with regard to learning,
interpersonal and uncertain situations, and to some extent comfortableness with other cultures.
This is intuitive for the reasons described where these hypotheses were presented. An individual
who exposes himself or herself to new experiences (i.e. is open to experience) likely is more
willing to try new strategies and behaviors and also has more experiences from which to draw
when encountering unfamiliar contexts, facilitating adaptability. The relationship between
Openness to Experience and adaptability is consistent with previous research (Wang et al.,
2011).
Emotional Stability and Conscientiousness also exhibited somewhat consistent
relationships with the adaptability dimensions. Emotional Stability exhibited significant positive
relationships with work stress, uncertainty, and cultural adaptability at the bivariate level and in
regressions. The strong relationship between Emotional Stability and work stress adaptability is
intuitive; an individual who is calmer in stressful situations should be able to adapt better.
Uncertain situations may also require evaluating options in a calm manner. It is less clear why
Emotional Stability significantly predicted cultural adaptability but not interpersonal or learning
adaptability, though it is recognized this relationship was not very strong. Perhaps unfamiliar

81

cultural situations provoke more stress or anxiety than interpersonal, learning, or generally
uncertain situations. Regardless, it is valuable to uncover these relationships, as the relationship
between Emotional Stability and trait-based adaptability has not been investigated in prior
research.
Conscientiousness exhibited significant positive bivariate relationships with cultural,
interpersonal, and learning adaptability; the betas were significant for only interpersonal and
learning adaptability. The strongest relationship was with learning adaptability. Conscientious
individuals exhibit organization and perseverance, which should be beneficial when
encountering difficulties in an unfamiliar learning context. The relationships with interpersonal
and cultural adaptability were weaker, but suggest that some elements of Conscientiousness aid
in adapting in these contexts. The relationship between Conscientiousness and adaptability has
been studied only to a small extent in the past. Though Lepine et al. (2002) found a negative
relationship between Conscientiousness and adaptive performance, the authors used a lab-based
task to measure adaptive performance; the present study therefore highlights a potential
difference between trait-based adaptability and the concept of adaptive performance. The present
findings suggest a more consistent, positive relationship between this personality dimension and
adaptability.
Cognitive ability was significantly related to only learning adaptability. This relationship
is also intuitive; individuals with greater intelligence should be more able to learn strategies and
apply them in situations that require adaptability such as the academic context. Though it was
plausible that this ability to learn and apply strategies would be applicable to other adaptability
dimensions, the data did not support these relationships. All relationships of cognitive ability and
adaptability dimensions, including learning adaptability, were relatively weak. This may reflect

82

the imperfect measurement of cognitive ability. Though ACT/SAT scores are a proxy for
cognitive ability, they reflect knowledge of certain subject matter and one’s ability to study to
some extent as well. It would be useful to investigate these relationships with a more direct
cognitive ability test.

Experience Moderation
Despite the large number of analyses conducted investigating moderating effects of
experiences, only two were significant. One was in the expected direction and one was in the
unexpected direction, and both of these effects were weak. If adjustments were made to the level
of statistical significance based on the number of analyses conducted, neither would have been
significant. The evidence suggests that the significant moderating effects can be attributed to
chance.
One possibility is that both the antecedents and experiences exert a direct influence on
adaptability. The supplemental regressions revealed that experiences positively predict cultural,
interpersonal, and learning adaptability incrementally beyond the antecedents. The bivariate
relationship between work stress experiences and work stress adaptability was negative,
indicating these experiences may be detrimental to the development of adaptability, or that
individuals who perceive more work stress experiences may perceive themselves as less able to
deal with stressful work situations. In the full regression, though, the beta for work stress
experiences was nonsignificant. These results suggest that Pulakos et al.’s (2002) model, in
which experiences were a direct antecedent of adaptive performance, may more accurately
describe the relationship between experiences and trait-based adaptability than the model
proposed in the present article. Regardless of one’s personality or cognitive ability, certain

83

experiences appear to positively influence adaptability in cultural, interpersonal, and learning
contexts.

Adaptability-outcome Relationships
Support for the adaptability-outcome relationships is also summarized in Table 16.
Regarding task performance, the findings suggest that learning adaptability may be useful on its
own for predicting this outcome. Individuals who demonstrate an ability to acquire skills and
strategies and take responsibility for their own learning exhibit better performance. Though the
2

beta was significant in the full regression equation, the overall R was not, so it may not be as
useful to consider other adaptability dimensions when attempting to predict task performance.
With regard to contextual performance, cultural, interpersonal, learning, and uncertainty
adaptability all exhibited significant bivariate relationships with this outcome. However, only
cultural and learning adaptability were significant predictors in the full regression. This indicates
individuals who are better at adjusting to others from new cultures and dealing with academic
changes exhibit more behaviors directed at improving their university and helping the other
students at the university. Interestingly, contextual performance directed within the school was
better predicted than behaviors directed externally. Though all adaptability dimensions were
weaker predictors (in both correlations and regression) of external than internal contextual
performance, learning adaptability exhibited the largest difference. This is logical given the items
in this scale; students able to adapt to the learning environment would be more likely to be able
to assist other students having difficulties in this new environment, which is largely the content
of the internally-directed items. These results suggest that a bidimensional conceptualization of
contextual performance in the present context is appropriate. Future research should recognize
84

this and, if appropriate for an investigator’s purpose, attempt to represent both in instruments
designed to measure contextual performance in this context.
The third outcome tested was emotional adjustment. Though both work stress and
uncertainty adaptability were related to this outcome at the bivariate level, only work stress
adaptability exhibited a significant beta in the full regression. This suggests that work stress
adaptability is the most important predictor of this outcome. Individuals who are better able to
remain calm and deal with stressful work situations are also able to handle unfamiliar stressful
situations in college.
Lastly, all of the adaptability dimensions correlated significantly with efficacy to adapt;
this outcome was the best-predicted outcome. All dimensions but interpersonal adaptability
exhibited significant betas in the full regression. These results indicate that individuals appear to
recognize their ability to adapt, which positively influences their belief that they can adapt when
necessary.

Change Moderation
The analyses investigating the moderating effects of perceived changes did not reveal any
significant effects. The poor reliability of the change scales may have contributed to the inability
to detect these effects. It is also possible that the change items do not capture the most relevant
changes, despite efforts to ensure item content reflected changes that students viewed as
important. Yet another possibility is that regardless of the actual amount of change occurring,
less adaptable individuals perceive more changes because they adapt to changes less easily, and
thus, the changes are more salient to them. Indeed, the majority of the change dimensionadaptability relationships are negative (though not all significantly so), and one explanation for

85

this is that less adaptable individuals may simply attend to changes to greater extent than more
adaptable individuals. Even if changes are occurring equally for individuals of varying
adaptability levels, the perception of these changes could make detection of moderating effects
difficult. The supplemental analyses, in which changes were added to the regressions of the
outcomes on the adaptability dimensions, suggest that individuals who perceive these changes
experience more negative outcomes regardless of their standing on adaptability. Thus, the
perception of changes appears to be detrimental in general to new college students. While the
hypothesized moderation was not supported, it is valuable to recognize the negative effects of
potentially difficult changes in college.

Mediation
Support for mediation analyses is summarized in Table 17. Because learning adaptability
did not significantly predict task performance incrementally beyond the antecedents, and because
work stress and uncertainty adaptability did not predict emotional adjustment beyond the
antecedents, mediation could not be established between the antecedents and these outcomes.
These results suggest that the antecedents have a more direct influence on task performance and
emotional adjustment. Cognitive ability and Emotional Stability had a positive significant effect
on task performance, with cognitive ability having the strongest effect. Cognitive ability,
Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability significantly predicted emotional adjustment, with
Emotional Stability having the strongest effect.
Because examination of indirect effects is a more complete assessment of mediation than
relying on changes in statistical significance, indirect effects will be the focus of the discussion
of mediation effects. With regard to the outcome of contextual performance, results indicate that

86

cultural and interpersonal adaptability mediate the relationship between Openness to Experience
and this outcome. This is the case whether contextual performance is utilized in its
unidimensional or bidimensional form. In addition, uncertainty adaptability mediates the
relationship between the antecedents of Openness to Experience and Emotional Stability and the
outcome of external contextual performance. While all indirect effects pertaining to this outcome
were small (i.e. .01<IE<.09), the results indicate that Openness to Experience exerts its influence
on contextual performance through these mediators. Students who are more broad-minded
experience increased cultural adaptability, which in turn positively influence contextual
performance. When only considering citizenship behaviors directed externally, Openness to
Experience and Emotional Stability exert influence through uncertainty adaptability. Though the
relationships between Emotional Stability and contextual performance and between
Conscientiousness and contextual performance were mediated by cultural and interpersonal
adaptability (respectively) according to changes in significance, the indirect effects suggest these
antecedents directly affect the outcome.
The relationship between Openness to Experience and efficacy to adapt exhibited three
mediators: cultural, learning, and uncertainty adaptability. These effects were small but
approached the guideline for a medium indirect effect (i.e. .09). This personality characteristic
leads to an ability to adapt in these contexts, and this in turn increases one’s efficacy that he or
she can adapt. Additionally, learning adaptability mediated the relationship between
Conscientiousness and efficacy to adapt and uncertainty adaptability mediated the relationship
between Emotional Stability and efficacy to adapt. These effects were of medium strength (both
IEs=.10). This suggests that Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability affect these adaptability
dimensions, which in turn increase one’s efficacy to adapt.

87

Stability of Adaptability
The final analyses concerned the stability of adaptability. These results demonstrate that
few individuals changed on the adaptability dimensions from the first data collection to the
second to an extent unlikely due to chance. Previous research has only addressed the stability of
adaptability at a theoretical level, but the present results suggest it is somewhat stable.
The idea that distal traits such as personality lead to the more proximal trait of
adaptability is largely tied to malleability question. The stability of these traits supports their
position on the distal-proximal continuum, which in turn supports the placement of the variables
in the model. For this reason, more research is needed into the stability of adaptability and how it
compares to the stability of personality. It is possible that adaptability exhibits greater change
over a longer time span, but the relatively short length of time between the first and second data
collections was not long enough for the construct to change to a large extent. Administrations of
an adaptability instrument at longer time intervals would provide more evidence about the
stability of this construct and the conceptualization of adaptability as a trait-like construct
resulting from other traits.

Overall Results
In summary, the ideas that personality affects adaptability and that adaptability affects
relevant outcomes were supported. Openness to Experience was the most consistent predictor of
adaptability, but Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability were also related to some of the
adaptability dimensions. Though the hypothesized adaptability-building experiences did not
moderate the relationships between the antecedents and adaptability, these experiences did

88

incrementally predict cultural, interpersonal, and learning adaptability beyond the hypothesized
antecedents. Subsets of the adaptability dimensions predicted the outcomes of task and
contextual performance, emotional adjustment, and efficacy to adapt. Academic, social, and
emotional/supportive change did not moderate the relationships between adaptability and the
outcomes, but subsets of these change dimensions incrementally predicted task performance,
emotional adjustment, and efficacy to adapt. Regarding the mediated model, the relationship
between Openness to Experience and contextual performance was mediated by cultural and
interpersonal adaptability (when considering indirect effects). When contextual performance is
divided into internal and external facets, the aforementioned mediation was replicated, but the
relationships between the predictors of Openness to Experience and Emotional Stability and the
outcome of external contextual performance were mediated by uncertainty adaptability. Lastly,
the relationships between each of the antecedents and the outcome of efficacy to adapt were
mediated by various adaptability dimensions.
These results suggest that more distal personality dimensions, along with adaptabilitybuilding experiences, aid an individual in developing adaptability. Each personality dimension
was a significant predictor of at least three adaptability dimensions (either in bivariate
relationships or in regression analyses), suggesting each personality dimension contributes to the
development of adaptability. In turn, adaptable individuals are more likely to experience positive
outcomes in the undergraduate context. The model that most accurately describes the present
data includes these variables in such an order, but also includes experiences as a direct
antecedent to adaptability and changes as a direct antecedent to the outcomes.

Research Implications

89

The present study expands upon the extant literature in several ways. First, it provides
information about the nature of the construct of adaptability. Factor analyses indicate that it is
distinct from other constructs such as the personality dimensions measured in this study. Though
other similar conceptualizations of adaptability, such as adaptive performance and coping, have
been more extensively studied, the growing research into trait-based adaptability suggests it is a
viable conceptualization. Additionally, the results suggest adaptability is relatively stable, at least
over the short time period of this study. This supports Ployhart and Bliese’s (2006) view
regarding the stability of adaptability.
Second, it expands upon the research into trait-based adaptability by explicating its
antecedents and outcomes. Many of these relationships were supported in the present study,
which both provides evidence for previously proposed but largely untested relationships (e.g. the
antecedent-adaptability relationships) and provides evidence for relationships not proposed prior
to this study (e.g. the adaptability-emotional adjustment relationship). Additionally, though the
moderation hypotheses were not supported, supplemental analyses provide evidence that
experiences play a role in enhancing adaptability and that changes negatively affect outcomes.
The results in general support a model in which the antecedents of personality and experiences
positively affect adaptability, which, along with changes, subsequently influences performance,
emotional adjustment, and efficacy to adapt. If this study were to be replicated, it would be more
appropriate to propose such a model rather than the model proposed in the present paper.
Third, it supports the utility of adaptability beyond the traditional organizational work
context. The subjects in this study were first-year undergraduates. Given the aforementioned
similarities and differences between the academic and organizational contexts, the supported
findings can be interpreted to bolster the contention that the contexts are indeed similar (Munson

90

& Rubenstein, 1992) and also to support the notion that adaptability is generalizable across
contexts.

Practical Implications
The results of this study also have practical implications. First, the finding that
experiences lead to adaptability suggests that parents and educators should encourage exposure
to such experiences. For some experiences this may not be possible (e.g. moving or living in
other countries), but for others it may be (e.g. leaving uncertainty in how to complete a task,
allowing failure and encouraging a student to learn from it). Educators could incorporate
strategies based on adaptability into lessons and their interactions with students, leading to more
adaptable individuals. Second, it could be useful for universities to measure adaptability and
perceived changes, as these both affected important outcomes. Students who are low on
adaptability or perceive many changes could receive counseling to help ensure negative
outcomes do not result. Lastly, universities could use adaptability for selection purposes. Other
research such as an investigation of the extent to which adaptability measures are faked would be
valuable in supporting such a use, but it appears students higher on adaptability will experience
more positive outcomes than students lower on adaptability. Selecting for adaptable students
could have other implications for the make-up of the student body depending on correlations of
adaptability with other individual characteristics; future research into the construct of
adaptability and its relationship to other constructs would provide more information regarding
this possibility.

Limitations

91

Though this study produced valuable findings, they are limited by the fact that the data in
the study are correlational. Theory dictated the order in which the variables appear in the model,
but it cannot be concluded that any variables cause any other variables. Arguments could be
made for models in which the variables were arranged differently. For instance, self-efficacy to
adapt correlated with a number of variables. It is possible this could be a mediator of
adaptability-outcome relationships rather than simply being an outcome of adaptability.
Additionally, the timing of measurement was constrained for logistical reasons. Ideally, the first
data collection would have been conducted prior to entry into college, but many subjects did not
respond to the first survey until late in the first month of the semester. Given that adaptability is
thought to be somewhat malleable, measurement prior to college entry would be more
appropriate because college experiences would not have the opportunity to affect one’s standing
on the construct. The second data collection ideally would have been conducted at the conclusion
of the semester, but the data were collected prior to Thanksgiving. Later administration of this
follow-up would provide more ability to detect change that occurs over the semester. It also may
be possible that following up with these students at the end of a year of college would produce
different results; again, the timing of the measurement was largely constrained by logistics.
Lastly, the measurement of some variables was not optimal. For instance, though the change
scales were developed from student responses, the scales did not exhibit acceptable reliability.
The learning experiences and contextual performance measures exhibited multiple factors. Better
measurement of such variables could influence the results of analyses involving the variables and
allow for greater confidence in the accuracy of the results.

Future Directions

92

Future research could improve the measurement of some constructs or the research
design, explore the model in different contexts, and expand upon the model. First, as was
mentioned, the measurement of certain constructs was not optimal. CFAs of the change variables
revealed poor fit, and the measurement of the personality variables was not optimal. The items
used to measure these constructs could be improved in future research. Also, measuring facets of
the personality dimensions could provide more clarity regarding the relationships between
personality and adaptability. The global measures of personality may have obscured more
nuanced relationships between facets and adaptability. Regarding the research design, as was
discussed in the limitations section, logistics constrained the time at which variables were
measured. Measurement over a longer timespan could provide additional evidence about the
relationships investigated in the present study and further information regarding the stability of
adaptability.
Second, this model of adaptability could be applied to other contexts. The present model
mainly draws off literature regarding adaptability in the work context. The supported
relationships could be investigated in the work context, or possibly even in other life contexts.
For instance, it seems plausible that personality and experiences contribute to work adaptability
and that adaptability and changes from one’s previous work context affect outcomes in the
workplace. Outside the workplace, adaptability dimensions, such as interpersonal and stress
adaptability could affect one’s ability to maintain friendships. Such findings could support the
generalizability of the adaptability construct.
Lastly, additional antecedents and outcomes of adaptability and additional adaptability
dimensions could be investigated. The present study attempted to capture the most plausible
antecedents and a number of outcomes, but these were not exhaustive of the possibilities; other

93

variables could account for additional variance in adaptability or that the adaptability dimensions
would predict other valued outcomes. Also, not all eight dimensions identified by Pulakos, Arad,
Donovan, and Plamondon (2000) were utilized in the present study. Though the dimensions
employed were chosen because they were theoretically more relevant to the undergraduate
context, it is possible others (e.g. creativity adaptability) could demonstrate relationships with the
antecedents and outcomes.

94

Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to expand upon the current literature by developing a
model of adaptability and applying it to the undergraduate context. The results suggest that
personality and experiences lead to adaptability and that adaptability, in conjunction with
perceived changes, influence outcomes relevant to this context. Adaptability also appears to be a
relatively stable construct. Though there were some limitations with regard to the measurement
of the variables, many of the hypotheses were supported. These findings build upon the existing
research, but also provide possibilities for future research into the model. The present results,
along with future research, can increase our understanding of the construct of adaptability and
potentially lead to its use in an applied context.

95

APPENDICES

96

Appendix A. Personality measures
IPIP Personality Items
Instructions: On the following pages, there are phrases describing people's behaviors. Please
use the rating scale below to describe how accurately each statement describes you. Describe
yourself as you generally are now, not as you wish to be in the future. Describe yourself as you
honestly see yourself in relation to other people you know of the same sex as you are and roughly
your same age. Please read each statement carefully and then fill in the bubble that corresponds
to the number on the scale.

1
Very
inaccurate

2
Moderately
inaccurate

3
Neither accurate
nor inaccurate

1. Have a rich vocabulary (O+)
2. Have difficulty understanding abstract ideas (O-)
3. Follow a schedule (C+)
4. Get chores done right away (C+)
5. Make a mess of things (C-)
6. Leave my belongings around (C-)
7. Change my mood a lot (ES-)
8. Often forget to put things back in their proper place (C-)
9. Am full of ideas (O+)
10. Pay attention to details (C+)
11. Shirk (i.e. skip out on) my duties (C-)
12. Am always prepared (C+)
13. Get irritated easily (ES-)
14. Have excellent ideas (O+)
15. Use difficult words (O+)
16. Get stressed out easily (ES-)
17. Get upset easily (ES-)
18. Do not have a good imagination (O-)
19. Am relaxed most of the time (ES+)
20. Often feel blue (ES-)
21. Have frequent mood swings (ES-)
22. Spend time reflecting on things (O+)
23. Have a vivid imagination (O+)
24. Am not interested in abstract ideas (O-)
25. Like order (C+)
26. Seldom feel blue (ES+)
27. Worry about things (ES-)
28. Am exacting in my work (C+)
29. Am quick to understand things (O+)
30. Am easily disturbed (ES-)

97

4
Moderately
accurate

5
Very
accurate

Appendix B. Potentially adaptability-developing experiences

1
Very infrequently/
never

2
Infrequently

3
Neither frequently
nor infrequently

4
Frequently

5
Very frequently/
always

Uncertainty
1. Encountered an ambiguous situation in which the directions or expectations were
undefined.
2. Had little control over the work you or your group could produce in a high school task.
(REMOVED)
3. Your teacher changed in the middle of the school year.
4. Your supervisor changed during the time you worked at a high school job.
5. Needed direction on a project or assignment at a time when the teacher could not be
reached.
6. The duties or responsibilities you were assigned at a high school job changed without
warning.
7. Worked on a team at a high school job where coworkers were absent and you had
insufficient personnel to accomplish the task.
8. Your parents let you make your own decision when the consequences were potentially
negative. (REMOVED)
9. Your teachers forced you to figure out a method to solve a problem rather than providing a
method. (REMOVED)
Stress
10. Had a workload at school that was very much more than normal.
11. Had a workload at a job that was very much more than normal.
12. Had several tasks to complete but not enough time to complete all of them.
13. Had too little time to complete school assignments in the way that you thought they should
be done.
14. People you were working with on a group project failed to complete their assigned tasks.
15. Participated in extracurricular activities that conflicted with school work.
16. Had a job during the school year. (REMOVED)
17. Got very little sleep because you were working on assignments.
Learning
18. Took on tasks in school that required you to do extra reading or other work. (WORK
INITIATIVE)
19. Worked on tasks or assignments that required you to seek out advice or information from
others. (WORK INITIATIVE)
20. Had to investigate in organizations, libraries, or external information sources to complete an
assignment. (WORK INITIATIVE)

98

21. Met with a teacher outside of class for help with an assignment or to learn more about a
topic. (FEEDBACK)
22. Took more difficult classes than what was required (e.g. AP courses). (COURSES)
23. Took college-level courses while in high school. (COURSES)
24. Inquired further as to why you received a poor grade on a test or assignment.
(FEEDBACK)
25. Used multiple methods (e.g. flash cards, group study sessions) to study for a test.
26. Sought feedback from teachers on projects even when you did well or the feedback had no
impact on your grade. (FEEDBACK)
Interpersonal
27. Had to smooth things over with someone who was angry with you for something they think
you did.
28. Had to figure out someone’s priorities in order to deal with him/her effectively.
29. Had to change the way you approached or dealt with another person based on his/her
personality.
30. Mediated between two of your friends who were in conflict with each other.
31. Were criticized by a teacher. (REMOVED)
32. Developed consensus among a group of individuals who disagreed with each other.
33. Dealt with people who had emotional problems.
34. Had to change your way of doing something to accommodate someone else.
35. Had to make new friends after changing to a new school. (REMOVED)
36. Attended a sleep-away camp without friends from home. (REMOVED)
Cultural
37. Worked with people from different racial or ethnic backgrounds at school or your job.
38. Lived in a foreign country (more than a month).
39. Moved to different cities or regions in the U.S.
40. Made friends with people from different countries.
41. Ate foods with which you were completely unfamiliar.
42. Made friends with people whose religious backgrounds were different from yours.
43. Participated in customs or rituals which were unfamiliar.
44. Worked with persons whose clothing was very different from yours.

99

Appendix C. The I-Adapt (modified)

1
Very
inaccurate

2
Moderately
inaccurate

3
Neither accurate
nor inaccurate

4
Moderately
accurate

5
Very
accurate

Cultural
1. I enjoy learning about cultures other than my own
2. I work well with diverse others
3. It is important to me that I respect others’ culture
4. I enjoy the variety and learning experiences that come from working with people of different
backgrounds
5. I feel comfortable interacting with others who have different values and customs
Work Stress
6. I usually over-react to stressful news
7. I feel unequipped to deal with too much stress
8. I am easily rattled when my schedule is too full
9. I am usually stressed when I have a large workload
10. I often cry or get angry when I am under a great deal of stress
Interpersonal
11. I believe it is important to be flexible in dealing with others
12. I tend to be able to read others and understand how they are feeling at any particular moment
13. My insight helps me to work effectively with others
14. I am open-minded person in dealing with others
15. I am perceptive of others and use that knowledge in interactions
16. I try to be flexible in dealing with others
17. I adapt my behavior to get along with others
Learning
23. I take responsibility for acquiring new skills
24. I enjoy learning new approaches for tasks or problems in school
25. I take action to improve school performance deficiencies
26. I often learn new information and skills to stay ahead of my classmates
27. I quickly learn new methods to solve problems
28. I am continually learning new skills in school in preparation for my future job
29. I read ahead in textbooks for classes I take
Uncertainty
30. I need for things to be “black and white”
31. I become frustrated when things are unpredictable
100

32. I am able to make effective decisions without all relevant information
33. I tend to perform best in stable situations and environments (REMOVED)
34. When something unexpected happens, I readily change gears in response
35. I can adapt to changing situations
36. I perform well in uncertain situations
37. I easily respond to changing conditions
38. I can adjust my plans to changing conditions

101

Appendix D. Perceived Changes

1
Very
inaccurate

2
Moderately
inaccurate

3
Neither accurate
nor inaccurate

4
Moderately
accurate

5
Very
accurate

Academic
1. Assignments in college are much different than assignments were at my high school.
2. I feel well-prepared for college work because of my work in high school. (REVERSE)
3. The exams I have taken in college thus far follow a different format than my high school
exams typically did.
4. I feel like I am much more responsible for my own academic success than I was in high
school.
5. Professors in college teach with a much different style than high school teachers.
6. I had more 1-on-1 relationships with my high school teachers than I do in college.
7. My parents allowed me to skip some classes in high school if I wanted to. (REVERSE;
REMOVED)
8. The extracurricular activities in which I participated in high school conflicted with
coursework more than they do in college. (REMOVED)
9. My high school classes typically had much smaller numbers of students than college
courses.
10. College seems more academically competitive than my high school was.
Social
11. There are more clubs that fit my interests in college than there were in high school.
12. It is more difficult to find friends in college than it was in high school.
13. The town/city I lived in prior to college had a greater variety of activities in which to
participate than East Lansing/Lansing.
14. My hometown and East Lansing are very similar. (REVERSE; REMOVED)
15. I crave foods from my hometown I cannot find in this area.
16. My parents helped me manage my time (i.e. balance social activities with school work) in
high school.
17. I am more responsible for my own transportation in college than I was in high school
(e.g. to extracurricular or social activities). (REMOVED)
Emotional/Supportive/Familial
18. I have less emotional support from my family now that I am in college.
19. I have less emotional support from my friends now that I am in college.
20. The person/people I used to “vent” to are not with me at college.
21. I have to change how I deal with my emotions now that I am in college.
22. I cope with stress the same way I did in high school despite my move to college.
(REVERSE; REMOVED)
102

23. The activities in which I used to engage to relax are more difficult in college (e.g. taking
a bath, reading in quiet surroundings, etc.).
24. I have more experiences in college that are difficult to discuss with my parents than I had
in high school.

103

Appendix E. Contextual Performance (OCBs)
Indicate how frequently you have performed each of the behaviors listed below SINCE
ENTERING THIS UNIVERSITY

1
Very infrequently/
never

2
Infrequently

3
Neither frequently
nor infrequently

4
Frequently

5
Very frequently/
always

1. Gone out of your way to help other students from your school with social problems
(INTERNAL)
2. Gone out of your way to make new students feel welcome at school (INTERNAL)
3. Shown genuine concern and courtesy towards other students (INTERNAL)
4. Helped tutor other students struggling with their assignments (INTERNAL)
5. Helped students who have been absent from class (INTERNAL)
6. Defended your school when others tried to criticize it (EXTERNAL)
7. Encouraged friends and family to support your school (EXTERNAL)
8. Shown school spirit (e.g., worn a school t-shirt or put a school decal on your car)
(EXTERNAL)
9. Did things to improve your school (INTERNAL)
10. Participated in student government or other clubs that try to make your school a better place
(INTERNAL)

104

Appendix F. Emotional Adjustment to College
Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire- Emotional Subscale
For each statement, please encircle one number at the point along the continuum which
best represents your judgment concerning how closely the statement applies to you at the present
time (i.e., within the last several days).

1
Very
inaccurate

2
Moderately
inaccurate

3
Neither accurate
nor inaccurate

4
Moderately
accurate

5
Very
accurate

1. I have been feeling tense or nervous lately. (REVERSE)
2. Lately I have been feeling blue and moody a lot. (REVERSE)
3. I have felt tired much of the time lately. (REVERSE)
4. Being on my own, taking more responsibility for myself, has not been easy. (REVERSE)
5. I haven’t been able to control my emotions very well lately. (REVERSE)
6. My appetite has been good lately.
7. I have been having a lot of headaches lately. (REVERSE)
8. I’ve given a lot of thought lately to whether I should ask for help from the MSU counseling
center or from a psychotherapist outside of the University. (REVERSE)
9. I’ve put on (or lost) too much weight recently. (REVERSE)
10. I have been getting angry too easily lately. (REVERSE)
11. I haven’t been sleeping very well. (REVERSE)
12. Sometimes my thinking gets muddled up too easily. (REVERSE)
13. I worry a lot about my university expenses. (REVERSE)
14. I have been feeling in good health lately.

105

Appendix G. Efficacy to Adapt.

1
Very
inaccurate

2
Moderately
inaccurate

3
Neither accurate
nor inaccurate

4
Moderately
accurate

5
Very
accurate

1. I am confident in my ability to deal with changing situations.
2. When circumstances change, I have the ability to alter my behavior appropriately.
3. I am confident that I can adjust to changes in academic requirements at the college level.
4. No matter the different kinds of assignments I get in my college courses, I know I can master
them.
5. I know that I can adjust to the way in which my roommates and friends may behave.
6. I know that I can take care of the many things my parents used to do for me.
7. I believe I can handle college stressors.
8. I know I can get along with people from cultures that are different than mine.

106

Appendix H. Tables.
Table 1. Definitions of Adaptive Performance Dimensions by Pulakos et al (2006).
Dimension Title
Crisis

Definition
Reacting with appropriate and proper urgency in life threatening, dangerous,
or emergency situations; quickly analyzing options for dealing with danger or
crises and their implications; making split-second decisions based on clear
and focused thinking; maintaining emotional control and objectivity while
keeping focused on the situation at hand; stepping up to take action and
handle danger or emergencies as necessary and appropriate.
Work Stress
Remaining composed and cool when faced with difficult circumstances or a
highly demanding workload or schedule; not overreacting to unexpected news
or situations; managing frustration well by directing effort to constructive
solutions rather than blaming others; demonstrating resilience and the highest
levels of professionalism in stressful circumstances; acting as a calming and
settling influence to whom others look for guidance.
Creativity
Employing unique types of analyses and generating new, innovative ideas in
complex areas; turning problems upside-down and inside-out to find fresh,
new approaches; integrating seemingly unrelated information and developing
creative solutions; entertaining wide-ranging possibilities others may miss,
thinking outside the given parameters to see if there is a more effective
approach; developing innovative methods of obtaining or using resources
when insufficient resources are available to do the job.
Uncertainty
Taking effective action when necessary without having to know the total
picture or have all the facts at hand; readily and easily changing gears in
response to unpredictable or unexpected events and circumstances; effectively
adjusting plans, goals, actions, or priorities to deal with changing situations;
imposing
structure for self and others that provide as much focus as possible in dynamic
situations; not needing things to be black and white; refusing to be paralyzed
by uncertainty or ambiguity.
Learning
Demonstrating enthusiasm for learning new approaches and technologies for
conducting work; doing what is necessary to keep knowledge and skills
current; quickly and proficiently learning new methods or how to perform
previously unlearned tasks; adjusting to new work processes and procedures;
anticipating changes in the work demands and searching for and participating
in assignments or training that will prepare self for these changes; taking
action to improve work performance deficiencies.
______________________________________________________________________

107

Table 1 continued.
Interpersonal

Cultural

Physical

Being flexible and open-minded when dealing with others; listening to and
considering others' viewpoints and opinions and altering own opinion when it
is appropriate to do so; being open and accepting of negative or
developmental feedback regarding work; working well and developing
effective relationships with highly diverse personalities; demonstrating keen
insight of others' behavior and tailoring own behavior to persuade, influence,
or work more effectively with them.
Taking action to learn about and understand the climate, orientation, needs,
and values of other groups, organizations, or cultures; integrating well into
and being comfortable with different values, customs, and cultures; willingly
adjusting behavior or appearance as necessary to comply with or show respect
for others' values and customs; understanding the implications of one's actions
and adjusting approach to maintain positive relationships with other groups,
organizations, or cultures.
Adjusting to challenging environmental states such as extreme heat, humidity,
cold, or dirtiness; frequently pushing self physically to complete strenuous or
demanding tasks; adjusting weight and muscular strength or becoming
proficient in performing physical tasks as necessary for the job.

108

Table 2. Means, SDs, and intercorrelations among the variables.

1. Cognitive ability
2. Conscientiousness
3. Openness to
Experience
4. Emotional Stability
5. Cultural Experiences
6. Work Stress
Experiences
7. Interpersonal
Experiences
8. Learning Experiences
9. Learning ExperiencesFeedback
10. Learning
Experiences- Work
Initiative
11. Learning
Experiences- Courses
12. Uncertainty
Experiences
13. Cultural Adaptability
14. Work Stress
Adaptability
15. Interpersonal
Adaptability
16. Learning Adaptability
17. Uncertainty
Adaptability

Mean
24.82
3.77
3.69

SD
3.60
0.58
0.51

--.07
.22**

.81
.07

.78

3.11
2.62
2.95

0.70
0.67
0.66

.01
.03
.01

.07
-.07
.03

.07
.20**
.09

.75
-.02
-.24*

.77
.22**

.75

3.16

0.56

.01

-.10*

.22**

-.21*

.25**

.36**

.81

3.17
3.00

0.56
0.76

.13**
-.09

.21**
.21**

.16**
.14**

-.11*
-.07

.28**
.15**

.36**
.21**

.27**
.19**

.72
.76**

.61

3.16

0.62

.03

.13**

.17**

-.06

.27**

.33**

.26**

.72**

.43**

3.31

1.13

.35**

.03

.09

-.09

.17**

.21**

.13**

.63**

.16**

2.31

0.58

-.02

-.13**

.01

-.08

.19**

.36**

.37**

.15**

.14**

4.25
2.84

0.67
0.96

.07
.00

.11*
.00

.25**
.08

.11*
.65**

.38**
.08

.03
-.19**

.10*
-.13**

.20**
-.12

.09
-.10*

4.14

0.53

.01

.16**

.35**

.04

.13**

.07

.28**

.14**

.14**

3.59
3.42

0.63
0.59

.13**
.04

.42**
-.05

.38**
.36**

.08
.41**

.17**
.19**

.09
-.05

.08
.11*

.39**
.06

.36**
.09

1

2

3

109

4

5

6

7

8

9

Table 2 continued.

18. Academic Change
19. Social Change
20. Emotional/Supportive
Change
21. GPA (Task
Performance)
22. OCBs
23. OCBs- Internal
24. OCBs- External
25. Emotional
Adjustment
26. Self Efficacy to Adapt
27. Cultural AdaptabilityFollow-up
28. Work Stress
Adaptability- Follow-up
29. Interpersonal
Adaptability- Follow-up
30. Learning
Adaptability- Follow-up
31. Uncertainty
Adaptability- Follow-up

Mean
3.92
2.59
3.24

SD
0.54
0.68
0.68

1
-.20**
-.11*
-.01

2
.00
-.09
-.06

3
-.05
-.08
.01

4
-.05
-.20**
-.27**

5
-.04
.10*
.09

6
.01
.11*
.18**

7
.17**
.10*
.18**

8
-.09
.05
.07

9
-.07
.03
.03

3.24

0.55

.40**

.06

.02

.13**

-.04

.01

-.08

.15**

.10**

3.32
3.03
4.01
3.21

0.54
0.62
0.79
0.73

.01
-.01
.04
.11*

.16**
.13**
.12**
.21**

.14**
.14**
.05
.03

.08
.12*
-.02
.48**

.23**
.25**
.07
-.09

.19**
.17**
.13**
-.20

.17**
.14**
.11*
-.19**

.38**
.33**
.26**
-.01

.36**
.35**
.16**
-.01

3.92
4.15

0.58
0.69

.18**
.13**

.17**
.10*

.20**
.22**

.39**
.10

.08
.27**

.00
.03

-.04
.05

.15**
.16**

.05
.08

2.91

0.91

.06

.05

.12*

.52**

.04

-.15**

-0.12*

-.09

-.10*

4.17

0.52

.07

.18**

.28**

.15**

.12**

.05

.12*

.21**

.12*

3.54

0.59

.10

.32**

.33**

.20**

.18**

.07

.06

.28**

.22**

3.50

0.59

.11*

.01

.29**

.42**

.17**

.04

.04

.10*

.04

110

Table 2 continued.

10. Learning ExperiencesWork Initiative
11. Learning ExperiencesCourses
12. Uncertainty
Experiences
13. Cultural Adaptability
14. Work Stress
Adaptability
15. Interpersonal
Adaptability
16. Learning Adaptability
17. Uncertainty
Adaptability
18. Academic Change
19. Social Change
20. Emotional/Supportive
Change
21. GPA (Task
Performance)
22. Context. Perf.
23. Context. Perf- Internal
24. Context. Perf.External

10
.62

11

12

13

14

.23**

r=.51

.19**

.03

.68

.20**
-.11

.12*
-.01

-.06
-.07

.89
.07

.87

.18**

-.01

.03

.32**

-.01

.87

.33**
.06

.13**
-.02

.08
.02

.31**
.19**

.04
.48**

.42**
.27**

.80
.28**

.80

.01
.02
.08

-.10*
.01
.08

.06
.18**
.16**

.04
-.11*
-.04

-.11*
-.12*
-.26**

.11*
-.02
.00

.00
-.06
-.07

-.05
-.10*
-.19**

.67
.04
.25**

.43
.24**

.02

.15**

-.11*

-.01

-.01

-.07

.13**

.05

-.15**

-.14**

.31**
.27**
.21**

.11*
.06
.13**

.14**
.17**
.01

.28**
.24**
.19**

.00
.05
-.10

.22**
.19**
.16**

.36**
.36**
.17**

.15**
.15**
.08

.11*
.06
.15**

-.06
-.04
-.06

111

15

16

17

18

19

Table 2 continued.

20. Emotional/Supportive
Change
21. GPA (Task
Performance)
22. Context. Perf.
23. Context. Perf.- Internal
24. Context. Perf.External
25. Emotional Adjustment
26. Self Efficacy to Adapt
27. Cultural AdaptabilityFollow-up
28. Work Stress
Adaptability- Follow-up
29. Interpersonal
Adaptability- Follow-up
30. Learning AdaptabilityFollow-up
31. Uncertainty
Adaptability- Follow-up

20
.62

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

-.08

--

.03
.02
.03

.06
.11*
-.05

.79
.90
.62**

.76
.23**

.81

-.38**
-.19**
-.04

.25**
.16**
.02

-.02
.26**
.29**

-.02
.19**
.23**

.00
.25**
.24**

.87
.40**
.07

.83
.42**

.91

-.33**

.01

.00

.04

-.06

.55**

.41**

.07

.01

.05

.25**

.16**

.27**

.08

.48**

.47**

-.11*

.20**

.40**

.40**

.19**

.24**

.51**

.40**

-.15**

.08

.22**

.20**

.14**

.30**

.58**

.28**

112

Table 2 continued.

28. Work Stress
Adaptability- Follow-up
29. Interpersonal
Adaptability- Follow-up
30. Learning AdaptabilityFollow-up
31. Uncertainty
Adaptability- Follow-up

28
.86

29

30

.09

.87

.24**

.44**

.79

.56**

.38**

.44**

31

.79

Note: *p≤.05. **p≤.01. Italicized values (i.e., those on the diagonal) represent alpha reliabilities. Intercorrelations reflect scale
modifications based on reliability examination and factor analysis. Context.= Contextual. Perf= Performance. Correlations involving
GPA but not cognitive ability had sample sizes ranging from N=360 to N=362. Correlations involving cognitive ability but not GPA
had sample sizes ranging from N=377 to N=379. The correlation between GPA and cognitive ability had a sample size of N=341. All
other correlations had sample sizes ranging from N=401 to N=403.

113

Table 3. Multiple regression analyses of the adaptability dimensions on the antecedents.
Cultural
Adapt.
b
r
.02
.07
.09
.11*

Cognitive Ability
Conscientiousness
Openness to
Experience
.23** .24**
Emotional
Stability
.10* .12**

Work Stress
Adapt.
b
r
-.03
.00
-.07
-.02

Inter. Adapt.
b
r
-.06
.01
.12** .15**

Learning
Adapt.
b
r
.09* .13**
.40** .41**

.06

.36** .35**

.32** .36**

.08

.66** .65**

.01

.04

2

R
.08**
.44**
.14**
N
378
379
379
Note: *p≤.05. **p≤.01. Adapt.=Adaptability. Inter.=Interpersonal.

114

.03
.29**
379

.07

Uncertainty
Adapt.
b
r
-.05
.04
-.06
-.08
.35**

.35**

.43**

.43**

.31**
379

Table 4. Moderating effects of experiences.

Cognitive Ability
Experience
Dimension
Moderator Term
2
R Change from
Mod.
2
Overall R
Conscientiousness
Experience
Dimension
Moderator Term
2
R Change from
Mod.
2
Overall R
Openness to
Experience
Experience
Dimension
Moderator Term
2
R Change from
Mod.
2
Overall R
Emotional Stability
Experience
Dimension
Moderator Term
2
R Change from
Mod.
2
Overall R

Uncertainty
Adapt.
b
.03

Work
Stress
Adapt.
b
.00

Learning
Adapt.
b
.08

Learning
Feedback
b
.16**

Learning
Work
Initiative
b
.12**

.05
.05

-.20**
-.15**

.41**
-.05

.38**
-.03

.33**
-.04

.00

.02*

.00

.00

.00

.01

.06**

.18**

.16**

.12**

-.04

.00

.36**

.36**

.38**

.03
.10*

-.19**
-.05

.32**
-.03

.29**
-.04

.28**
-.04

.01*

.00

.00

.00

.00

.01

.03

.28**

.26**

.26**

.36

.10*

.33**

.33**

.34**

.02
.06

-.20**
.03

.35**
-.07

.31**
-.06

.28**
-.04

.00

.00

.01

.00

.00

.13**

.05**

.26**

.24**

.22**

.42

.64**

.12**

.10*

.09

.06
.03

-.04
-.03

.41**
-.02

.36**
-.01

.33**
-.05

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.18**

.42**

.17**

.14**

.12**

115

Table 4 continued.

Cognitive Ability
Experience
Dimension
Moderator Term
2
R Change from
Mod.
2
Overall R
Conscientiousness
Experience
Dimension
Moderator Term
2
R Change from
Mod.
2
Overall R
Openness to
Experience
Experience
Dimension
Moderator Term
2
R Change from
Mod.
2
Overall R

Learning
Courses
b
.08

Inter.
Adapt.
b
.01

Cultural
Adapt.
b
.06

.12*
.00

.29**
-.06

.35**
-.03

.00

.00

.00

.03**

.09

.13**

.41**

.19**

.14**

.11*
.06

.30**
-.08

.39**
.01

.00

.01

.00

.19**

.12**

.16**

.37**

.30**

.18**

.10*
.01

.21**
-.08

.34**
-.03

.00

.01

.00

.16**

.17**

.18**

Emotional Stability
.09
.10*
.11**
Experience
Dimension
.13**
.30**
.39**
Moderator Term
-.01
.00
.05
2
R Change from
Mod.
.00
.00
.00
2
Overall R
.02*
.09**
.16
Note: *p≤.05. **p≤.01. Adapt.=Adaptability. Inter.=Interpersonal. For cultural adaptability,
experience dimension = cultural experiences. For work stress adaptability, experience dimension
= work stress experiences. For interpersonal adaptability, experience dimension = interpersonal
experiences. For learning adaptability, experience dimension = learning experiences. For
uncertainty adaptability, experience dimension = uncertainty experiences.
116

Table 5. Multiple regression analyses of the adaptability dimensions on the antecedents and experiences.
Cultural
Adapt.
b
r
Cognitive Ability
.03
0.07
Conscientiousness .13** .11*
Openness to
Experience
.16** .24**
Emotional
Stability
.10* .12**
Experience
dimension
.34** .38**
2

R Change
Overall R
N

2

Work Stress
Adapt.
b
r
-0.03
0
-0.07 -0.02

Inter. Adapt.
b
r
-.05 0.01
.15** .15**

Learning
Adapt.
b
r
.05 .13**
.33** .41**

Uncertainty
Adapt.
b
r
-0.05 0.04
-.13** -0.08

0.06

0.08

.29** .35**

.28** .36**

.35**

.35**

.65**

.65**

.43**

.43**

-.04

-.19**

.02

.06

0.04

.06

0.07

.25** .28**

.29** .39**

.06

.11**

.00

.06**

.08*

.00

.19**
376

.44**
377

.19**
377

.37*
377

.31**
377

Note: *p≤.05. **p≤.01. Adapt.=Adaptability. Inter.=Interpersonal.

117

Table 6. Multiple regression analyses of the outcomes on the adaptability dimensions.

Task
Performance
b
r
Cultural
Adapt.
Work Stress
Adapt
Inter. Adapt.
Learning
Adapt.
Uncertainty
Adapt.
2

R
N

Contextual
Performance
b
r

Contextual
Performance
(w/ learning)
b
r

Contextual
Performance
Internal
b
r

Contextual
Performance
External
b
r

.17** .28**

.14** .24**

.13** .19**

--

--

.22** .28**

-.03
--

.00
--

--.13** .22**

.12*

.13**

--

--

.03

.05

.08

.15**

.02
362

.10**
402

-.04

-.22**

.29** .36**
.03

.15**

.16**
402

-.01

-.19**

-.08

-.16**

.30** .36**

.10

.17**

.03 .15**

.01

.08

.15**
402

118

.06**
402

Table 6 continued.

Cultural Adapt.
Work Stress Adapt
Inter. Adapt.
Learning Adapt.
Uncertainty Adapt.

Emotional
Adjustment
b
r
-----.10
-.05
--.17** .15**

Emotional
Adjustment
(w/ work
stress)
b
r
--.33** .33**
-.05
-.05
--.01 .15**

Efficacy to
Adapt
b
r
.19** .30**
.21** .30**
.00 .18**
.20** .32**
.15** .34**

2

R
.03**
.11**
.23**
N
403
403
401
Note: *p≤.05. **p≤.01. Adapt.=Adaptability. Inter.=Interpersonal.

119

Table 7. Moderating effects of changes.

Cultural Adaptability
Change Dimension
Moderator Term
2
R Change from Mod.
Overall R

2

Work Stress Adaptability
Change Dimension
Moderator Term
2
R Change from Mod.
Overall R

2

Interpersonal
Adaptability
Change Dimension
Moderator Term
2
R Change from Mod.
Overall R

2

Learning Adaptability
Change Dimension
Moderator Term
2
R Change from Mod.
Overall R

2

Uncertainty Adaptability
Change Dimension
Moderator Term
2
R Change from Mod.
Overall R

2

Task
Performance
b
----

Context.
Performance
b
.28**
-.03
-.01

Emotional
Adjustment
b
----

--

.00

--

--

.08**

--

-.03
-.16**
.01

----

.25**
-.32**
-.06

.00

--

.00

.03*

--

.21**

----

.22**
-.06
-.01

-.05
-.38**
.00

--

.00

.00

--

.05**

.15**

.13**
-.15**
.04

.36**
-.04
.00

----

.00

.00

--

.04**

.14**

--

.05
-.16**
-.09

.15**
-.05
-.01

.09
-.36**
-.02

.01

.00

.00

.03**

.03**

.15**

120

Table 7 continued.

Cultural Adaptability
Change Dimension
Moderator Term
2
R Change from Mod.
Overall R

2

Work Stress Adaptability
Change Dimension
Moderator Term
2
R Change from Mod.
Overall R

2

Interpersonal
Adaptability
Change Dimension
Moderator Term
2
R Change from Mod.
Overall R

2

Learning Adaptability
Change Dimension
Moderator Term
2
R Change from Mod.
Overall R

2

Uncertainty Adaptability
Change Dimension
Moderator Term
2
R Change from Mod.

Contextual
PerformanceInternal
b
.24**
-.02
.01

Contextual
PerformanceExternal
b
.20**
-.04
-.05

.00

.00

.06**

.04**

----

----

--

--

--

--

.19**
-.04
-.02

.16**
-.06
.02

.00

.00

.04**

.03**

.36**
-.02
.02

.17**
-.05
-.05

.00

.00

.13**

.04**

.15**
-.03
-.01

.08
-.06
-.01

.00

.00

2

Overall R
.02*
.01
Note: *p≤.05. **p≤.01. For task performance, change dimension= academic changes. For
contextual performance, change dimension= social changes. For emotional adjustment, change
dimension= emotional/supportive changes.

121

Table 8. Regressions of task performance, emotional adjustment, and efficacy to adapt on
adaptability and change.

Cultural Adapt.
Work Stress Adapt
Inter. Adapt.
Learning Adapt.
Uncertainty Adapt.
Academic Change
Social Change
Emotional/Supportive
Change
2

R Change
2

Task
Performance
b
r
---.03
.00
--.12*
.13**
.03
.05
-.16** -.15**
----

--

.02**

Overall R
.03**
N
360
Note: *p≤.05. **p≤.01. Adapt.=Adaptability.

Emotional
Adjustment
b
r
--.33** .33**
-.05
-.05
--.01
.15**
----.31** -.38**

-.06

.09**

.02**

.20**
401

.24**
399

122

Efficacy to
Adapt
b
r
.19**
.30**
.21** .30**
.00
.18**
.20**
.32**
.15**
.34**
---.13** -.21**
-.19**

Table 9. Mediating effects of learning adaptability on the relationship between the antecedents
and task performance.

Cognitive Ability
Conscientiousness
Openness to
Experience
Emotional Stability
Learning Adaptability

Total
Effect
.44**
.09

Mediator
as
Outcome
.12**
.44**

-.09
.13**

.32**
.04

Direct
Effect
.43**
.06

Indirect
Effect
.01
.03

Lower
CI
.00
-.02

Upper
CI
.03
.08

-.11*
.12**
.07

.02
.00

-.01
.00

.06
.02

.02

-.01

.06

2

R /Total Indirect
Effect
.19**
.33**
.18**
N
340
Note: *p≤.05. **p≤.01. CI=Confidence Interval.

123

Table 10. Mediating effects of the adaptability dimensions on the relationship between the
antecedents and contextual performance.

Cognitive Ability
Conscientiousness
Openness to
Experience
Emotional Stability
Cultural Adaptability

Total
Effect
-.01
.13**

Mediator
as
Outcome
.02
.09

.14**
.11*

Direct
Effect
-.02
.11*

Indirect
Effect
.01
.02

Lower
CI
-.02
.00

Upper
CI
.03
.05

.23**
.10*

.09
.08
.23**

.05
.02

.02
.00

.10
.05

.05**
377

.08**

.03*

.02

.01

.04

-.01
.13**

-.06
.12*

.00
.11*

-.01
.02

-.03
.00

.01
.05

.14**
.11*

.36**
.01

.08
.11*
.18**

.06
.00

.02
-.02

.11
.02

.05**
378

.14**

.03**

.02

.01

.05

-.01
.13**

-.06
-.13**

-.01
.14**

-.01
-.01

-.02
-.04

.00
.00

.14**
.11*

.35**
.42**

.10
.05

.04
.05

.00
.00

.09
.10

.03

.00

.08

2

R /Total Indirect
Effect
N
Cognitive Ability
Conscientiousness
Openness to
Experience
Emotional Stability
Interpersonal Adaptability
2

R /Total Indirect
Effect
N
Cognitive Ability
Conscientiousness
Openness to
Experience
Emotional Stability
Uncertainty
Adaptability

.11

2

R /Total Indirect
Effect
.05**
.31**
.04**
N
378
Note: *p≤.05. **p≤.01. CI=Confidence Interval.

124

Table 11. Mediating effects of the adaptability dimensions on the relationship between the
antecedents and internal contextual performance.

Total
Effect
-.04
.09

Mediator
as
Outcome
.02
.09

.14**
.13**

.23**
.10*

.05**
377

.08**

Cognitive Ability
-.04
Conscientiousness
.09
Openness to
Experience
.14**
Emotional Stability
.13**
Interpersonal Adaptability

-.06
.12**

Cognitive Ability
Conscientiousness
Openness to
Experience
Emotional Stability
Cultural Adaptability

Direct
Effect
-.04
.07

Indirect
Effect
.00
.02

Lower
CI
-.02
.00

Upper
CI
.03
.04

.09
.11*
.19**

.04
.02

.02
.00

.08
.04

.01

.00

.03

-.03
.08

-.01
.02

-.03
.00

.01
.04

.36**
.01

.09
.13**
.14**

.05
.00

.01
-.01

.10
.02

.05**
378

.14**

.03*

.02

.00

.04

-.04
.09

-.05
-.13**

-.04
.11*

.00
-.01

-.02
-.03

.00
.01

.14**
.13**

.35**
.42**

.12*
.11

.02
.03

-.02
-.02

.07
.08

.02

-.02

.06

2

R /Total Indirect
Effect
N

2

R /Total Indirect
Effect
N
Cognitive Ability
Conscientiousness
Openness to
Experience
Emotional Stability
Uncertainty
Adaptability

.06

2

R /Total Indirect
Effect
.05**
.31**
N
378
Note: *p≤.05. **p≤.01. CI=Confidence Interval.

125

Table 12. Mediating effects of the adaptability dimensions on the relationship between the
antecedents and external contextual performance.

Cognitive Ability
Conscientiousness
Openness to
Experience
Emotional Stability
Cultural Adaptability

Total
Effect
.04
.12**

Mediator
as
Outcome
.02
.09

.07
.00

.02
377

Direct
Effect
.03
.11*

Indirect
Effect
.00
.02

Lower
CI
-.02
.00

Upper
CI
.03
.04

.23**
.10*

.02
-.01
.18**

.04
.02

.01
.00

.08
.04

.08**

.01

.01

.00

.03

-.06
.12**

.05
.11*

-.01
.02

-.03
.00

.00
.04

.36**
.01

.01
.00
.15**

.05
.00

.01
-.01

.09
.02

.02
378

.14**

.01

.02

.00

.04

.04
.12**

-.05
-.13**

.04
.14**

-.01
-.02

-.03
-.05

.01
.00

.07
.00

.35**
.42**

.02
-.06

.05
.06

.01
.01

.10
.12

.04

.01

.09

2

R /Total Indirect
Effect
N

Cognitive Ability
.04
Conscientiousness
.12**
Openness to
Experience
.07
Emotional Stability
.00
Interpersonal Adaptability
2

R /Total Indirect
Effect
N
Cognitive Ability
Conscientiousness
Openness to
Experience
Emotional Stability
Uncertainty
Adaptability

.14**

2

R /Total Indirect
Effect
.02
.31**
.02
N
378
Note: *p≤.05. **p≤.01. CI=Confidence Interval.

126

Table 13. Mediating effects of the adaptability dimensions on the relationship between the
antecedents and emotional adjustment.

Total
Effect
.13**
.21**

Cognitive Ability
Conscientiousness
Openness to
Experience
-.01
Emotional Stability
.47**
Work Stress Adaptability

Mediator
as
Outcome
-.06
.12**
.36**
.01

Direct
Effect
.12**
.21**

Indirect
Effect
.00
-.01

Lower
CI
.00
-.03

Upper
CI
.02
.00

.02
.47**
-.08

-.03
.00

-.06
-.01

.01
.01

-.01

-.03

.00

2

R /Total Indirect
Effect
N
Cognitive Ability
Conscientiousness
Openness to
Experience
Emotional Stability
Uncertainty
Adaptability

.28**
378

.14**

.13**
.21**

-.05
-.13**

.13**
.20**

.00
.00

-.01
-.01

.01
.02

-.01
.47**

.35**
.42**

-.01
.47**

-.01
-.01

-.04
-.05

.03
.04

.00

-.03

.03

-.02

2

R /Total Indirect
Effect
.28**
.31**
.25**
N
378
Note: *p≤.05. **p≤.01. CI=Confidence Interval.

127

Table 14. Mediating effects of the adaptability dimensions on the relationship between the
antecedents and efficacy to adapt.

Cognitive Ability
Conscientiousness
Openness to
Experience
Emotional Stability
Cultural Adaptability

Total
Effect
.16**
.16**

Mediator
as
Outcome
.02
.09

.13**
.36**

Direct
Effect
.16**
.15**

Indirect
Effect
.00
.02

Lower
CI
-.02
.00

Upper
CI
.03
.05

.23**
.10*

.08
.34**
.23**

.05
.02

.02
.00

.09
.05

.23**
376

.08**

.18**

.02

.00

.04

.16**
.16**

-.04
-.07

.16**
.17**

.00
-.01

-.02
-.02

.01
.00

.13**
.36**

.06
.65**

.12**
.29**

.01
.08

.00
.00

.02
.17

2

R /Total Indirect
Effect
N
Cognitive Ability
Conscientiousness
Openness to
Experience
Emotional Stability
Work Stress
Adaptability

.12*

2

R /Total Indirect
Effect
N
Cognitive Ability
Conscientiousness
Openness to
Experience
Emotional Stability
Interpersonal Adaptability

.23**
377

.44**

.14**

.05

.00

.11

.16**
.16**

-.06
.12*

.17**
.15**

-.01
.01

-.02
.00

.01
.04

.13**
.36**

.36**
.01

.09
.36**
.12**

.04
.00

.00
-.01

.09
.02

.02

.00

.05

2

R /Total Indirect
Effect
.23**
.14**
.21**
N
377
Note: *p≤.05. **p≤.01. CI=Confidence Interval.

128

Table 14 continued.

Total
Effect
Cognitive Ability
Conscientiousness
Openness to
Experience
Emotional Stability
Learning Adaptability

Mediator
as
Outcome

Direct
Effect

Indirect
Effect

Lower
CI

Upper
CI

.16**
.16**

.09*
.40**

.14**
.06

.02
.10

.00
.05

.05
.16

.13**
.36**

.31**
.03

.05
.36**

.08
.01

.04
-.02

.13
.04

.23**
377

.29**

.16**

.07

.04

.12

.16**
.16**

-.06
-.13**

.17**
.20**

-.01
-.03

-.04
-.06

.01
.00

.13**
.36**

.35**
.42**

.05
.27**

.08
.10

.04
.05

.13
.16

.23**

.07

.03

.12

2

R /Total Indirect
Effect
N
Cognitive Ability
Conscientiousness
Openness to
Experience
Emotional Stability
Uncertainty
Adaptability
2

R /Total Indirect
Effect
.23**
.14**
.14**
N
377
Note: *p≤.05. **p≤.01. CI=Confidence Interval.

129

.07

Table 15. Stability of adaptability from Time 1 to Time 2.
Time
Time
Time
2
Time
1
Mean 1 SD Mean 2 SD
Cultural
Adaptability
Work Stress
Adaptability
Interpersonal
Adaptability
Learning
Adaptability
Uncertainty
Adaptability

Mean
Diff.

4.25

0.67

4.15

0.69

-0.10

-.15

.70

.78

0.50

95.51

3.99

2.84

0.96

2.91

0.91

0.08

.08

.68

.79

2.99

95.26

1.99

4.14

0.53

4.17

0.52

0.03

.06

.53

.61

1.50

97.01

1.50

3.59

0.63

3.54

0.59

-0.05

-.07

.57

.72

2.74

94.01

3.24

3.42

0.59

3.50

0.59

0.08

.13

.56

.70

2.00

94.01

3.74

Cohen's Test- Corrected
%
% Un%
d
Retest
r
Decreased changed Increased

130

Table 16. Summary of Support for Direct Relationships.
Hyp. Relationship
CA - Cultural Adapt.
Conscientiousness - Cultural Adapt.
H1 Openness to Experience - Cultural
Adapt.
Emotional Stability - Cultural Adapt.
CA - Stress Adapt.
Conscientiousness - Stress Adapt.
H2
Openness to Experience - Stress Adapt.
Emotional Stability - Stress Adapt.
CA - Interpersonal Adapt.
Conscientiousness - Interpersonal Adapt.
H3 Openness to Experience - Interpersonal
Adapt.
Emotional Stability - Interpersonal
Adapt.
CA - Learning Adapt.
Conscientiousness - Learning Adapt.
H4 Openness to Experience - Learning
Adapt.
Emotional Stability - Learning Adapt.
CA - Uncertainty Adapt.
Conscientiousness - Uncertainty Adapt.
H5 Openness to Experience - Uncertainty
Adapt.
Emotional Stability - Uncertainty Adapt.

131

Bivariate Regression
No
No
Yes
No

Strength
---

Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes

Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes

Partial
----Yes
-Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No
Yes
Yes

No
Yes
Yes

No
No
Yes

Yes
No
No
No

Yes
No
No
No

Yes
----

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

---

Table 16 continued.
Bivariate Regression
Hyp. Relationship
Learning Adapt. - Task Performance
Yes
Yes
H11 Work Stress Adapt. - Task Performance
No
No
Uncertainty Adapt. - Task Performance
No
No
Cultural Adapt. - Context. Performance
Yes
Yes
Interpersonal Adapt. - Context.
H12 Performance
Yes
No
Uncertainty Adapt. - Context.
Performance
Yes
No
NH Learning Adapt. - Context. Performance
Yes
Yes
Interpersonal Adapt. - Emotional
Adjustment
No
No
H13
Uncertainty Adapt. - Emotional
Adjustment
Yes
Yes
Work Stress Adapt. - Emotional
NH
Adjustment
Yes
Yes
Cultural Adapt. - Efficacy to Adapt
Yes
Yes
Stress Adapt. - Efficacy to Adapt
Yes
Yes
H14 Learning Adapt. - Efficacy to Adapt
Yes
Yes
Interpersonal Adapt. - Efficacy to Adapt
Yes
No
Uncertainty Adapt. - Efficacy to Adapt
Yes
Yes
Note: Hyp.= Hypothesis. CA= Cognitive Ability.

132

Table 17. Summary of Supported Mediation Hypotheses.
Mediator
(Adapt.
Dimension)
Hyp. Predictor
Openness to Experience
Cultural
Emotional Stability
Cultural
Openness to Experience
Interpersonal
Conscientiousness
Interpersonal
Openness to Experience
Cultural
Emotional Stability
Cultural
Openness to Experience
Interpersonal
H18b
Conscientiousness
Interpersonal
Openness to Experience
Cultural
Emotional Stability
Cultural
Openness to Experience
Interpersonal
Conscientiousness
Interpersonal
Openness to Experience
Uncertainty
Emotional Stability
Uncertainty
Openness to Experience
Cultural
Emotional Stability
Cultural
Emotional Stability
Work Stress
Conscientiousness
Interpersonal
Openness to Experience
Interpersonal
H18c
Cognitive Ability
Learning
Conscientiousness
Learning
Openness to Experience
Learning
Openness to Experience
Uncertainty
Emotional Stability
Uncertainty
Note: Hyp.= Hypothesis. Perf.= Performance.

Outcome
Contextual Perf.
Contextual Perf.
Contextual Perf.
Contextual Perf.
Internal Context. Perf.
Internal Context. Perf.
Internal Context. Perf.
Internal Context. Perf.
Internal Context. Perf.
External Context. Perf.
External Context. Perf.
External Context. Perf.
External Context. Perf.
External Context. Perf.
Efficacy to Adapt
Efficacy to Adapt
Efficacy to Adapt
Efficacy to Adapt
Efficacy to Adapt
Efficacy to Adapt
Efficacy to Adapt
Efficacy to Adapt
Efficacy to Adapt
Efficacy to Adapt

133

P Changes
Complete
Complete
Complete
Partial
Complete
Complete
Complete
Partial
Partial
Partial
Partial
Partial
Partial
Partial
Complete
Partial
Partial
Partial
Complete
Partial
Complete
Complete
Complete
Partial

Size
Indirect of
Effect
IE
Yes
.05
Yes

.06

Yes

.04

Yes

.05

Yes

.04

Yes

.05

Yes
Yes
Yes

.05
.06
.05

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

.10
.08
.08
.10

Appendix I. Figures
Figure 1. The hypothesized model.
Perceived
Change

Experiences

Personality
Cognitive
Ability

Adaptability:
Cultural,
Stress,
Interpersonal,
Learning,
Uncertainty

134

Task and
Contextual
Performance;
Emotional
Adjustment;
Efficacy to
Adapt

Figure 2. Pulakos et al.’s (2002) tested model of adaptive performance.

Personality
Cognitive
Ability
Experience
Adapting

Adaptable
Performance

Interest in
Adapting
SelfAssessment
of Adapting

135

Figure 3. The hypothesized interaction between adaptability and perceived change.

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Low change

High change
Low adaptability
High adaptability

136

Figure 4. The moderating effect of uncertainty experiences on the relationship between
Conscientiousness and uncertainty adaptability.

5
4.5
4
3.5
3

Uncertainty
adaptability

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

Low conscientiousness
High conscientiousness
Low uncertainty experiences
High uncertainty experiences

137

Figure 5. The moderating effect of work stress experiences on the relationship between cognitive
ability and work stress adaptability.

5
4.5
4
3.5
3

Work stress
adaptability

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

Low cognitive ability
High cognitive ability
Low stress experiences
High stress experiences

138

REFERENCES

139

References
Ackerman, P.L. (1988). Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition:
Cognitive abilities and information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 117,
288-318.
Allport, F.A. (1924). Personality: The social man. Social psychology (99-125). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Baird, B.M., Le, K., & Lucas, R.E. (2006). On the nature of intraindividual variability:
Reliability, validity, and associations with well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 90, 512-527.
Baker, R. W., & Siryk, B. (1984). Measuring adjustment to college. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 31, 179-189.
Baker, R. W., & Siryk, B. (1986). Exploratory intervention with a scale measuring adjustment to
college. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33(1), 31-38.
Barrick, M.R., & Mount M.K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance:
A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Barrick, M.R., Mount M.K., & Judge, T.A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning
of the new millennium: What do we know and where to we go next? Personality and
Performance, 9, 9-30.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Baroody, A. J. (2003). The development of adaptive expertise and flexibility: The integration of
conceptual and procedural knowledge. In A.J. Baroody & A. Dowker (Eds.) The
development of arithmetic concepts and skills: Constructing adaptive expertise. Mahwah,
NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Bauer, T.N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D.M., & Tucker, J. (2007). Newcomer
adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents,
outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 707-721.
Ben-Zeev, T., & Kagan, M. J. (2004). Adaptive expertise and arithmetic. PsycCRITIQUES,
49(5), 589-589-593.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements
of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in
organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

140

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The
meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99-109.
Boudreau, J.W., Boswell, W.R., Judge, T.A., & Bretz Jr., R.D. (2001). Personality and cognitive
ability as predictors of job search among employed managers. Personnel Psychology, 54,
25-50.
Campbell-Sills, L., Cohan, S.L., & Stein, M.B. (2006). Relationship of resilience to personality,
coping, and psychiatric symptoms in young adults. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44,
585-599.
Cascio, W.F. (2003). Changes in workers, work, and organizations. In R.J. Klimoski, W.C.
Borman, & D.R. Ilgen (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 401-422). Wiley:
Hoboken, N.J.
Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (2002). Situational judgment and job performance. Human
Performance, 15, 233-254.
Chen, G., Gully, S.M., Whiteman, J-A., & Kilcullen, R.N. (2000). Examination of relationships
among trait-like individual differences, state-like individual differences, and learning
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 835-847.
Chen, G., & Thomas, B. (2005). A multilevel examination of the relationships among training
outcomes, mediating regulatory processes, and adaptive performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 827-841.
Chen, P.Y., & Spector, P.E. (1992). Relationships of work stressors with aggression, withdrawal,
theft, and substance abuse: An exploratory study. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 65, 177-184.
De Meuse, K. P., Dai, G., & Hallenbeck, G. (2010). Learning agility: A construct whose time has
come. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62, 119–130.
Desombre, T., Kelliher, C., Macfarlane, F., & Ozbilgin, M. (2006). Re-organizing work roles in
health care: Evidence from the implementation of functional flexibility. British Journal of
Management, 17, 139-151.
Driskell, J.E., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E., & O’Shea, P.G. (2006). What makes a good team
player? Personality and team effectiveness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice, 10, 249-271.
Drzakowski, S., Friede, A., Imus, A., Kim, B., Oswald, F., Schmitt, N., & Shivpuri, S. (2005).
Validation of the assessment of life experiences questionnaire (ALEQ) biodata and the
life events assessment and development (LEAD) situational judgment inventory.
Technical report provided to College Board.

141

Gerdes, H., & Mallinckrodt, B. (1994). Emotional, social, and academic adjustment of college
students: A longitudinal study of retention. Journal of Counseling and Development,
72(3), 281-288.
Goldberg, L.R. (2011). Big five factor markers. Retrieved online from
http://ipip.ori.org/newBigFive5broadKey.htm
Gottfredson, L.S., & Crouse, J. (1986). Validity versus utility of mental tests: Example of the
SAT Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 363-378.
Harrison, R.V. (1978). Person-environment fit and job stress. In C.L. Cooper & R. Paye (Eds.),
Stress at work (pp. 175-205). New York: Wiley.
Hayes, A.F. (2011) Macro and script rules and frequently asked questions. Retrieved online from
http://www.afhayes.com/macrofaq.html
Hayes, A.F., & Preacher, K.J. (2011). Indirect and direct effects of a multicategorical causal
agent in statistical mediation analysis. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Hesketh, B., & Neal, A. 1999. Technology and performance. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos
(Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and
development: 21–55. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hickendorff, M., van Putten, Cornelis M., Verhelst, N. D., & Heiser, W. J. (2010). Individual
differences in strategy use on division problems: Mental versus written computation.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 438-452.
Hollenbeck, G.P., & McCall, M.W. (1999). Leadership development: Contemporary practices. In
A.I. Kraut & A.K. Korman (Eds.), Evolving practices in human resources management
(pp. 172-200). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Holyoak, K.J. (1991). Symbolic connectionism: Toward third-generation theories of expertise. In
K.A. Ericsson and J. Smith’s (Eds.) Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and
limits (301-336). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Humphreys, L. G. (1979). The construct of general intelligence. Intelligence, 3, 105-120.
Jensen A. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press.
Hurtz, G.M., & Donovan, J.J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The big five revisited.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869-879.
Huth, M., & Zorzie, M.C. (2010). Kelly services project. Report provided to Kelly Services.
Jaccard, J., & Dodge, T. (2004). Analyzing contingent effects in regression models. In M. Hardy
& A. Bryman (Eds.) Handbook of data analysis (pp. 237-238). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

142

Judge, T.A., Thoreson, C.J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T.M. (1999). Managerial coping with
organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,
107-122.
Jundt, D.K. (2010). Adaptability from a process perspective,: Examining the effects of task
change type and a metacognitive intervention on adaptive performance. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Kaiser, R. B., & Overfield, D. V. (2010). Assessing flexible leadership as a mastery of opposites.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62, 105–118.
Kaufman, J.D., & Borman, W.C. (2003). Citizenship performance in organizations. In M. Hersen
& J.C. Thomas (Eds.) Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment: Industrial
and organizational assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Kenny, D. (2011). Mediation. Retrieved online from http://davidakenny.net/cm/mediate.htm
Kenrick, D.T. & Funder, D.C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the personsituation debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23-34.
Kozlowski, S.W.J., Gully, S.M., Brown, K.G., Salas, E., Smith, E.M., & Nason, E.R. (2001).
Effects of training goals and goal orientation traits on multidimensional training
outcomes and performance adaptability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 85, 1-31.
Lang, J.W.B., & Bliese, P.D. (2009). General mental ability and two types of adaptation to
unforeseen change: Applying discontinuous growth models to the task-change paradigm.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 411-428.
LePine, J.A., Colquitt, J.A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to changing task contexts: Effects of
general cognitive ability, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience. Personnel
Psychology, 53, 563-593.
LePine, J.A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of
contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with big five personality
characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 326-336.
Luthar, S. S., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions
and social policies. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 857–885.
Martinez-Sanchez, A., Vela-Jimenez, M.J., Perez-Perez, M., & de-Luis-Carnicer, P. (2008).
Workplace flexibility and innovation: The moderator effect of inter-organizational
cooperation. Personnel Review, 37, 647-665.
Morrison, R. F., & Hall, D. T. (2002). Career adaptability. In D. T. Hall (Ed.), Careers in and out
of organizations (pp. 205–233). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
143

Motowidlo, S.J., Borman, W.C., & Schmit, M.J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in
task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10, 71-83.
Murphy, K.R., Myors, B., & Wolach, A. (2009). Statistical power analysis: A simple and general
model for traditional and modern hypothesis tests. New York, NY: Routledge.
Nelson, J. K., Zaccaro, S. J., & Herman, J. L. (2010). Strategic information provision and
experiential variety as tools for developing adaptive leadership skills. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(2), 131-142.
O’Connor, M.C., & Paunonen, S.V. (2007). Big five personality predictors of post-secondary
academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 971-990.
O’Reilly, C.A. III, & Chatman, J.A. (1994). Working smarter and harder: A longitudinal study of
managerial success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 603-627.
Organ, D. W. 1997. Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human
Performance 10 85–97.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Paulhus, D.L., & Martin, C.L. (1988). Functional flexibility: A new conception of interpersonal
flexibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 88-101.
Penley, J.A., & Tomaka, J. (2002). Associations among the big five, emotional responses, and
coping with acute stress. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1215-1228.
Pratt, A.K. (2006). Role of cognitive ability and personality factors in coping with work-family
conflict. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects
in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers,
36, 717-731.
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the work
place: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 612–624.
Pulakos, E.D., Dorsey, D.W., & White, S.S. (2006). Adaptability in the workplace: Selecting an
adaptive workforce. In C.S. Burke, L.G. Pierce, & E. Salas (Eds.), Understanding
adaptability: a prerequisite for effective performance within complex environments.
Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.

144

Pulakos, E.D., Schmitt, N., Dorsey, D.W., Arad, S., Borman, W.C., & Hedge, J.W. (2002).
Predicting adaptive performance: Further tests of a model of adaptability. Human
Performance, 15(4), 299-323.
Rench, T. (2009). Understanding the individual-level adaptation process: A new
conceptualization and a model. Unpublished master’s thesis, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI.
Rhode, T.E., & Thompson, L.A. (2007). Predicting academic achievement with cognitive ability.
Intelligence, 35, 83-92.
Salas, E. (2011). Presidential address. Presented at the 26th Annual Conference for the Society
for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.
Schmidt, F. (2002). The role of general cognitive ability and job performance: Why there cannot
be a debate. Human Performance, 15, 187-210.
Schmitt, N. (2011). Science, practice, and what is really important. Presented at the Festschrift
for Dan Ilgen and Neal Schmitt, Lansing, MI.
Schmitt, N., Billington, A., Golubovich, J., Reeder, M., Sinha, R., & Zorzie, M. (2010). Report
on the second-year follow-up of college student applicants: Noncognitive predictors of
student outcomes. Technical report submitted College Board.
Schmitt, N., Keeney, J., Oswald, F. L., Pleskac, T., Quinn, A., Sinha, R., & Zorzie, M. (2009).
Prediction of 4-year college student performance using cognitive and noncognitive
predictors and the impact of demographic status on admitted students. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94, 1479–1497.
Schmitt, N., Oswald, F. L., Kim, B. H., Imus, A., Drzakowski, S., Friede, A., & Shivpuri, S.
(2007). The use of background and ability profiles to predict college student outcomes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 165–178.
Schunn, C. D., & Reder, L. M. (2001). Another source of individual differences: Strategy
adaptivity to changing rates of success. Journal of Experimental Psychology,130, 59-76.
Schwartz, J.E., Pickering, T.G., & Landsbergis, P.A. (1996). Work-related stress and blood
pressure: Current theoretical models and considerations from a behavioral medicine
perspective. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 287-310.
Sells, S. B. (1956) Further developments on adaptability screening of flying personnel. Journal
of Aviation Medicine, 27, 440-451.
Shankland, R., Genolini, L.R., Franca, L.R., Guelfi, J., & Ionescu, S. (2010). Student adjustment
to higher education: The role of alternative educational pathways in coping with the
demands of student life. Journal of Higher Education, 59, 353-366.

145

Smith, M.L. (2008). The transition to university: Adaptation and adjustment. Unpublished
Master’s thesis. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK.
Smith, E.M., Ford, J.K., & Kozlowski, S.W.J. (1997). Building adaptive expertise: Implications
for training design strategies. In M.A. Quinones & A. Ehrenstein’s (Eds.) Training for a
rapidly changing workplace: Applications for psychological research (89-118).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Sonnentag, A., & Frese, M. (2003). Stress in organizations. In W.C. Borman, D.R. Ilgen, R.J.
Klimoski, & I.B. Weiner’s (Eds.) Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational
psychology (453-491). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Tafalla, R.J., & Evans, G.W. (1997). Noise, physiology, and human performance: The potential
role of effort. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2, 148-155.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Torbeyns, J., Verschaffel, L., & Ghesquière, P. (2006). The development of children's adaptive
expertise in the number domain 20 to 100. Cognition and Instruction, 24(4), 439-465.
Trites, D.K., Kubala, A.L., & Cobb, B.B. (1959). Development and validation of adaptability
criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 25-30.
van den Berg, P.T., & van der Velde, M.E.G. (2005). Relationships of functional flexibility with
individual and work factors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20, 111-129.
van Viannen, A. E. M. (2005). A review of person-environment fit research: Prospects for
personnel selection. In A. Evers, N. Anderson, & O. Voskuijl (Eds.), Handbook of
personnel selection (pp. 419-439). Blackwell.
Verschaffel, L., Luwel, K., Torbeyns, J., & Van Dooren, W. (2009). Conceptualizing,
investigating, and enhancing adaptive expertise in elementary mathematics education.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(3), 335-359.
Vrijkotte, T.G., van Doornen, L.J.O., & de Geus, E.J.C. (1999). Work stress and metabolic and
hemostatic risk factors. Psychosomatic Medicine, 61, 796-805.
Wanberg, C.R., & Banas, J.T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a
reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 132-142.
Wang, M., Zhan, Y., McCune, E., & Truxillo, D. (2011). Understanding newcomers’
adaptability and work-related outcomes: Testing the mediating roles of perceived P-E fit
variables. Personnel Psychology, 64, 163-189.

146

White, R.P., & Shullman, S.L. (2010). Acceptance of uncertainty as an indicator of effective
leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62, 94-104.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management,
17, 601-617.
Wright, P., McCormick, P., McMahan, G.C., & Smart, D.L. (1995). Team cognitive ability as a
predictor of performance: An examination of the role of SAT scores in determining
NCAA basketball performance. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society
for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
Yukl, G. A., & Mahsud, R. (2010). Why flexible and adaptive leadership is essential. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62, 81–93.
Zorzie, M.C. (2010). An integrative psychological model of student withdrawal. Unpublished
Master’s thesis. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

147